Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant briefs board on Michigan’s updated superintendent-evaluation rules
Summary
Consultant Jeremy Chisum walked the board through statutory changes requiring a midyear progress check, an avenue of appeal, rater-reliability training and an 80/20 aggregation method, and explained how the evaluation rubric and reporting work in practice.
Consultant Jeremy Chisum delivered a training session describing recent Michigan law changes affecting superintendent evaluations and demonstrated the district’s evaluation tool.
Chisum said the state eliminated the distinct "highly effective" reporting category and now accepts a three-level scale for reporting; the evaluation tool retains a local higher category for feedback but it will be reported to the state as the top accepted value. He emphasized a new statutory requirement for a midyear progress check-in where the board and superintendent explicitly discuss progress toward goals and document any course corrections in writing.
He also explained the newly required avenue for superintendent appeals of final ratings and described several models boards use to satisfy that requirement. Chisum said student-growth weighting was reduced so that the rubric and board discussion now comprise about 80% of the overall rating and student-growth around 20% for reporting purposes. The training included rubrics organized into six components (team and instructional leadership, governance, external communications, operations, professionalism) and guidance on reaching a board consensus without needing individual numeric averaging.
Board members asked clarifying questions about midyear timing, the reporting form, how comments translate into the final board evaluation and the mechanics of assigning a final numeric score for state reporting. Chisum advised boards to reach consensus in closed or open session, then vote on the record to assign the rating the board will report to the state.
No board action was required; the session was instructional and designed to help the board meet new statutory obligations and prepare for the evaluation calendar.
