Polk County School District staff proposed creating a centralized evaluation team to manage employee-evaluation systems across the district, arguing that a small dedicated unit would improve compliance, training and reporting.

Ms. Rouse, joined by Beth Smith, told the board that evaluation responsibilities now fall largely to two professional-development staffers who support roughly 14,000 employees across seven major employee groups. "Currently, the senior director myself and senior coordinator of professional development manage the evaluations for approximately 14,000 employees," Rouse said, and described the workload as unsustainable.

The presenters said peer-district outreach showed most large districts staff this work in a dedicated team — usually in human resources — and that Polk is an outlier without any dedicated staff. Rouse said districts such as Broward and Palm Beach reported multi-person teams; Polk has none. She described proposed roles for a three-person hub: an evaluation-team lead (strategy, compliance, reporting), a professional-learning lead (training and coaching) and an operational-support position (system troubleshooting and monthly reporting).

Board members pressed about cost and whether the plan would require new hires or could be achieved by reassigning existing staff. "Is there additional cost for this? Is it simply moving people? Are we looking on bringing on more staff for this?" asked Vice Chair Keyes. Rouse responded that the presentation was meant to show need and that a budget impact analysis could be developed; she said staff would first seek to consolidate existing vacancies before recommending new positions.

Superintendent Hyde clarified the proposal would standardize processes, timelines and review cycles while ensuring evaluation instruments remain tailored to job duties rather than to individual employees. He said the central team would function as a hub coordinating PD, HR, IST and analytics units to reduce variability in how supervisors apply instruments.

Board members asked what measurable improvements to expect. Rouse said staff would propose goals tied to data reporting, training completion and instrument updates, and would provide timelines and action plans so the board would know what to expect year to year. Several board members expressed support for the concept but asked staff to return with a cost analysis, implementation timeline and prioritized milestones before moving forward.

The board did not take formal action on the proposal during the work session; staff will prepare follow-up materials requested by the board, including an updated peer-district slide and the requested budget impact analysis.