NJ School Boards trainer walks Rockaway board through annual superintendent evaluation

Paul Panaro, a trainer with the New Jersey School Boards Association, led a training session with the Rockaway Township Board of Education on the annual evaluation of the superintendent, stressing that the evaluation itself is mandated by law while the association’s digital tool is optional. "The evaluation itself is mandatory by law, using our tool isn't," Panaro told the board during the roughly hour‑plus presentation.

Panaro walked the board through a practical calendar: goals are typically set in June or July, the superintendent completes a self‑evaluation in March or early April, individual board members enter ratings in the platform by mid‑April, the association compiles the inputs, and the board holds an executive‑session review and a final annual summary conference before the statutory July 1 deadline. He said the platform compiles quantitative ratings and anonymous narrative comments and then produces a summative annual performance report for the board president to draft into a final document.

The trainer linked the evaluation to the Quality Single Accountability Continuum (CUSAC) and described the standards the board uses to rate the superintendent: mission/vision and core values; governance and ethics; operations management; curriculum/instruction/assessment; community of care/equity/family engagement; and professional capacity. Panaro showed sample screens illustrating how board members rate goals and standards and how the system aggregates ‘achieved,’ ‘progress made,’ ‘satisfactory,’ or ‘little or no progress made.’

Board members asked procedural questions about minority opinions and the documentation of dissent. Dr. Richard Corbett, the district superintendent, asked whether a minority opinion is recorded; Panaro answered that minority views can be voiced in executive session but are not part of the formal document produced by the compilation, describing the dissent as verbal and reflected only in each member’s contribution to the platform. "It's verbal; it's not written," Panaro said of routine minority comments during the executive‑session discussion.

Panaro also described practical steps — updating the board's census to add new members to the platform, the timing of pre‑evaluation conferences between the board president and superintendent, and options for training or tutorial videos for board members who need a refresher. He encouraged the board to keep signed copies of the final report (with a copy retained by the board attorney) and reiterated that some elements of the process are statutory (evaluation in writing, annual cadence, goals‑based assessment), while the association’s tool is a recommended but optional workflow aid.

The training concluded with an offer to return for additional modules and with board agreement to open the evaluation portal in the spring so members can complete their inputs on schedule. The board later moved into executive session as scheduled to continue confidential evaluation work and other personnel matters.