Board receives training on superintendent evaluation tool as state changes reporting and requires 20% student‑growth component

Legal counsel delivered extended training on the superintendent‑evaluation tool and recent statutory changes during the Sept. 23 meeting. He told the board the state now accepts three reporting categories (effective, developing, needing support) and no longer separately reports a "highly effective" category; boards may retain a four‑category rubric locally for feedback, but the state will map the top two local categories onto the state’s highest reported value.

The trainer explained that midyear progress conversations — a one‑page consultation about goals and progress — are statutorily required and that a process for appeals must be available for staff, including superintendents. He emphasized that 20% of the superintendent’s final rating is derived from aggregated student‑growth data for district teachers and that boards must combine the 80% rubric score with that 20% when voting on a final rating. "The state no longer accepts the rating of highly effective," he said, adding that boards can still use a top local category for feedback but that reporting to the state will cap at the state’s top scale point.

The presentation walked board members through the tool’s six components (visionary leadership; policy and governance; instructional leadership; professional development; operations and finance; professionalism and ethics), calibration guidance for 'rater reliability,' and the procedural requirement to keep an official copy of the board's final rating for the minutes. Counsel recommended that, when needed, the board consider including a formal appeal mechanism in the superintendent’s contract or using an outside mediator, because the statute requires a means of appeal but does not prescribe the model.