Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Superintendent Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates weighting in superintendent evaluation; legal staff to present revised draft in August
Summary
Board members questioned a model superintendent‑evaluation policy that would weight academic proficiency heavily; members instructed legal and staff to prepare a cleaner draft for August and to delay any effective date until the following school year.
Board members spent substantial time on a draft superintendent evaluation policy (CBI) and the framework for weighting objective metrics versus subjective input.
Board Member Cross objected strongly to a model provision that would make "academic proficiency goal shall represent at least 75% of the total performance objective rating," calling that weighting "unfair" and warning it could lead to inequitable evaluations. Cross said the draft "doesn't take any of our goals in here" and urged that the evaluation be tied to the board's own approved goals and guardrails.
Other members proposed a compromise: reserve the majority of the objective portion for board‑adopted SMART goals (the board's priority student outcomes), while the remaining portion of the performance objectives could cover a small number of guardrails (financial performance, safety, etc.). Clerk Oliver recommended that peer and community surveys (360‑style feedback) inform but not be weighted directly in the final score; those inputs should serve growth and context, he said.
The board asked legal counsel to return a cleaned draft that clarifies whether the '75%' applies to the board's annual goals (to be set before the evaluation period) and to present implementation options at the August meeting. Members agreed that any change should become effective the next school year so that expectations are fair and measurable.
Next steps: legal staff will prepare a revised policy draft for first reading in August and work with Dr. Ramos and staff to align evaluation tools with the SOFG progress‑monitoring calendar.
