Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Banks SD 13 proposes superintendent-evaluation changes tied to strategic plan; board concerned about 58% belonging rate
Summary
The board reviewed a proposed shift to evaluation criteria aligned to the district strategic plan and student-focused quantitative indicators. Trustees questioned a student-survey finding that 58% of students report belonging and asked how targets were set and how survey results will be used.
Banks School District 13 trustees reviewed proposed changes to the superintendent evaluation that would align evaluator criteria with the district—ive strategic-plan priority areas: empowering students, enriching facilities, energizing staff, engaging community and aligning resources.
The presenter told the board evaluators and staff would rate each priority area on a 1-to-4 scale and combine those ratings into a single evaluation score; staff would also have access to the evidence and scorecards that show how daily actions map to the priorities.
Trustees focused on how the proposed student-centered indicators would be measured. The presenter noted that, for the district, key transition grades to monitor are fifth, eighth and tenth grade, and cautioned that some external growth measures can obscure absolute student performance.
Board members raised a recent bias incident and flagged social-emotional learning as a corrective path. "We had a significant bias incident occurred last two weeks ago," the presenter said, and noted student-survey indicators showed "58% of our students confirmed that they feel like they belong to school," a result several trustees described as too low and in need of targeted interventions.
Trustees asked how the district will administer and communicate survey results to students and staff; one board member emphasized the need to return results to students and show how the district uses that feedback to improve practice.
The board did not take formal action on the evaluation policy at the session but directed staff to return with additional materials and supporting documents to explain targets and measurement approaches.
