On April 15, 2025, the Coffee County Board of Education voted to suspend Policy 1.103 and proceed with its annual board self-evaluation even though one member was absent due to illness.

The action allowed the nine-member board to review and discuss the results of its self-assessment immediately rather than rescheduling. A board member moved to suspend the policy and another board member seconded the motion; the board approved it, 8-0, with one member absent.

The self-evaluation covers multiple categories including board meetings, student achievement, board–superintendent relations, vision and planning, policy review, community relations, advocacy and budget and finance. Board members said the evaluation asked them to rate both how the board is performing (scale 0–5) and how important each area is (scale 0–6).

Board members identified student achievement and board meetings as the strongest areas. One item, "board has sufficient time and opportunity to review the agenda and supporting materials before a board meeting," received a doing score of 5.11 and an importance score of 5.56. Several items tied at high scores for both performance and importance, including recognition of student and staff accomplishments and routine familiarity with agenda materials.

Members said the evaluation uncovered gaps in community relations and vision. The lowest-rated item was "the school board is respected by the community," which the board rated 2.38 for performance while assigning it an importance score of 5.63. Other low or middling performance scores included whether the superintendent receives direction from the board as a whole (performance 3.0; importance 5.78), and whether the district vision represents community priorities (performance 2.78; importance 5.44). The item "vision/mission statement exists and is periodically reviewed and disseminated" was rated 3.0 for performance and 5.38 for importance.

Policy 1.103, cited by board members during the discussion, directs that at the conclusion of the evaluation the board should develop goals for the ensuing year "stated in terms of behavioral change or productivity gains" based on the evaluation. Board members discussed using the results to inform the board’s strategic or five-year planning, and several said individual members should use the evaluation to identify areas for personal improvement.

Board members also discussed the difficulty of decisionmaking in a nine-member body, the need for the board to accept majority votes, and the relationship between internal board dynamics and community perception. One board member noted that while the board rates itself as accountable and providing public involvement, the apparent lack of community respect suggests a need for improved communication and outreach.

The self-evaluation document includes a final page listing the six items members ranked as greatest successes and a page of additional written comments from members. Board members said the next step is to translate items from the self-evaluation into concrete goals, either through the strategic plan or a five-year plan; no formal committee assignment was recorded in this discussion.

The meeting recessed for the board’s regular 5 p.m. session after the self-evaluation discussion. A motion to adjourn the evaluation meeting passed following a second and an affirmative voice vote.