Gresham-Barlow SD 10J evaluation committee to present "3-plus" ratings for superintendent and a summarized public letter
Loading...
Summary
A five-member committee reviewing Superintendent Tracy’s annual evaluation agreed to present aggregated scores as a "3+" where appropriate, to surface three strengths and one growth area, and to circulate a summarized letter and slides (not raw comments) to the full board before the business meeting.
The Gresham-Barlow SD 10J evaluation committee met to review board feedback on Superintendent Tracy’s annual evaluation and agreed on how to present aggregate scores and narrative comments to the full board. The group recommended adopting a "3-plus" approach — showing category averages rounded to halves and using ‘3+’ language where appropriate — and to prepare a public-facing summary rather than distributing raw reviewer comments.
Committee members said they scored the superintendent on a half-scale from 0.5 to 4 and reviewed averages across four categories. The Chair reported averages roughly as Safety 3.33, Belonging 3.33, Opportunity 3.17 and Achievement 3.25 (aggregate ~3.24799), and noted past practice of rounding up when the decimal is 0.5 or higher. "We have...gone through and looked at the average for each of the 4 categories," the Chair said, describing the scoring method and summary approach.
Why it matters: the committee must balance transparent feedback with protecting reviewer candor. Members repeatedly flagged communication, collaboration and family-support work as common strengths to highlight in both the letter and a short slide presentation. One committee member urged presenting borderline scores as 3.5 or as a 3 with a "3-plus" notation to capture nuance, "I think maybe when we present this... either we round those categories up to 3.5 or talk about ratings in line with 3 leaning 1 way," the member said.
The committee also debated how much of the raw comment text to share. A member noted evaluations are tied to executive-session practice and asked what must remain confidential; another said the committee has shared final comment summaries in past years but not raw reviewer notes. A committee member argued giving the superintendent full raw comments would be "the fairest, most transparent view," while others warned that distributing raw comments could "erode people's board members' trust." The group favored producing an aggregated, category-by-category summary with exemplar quotes rather than releasing all raw submissions.
On next steps, members agreed to skim the full set of comments and mark exemplifying quotes for each category. The Chair committed to compile the annotated quotes and email the draft summaries and slide language the same afternoon so the committee can finalize presentation materials before the next business meeting. "I will get that to you guys this afternoon," the Chair said. The committee intends to add the summarized evaluation to the business meeting agenda for board review and approval.
The committee emphasized process: present aggregates (no individual pie charts), highlight three strengths and one growth area, use brief slides with supporting exemplar language, and avoid publishing raw reviewer text. Committee members also tested the idea of using an AI summarizer as an additional drafting aid but agreed it would be a supplement, not a substitute, for their judgment.
The committee left with a clear set of assignments — members will mark quotes and themes, the Chair will compile and circulate a draft summary and slides, and the committee will resolve final presentation details in advance of the business meeting.
