The St. Tammany Parish School Board approved a revised superintendent evaluation instrument that ties the superintendent’s annual assessment to the district’s five‑year strategic plan.

The board adopted the instrument after public comment and extended discussion among members. The motion to accept the revised instrument was moved by Miss McCollum; the final vote carried with 12 yeas and 1 abstention.

Supporters on the board said the instrument was built to match the strategic plan and to create measurable yearly goals derived from a five‑year trajectory. Miss McCollum and Miss Baker, who led the effort, said the evaluation is intended to be a living document that will be revised annually and used to measure short‑term progress toward longer strategic goals.

Several public commenters and the St. Tammany Federation raised objections. Brent Osborne, Federation president, urged the board to “reevaluate the management restructure” and questioned whether the district’s public presentations had been sufficiently transparent about declining academic rankings. Robert Broom, an audience member, recommended editorial clarifications to specific evaluation elements and flagged wording in element 1.6 as unclear.

Lee Barrios, a retired teacher who spoke during public comment, urged care in selecting measurable indicators, saying some survey‑based items — for example, those measuring student mental‑health outcomes — may be difficult to use as superintendent performance measures.

Board members acknowledged the feedback and said there were multiple prior opportunities for input: they described the instrument as matching a strategic plan developed with outside consultants and community surveys and noted that state guidance from the Louisiana School Boards Association recommends aligning superintendent evaluations with a strategic plan.

Miss Hurstis announced she would abstain prior to the vote, citing the instrument’s complexity and preference for simpler, more direct performance markers.

The board’s approval sets the evaluation in place for this year; board members said they may add or revise components during next year’s review cycle.