Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Superintendent Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees debate SMART outcomes, timing as they refine superintendent evaluation instrument
Summary
Board members debated whether the superintendent evaluation should emphasize specific student-outcome targets (for example, no campus below a C and 50% meets/exceeds in reading and math) versus activity-based measures and asked the evaluation committee to refine the instrument before the winter summative window.
Trustee Daniel, chair of the superintendent evaluation committee, presented the committee's draft instrument and said it now ties goals in leadership, teaching and learning, human resources, finance/facilities, communications and board relations to the district strategic plan.
"When you get into the individual sections...there's an annotation that ties it to the strategic plan," Daniel said, and he told trustees the committee will circulate a version for approval at the next meeting.
Trustee Yanez pressed for specific, measurable outcome goals. "We're we're not gonna have a below C on these campuses. We're gonna have at least 50% or better meets or exceeds grade level in reading and math," she said, urging the board to include clear outcome targets in the teaching-and-learning section.
Other trustees warned that outcome goals can be affected by variables beyond the superintendent's direct control — mobility, teacher turnover and other intervening factors — and urged the committee to balance outcome targets with measurable, intermediary activities and supports. Trustee Daniel said the committee has already culled and curated the instrument and plans to pare bullets down to a concise set of metrics for each section.
Trustees agreed not to change the "goal posts" mid-cycle: the board used the current instrument during a formative review in August and plans a summative evaluation in January, when standardized test and tapers reports are available. Several trustees suggested the evaluation committee be given additional runway to refine the instrument so any adoption would not disrupt the mid-cycle review.
The board tasked the superintendent evaluation committee to incorporate trustees' feedback, clarify which outcome metrics are reasonable to hold the superintendent accountable for, and circulate a revised instrument in advance of the January summative window.
The workshop continued to future-business scheduling and adjourned at 7:28 p.m.
