Board discusses timing and components of annual district-administrator evaluation
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Members reviewed evaluation timing and components, favored an annual evaluation cycle with deadlines before January, debated whether the evaluation should include board self-assessment, and directed staff to consider timing that would allow contract decisions to proceed in a timely fashion.
Board members discussed the timeline and content for the district-administrator (superintendent) annual evaluation, including deadlines and whether the evaluation should assess the board—s own effectiveness as part of the process. Why it matters: Timing affects contract renewal decisions and allows an evaluated administrator time to seek other employment if the board decides not to renew. Discussion: The board agreed evaluations should occur annually and discussed conducting evaluations so any nonrenewal decision can be made before the start of the next academic year. Several members favored sending evaluations in November and discussing them at the board—s December meeting so decisions (if any) can be made ahead of January deadlines tied to contract-renewal notice. The draft evaluation components discussed include: the district administrator's self-assessment, active participation by each board member completing a standard form, and possible board-committee recommendations. Members expressed reluctance to require the district administrator to assess the board—s efficiency or effectiveness (one member said that could create awkward dynamics). The board supported continuing current practices (individual board-member assessments compiled into a single evaluation) and suggested returning a clarified timeline for staff review. No formal vote was recorded; staff were asked to confirm statutory timelines and return proposed calendar dates that align with contract-notice requirements.