Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Superintendent Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board committee to use Google Form and calibrated scoring for superintendent evaluation
Summary
A Gresham-Barlow School Board evaluation committee agreed to send a Google Form to board members on Feb. 13, collect responses by Feb. 20, meet as a committee on Feb. 27 to calibrate scores, and present a redacted executive summary to Superintendent Tracy in an executive session on March 5.
A committee of the Gresham-Barlow School Board on Monday agreed on a timeline and format for the superintendent's first-year evaluation, planning to use an online form to gather redacted board input and to meet as a committee to calibrate scores before sharing an executive summary at an executive session.
"So let's do a Google Form," Sean, a committee member, said as the group discussed options for distributing the evaluation and compiling results. The committee settled on a draft timeline: Sarah will prepare a draft survey by Feb. 13, the committee will finalize the form for distribution, responses will be due by Feb. 20, and the committee will meet on Feb. 27 to review compiled responses and craft the executive summary for an executive session with Superintendent Tracy on March 5.
Committee members said the form will use four broad evaluation pillars (including safety and belonging) rather than asking board members to score every individual action step. "Provide at least 2 pieces of evidence that justify your scoring," Committee member (S4) suggested, recommending that each pillar page include a dropdown score (1–4), explanatory text and required evidence fields to support ratings.
The committee discussed practical details for the survey. Members asked that the superintendent's submitted artifacts and evidence be attached or hyperlinked so board members can review supporting documents while rating. They also agreed responses should be compiled with names redacted before the committee reviews them: "We didn't say which board member made which comment, but we did include the comments," one member noted about prior practice.
Members debated how to aggregate action-step scores into the four pillar scores and agreed that the committee will calibrate scoring at the Feb. 27 meeting so board members apply consistent standards. The group also discussed allowing limited decimal/half-step adjustments but said the committee will average and round per the agreed method.
The committee described this evaluation as covering the superintendent's hire date (July 1) through the present, and noted that the timing makes this initial cycle unusual; future cycles should align more closely with the board's intended schedule. The committee plans to present a concise slide packet summarizing key artifacts and themes alongside the redacted executive summary during the public meeting following the executive session.
No formal motion or vote was recorded at the committee meeting; members confirmed the schedule and assigned drafting and logistical tasks to Sarah and committee volunteers. The committee adjourned after confirming responsibilities and calendar dates.
