[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6587485,"mediaKeyId","5591660-15e352ee909e976f5387798ddf18d523","parentId",5591660,"title","Creighton board adopts its self-evaluation; discusses superintendent evaluation scoring and pay-for-performance","audioSeconds",44,"startMs",10929000,"endMs",10973000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5591660-15e352ee909e976f5387798ddf18d523&start=10929&end=10973","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5591660-15e352ee909e976f5387798ddf18d523/thumbnail_10929000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6587485/Arizona/Creighton-board-adopts-its-self-evaluation-discusses-superintendent-evaluation-scoring-and-pay-for-performance","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6587485-216fd55e7fb8642035951274560610b6/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437701&Signature=KIkxk1v5CL44YQs6h2Fl21ko85Iqh6DouaHZC4si8E5txVZNE0UJX0YbifLIBC8FzSsmkDTKftUuJXdhjq0nyE4xoFCvIcf~CDKa5nMZOjB-jw27e43Q~cwAcsJe8uNktCDMYO6uZ3TpptP~nW07dNGcLG408y~qWVg5sppRvf6KzQJEjmwMuq8nIJT59J6q0pqCcvlaVcbqpyXEixZ62Z-jUlpaEUeLDD905Y-RBh7rUiyBm5-mwuUVfjw7utyYunaiKeqPr6JXKdW80LX2uwP3m2eVkxC~PYJi6M43inEyF5Qs7E~CPjal5ykR-brx7Uz60U2iAUbvkptbDK~7kQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Creighton Elementary District (4263)","date","2025-08-16T23:05:44Z","article","The Creighton Elementary District governing board adopted its board self-evaluation at the study session and spent substantial time reviewing how the district'level student-outcomes-focused governance (SOFG) framework should be used to evaluate superintendent performance.

At the close of the study session a member moved that \"the governing board approve the Creighton School District's board self-evaluation of 08/16/2025\"; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. The board did not record individual roll-call tallies in the study-session transcript; the motion carried by unanimous voice vote.

Before the vote, board members and district leadership discussed an evaluation instrument staff had drafted that maps the district's four board goals and four board guardrails to a points-based rating for superintendent performance. Staff and the board's consultant (Dr. Ramos) recommended two technical changes:

- Equal weighting for goals and guardrails. Staff had initially given heavier weight to academic goals; the board and consultant said the guardrails (community values and operational limits) should carry equal weight in the evaluation arithmetic. The board signaled support for restructuring the instrument so each of the eight categories receives an equal share of the overall possible points.

- An adjusted percentage scale for \"pay-for-performance\" eligibility. Board members discussed whether the superintendent must achieve a perfect numerical score to qualify for the full pay-for-performance amount. The group favored a more graduated scale (for example, treating a 90'100 performance band as equivalent to 100% eligibility rather than requiring an absolute 100-point score). Members said they wanted to preserve high standards while avoiding an all-or-nothing outcome for marginal shortfalls.

District staff said they will rework the numeric worksheet, equalize the category weights for goals and guardrails, and update the percentage bands before the final adoption. Staff also said the superintendent evaluation and any pay-for-performance calculation will be treated in accordance with state law and district policy; the board and superintendent also discussed whether evaluation details should be considered in public or executive session. District staff argued the instrument is largely public (interim measures and final goal outcomes are published in regular progress reports) and suggested some elements could be reviewed in public session; the board will finalize the procedure at its August public meeting.

Why this matters: The superintendent's evaluation ties district goals and the board's guardrails to leadership accountability. The board's decision to equalize weights and to consider a graduated pay-for-performance scale affects how staff and community members interpret the district's priorities and how the superintendent is held accountable for progress toward outcomes.

