Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board begins drafting evaluation framework, will split review of Michigan, Washington and New York models
Summary
Board member Casey presented a draft 'scaffolding' for board evaluation tied to three board priorities and an 'essential skills' section; members agreed to divide into small groups to review sample frameworks (Michigan, New York, Seattle/WASDA) and Casey and Martha will synthesize a combined draft for the next meeting.
Casey (speaker S4) presented a draft evaluation "scaffolding" that pulls the board’s three priorities into four proposed standards plus a section of essential skills and suggested evidence sources (educational effectiveness surveys, student services/SPED reporting, teaching and learning reports). Casey said the scaffolding was informed by a review of evaluation resources and national/state frameworks and intended to be collaborative with the superintendent.
Board members debated whether to adopt a single existing framework or to split into small groups to review multiple models (Michigan, New York, Seattle/Seattle scribe/SOFG, WASDA), extract elements that match the board scaffolding, and then synthesize a unified instrument. Some members favored staying with one framework for coherence; others preferred parallel review and clustering of common elements across models.
The board agreed on a practical approach: divide into teams to examine different frameworks and highlight metrics that resonate with the district’s priorities, then reconvene for synthesis. S4 (Casey) and a co-lead (Martha referenced repeatedly) will consolidate group inputs and prepare an editable draft for board review. Members discussed possible measures (graduation rates, strategic-plan metrics), noted current graduation-rate reporting is pending final numbers for the prior year, and emphasized keeping the final evaluation usable and offering opportunities to show strengths and growth.
No formal vote was taken; the group set an immediate work plan and volunteers to review frameworks and return with consolidated recommendations.