What's next: staff will update the evaluation worksheet and return it to the board for approval at the next meeting. The board also asked staff to include a short summary and the calculation method when the evaluation is presented publicly.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","August 16, 2025, Governing Board Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The Creighton Elementary District governing board adopted its board self-evaluation and discussed revisions to the superintendent evaluation scoring, including equalizing weights for goals and guardrails and adjusting pay-for-performance bands.","taxTitle","Creighton Elementary District (4263), School Districts, Arizona","taxId",38275,"location","Arizona","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6587490,"Creighton School District proposes new benchmark cut scores, to present interim measures to board for vote",6454,0,6454000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5591660-15e352ee909e976f5387798ddf18d523&start=0&end=6454","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5591660-15e352ee909e976f5387798ddf18d523/thumbnail_0.jpg","/articles/6587490/Arizona/Creighton-School-District-proposes-new-benchmark-cut-scores-to-present-interim-measures-to-board-for-vote","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6587490-629c786ae1ce74d750ae3638152e45da/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437701&Signature=MzzSq~Jn9dNYq10IEg08opMnLKFFYeagMX1a3KQCkTbQhURKJ~RMkvxNys24G9eKemewWdRorWvZwcLmAFViXRRKXRA7amxzvM1ScJLcrUHTD28mEoUfgszvpglCYtXDoHKVdLs6~1L-F5kN01zMVwpB6LJl1s8ZtWcZNOWOfYUhEEHvcNif~Udufyo40HKusJeIn01nRwuf9xNI0iNehI~ZHcjx8kDalnRJWsqNR7ZXAqk0iELpB~lyBF~MguOvfC8n9ViD9Sh3vuGExn44fWpn5WD9iBYW-liNpZCmP7UbtZaXgaGMiSrzvK863osA3v9g~EnOXEc4DJbz8A3DFQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Creighton Elementary District staff presented a proposal to replace the district'wide 40/60/80 cut-score model with new, grade-level interim cut scores normed on local student data and vendor mimics. The presentation argued the change will raise the statistical correlation between benchmark results and the Arizona state assessment (AASA), giving teachers and families a more accurate early-year picture of likely year-end outcomes.

District staff told the board they asked Renaissance (the vendor for the district's Benchmark/DNA assessments) to analyze Creighton'specific data. The vendor study on Creighton eighth-grade math showed higher correlations when the district'specific cut scores were used than under the old 40/60/80 approach. Staff described the target correlation threshold as about 0.6'a level they said is considered a meaningful relationship between interim measures and state scores.

District presenters described how the old model concentrated students into the lowest color band at the start of the year (the so-called \"sea of red\") and produced a lower early correlation with the AASA. Under the proposed cut scores, staff said benchmark pie charts will show fewer students concentrated at the bottom and earlier movement to yellow/green/blue, which they said will allow teachers and families to set more attainable short-term goals and to adjust instruction earlier in the school year.

Staff also described related interim measures that will be used to track progress on board goals through the year: DNA benchmark measures, FastBridge skill screeners, and a new Renaissance language mimic for emerging multilingual (EL) students. The district explained where each interim measure fits: DNA benchmarks to mirror standards, FastBridge to track discrete skills (fluency, early reading composites), and the Renaissance mimic for EL language proficiency (being piloted this fall through a multi-district collaboration called the Arizona Assessment Collaborative).

Board members pressed for clarity on how the percentages on the various measures relate to common grading expectations (for example, that 62% correct on some posttests corresponds to AASA proficiency levels rather than a classroom-grade-style C), and for materials they can use with parents so the change does not look like a lowering of expectations. District staff said they plan additional communications and practice testing for students (e.g., more comprehensive DNA practice in winter/spring; oral reading fluency screeners in first grade) and will pilot the EL mimic this fall so benchmark-to-state correlations can be recalculated next summer.

The board did not vote on the interim measures during the study session. Staff said the interim-measures package will be an action item on the August/TBD governing-board agenda for formal adoption. The district indicated it will keep the existing annual targets previously adopted by the board; only the interim cut-score thresholds and the choice of which interim assessments to monitor were proposed to change.

Why this matters: staff argued the re-norming should reduce false alarms early in the year and make progress-monitoring graphs more actionable, enabling earlier instructional pivots for students. The proposed changes also affect what families will see in reports and what teachers will use for short-term goal-setting.

What's next: staff will finalize the interim-measures resolution and materials for the board's vote at the next scheduled public meeting. District staff also said they will prepare parent-facing visuals and examples to accompany any adopted changes.","District staff outlined a shift from a single 40/60/80 interim-cut model to grade- and assessment-specific cut scores based on local correlations with the state test (AASA). The change aims to improve early-year accuracy of progress monitoring; the board will consider the formal interim-measures resolution at its next meeting.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Creighton board adopts its self-evaluation; discusses superintendent evaluation scoring and pay-for-performance

Creighton School District proposes new benchmark cut scores, to present interim measures to board for vote