A significant portion of the meeting focused on the superintendent’s evaluation process, guided by a facilitator from MSP. The board explored foundational elements such as goals and standards, with an emphasis on fostering accountability and constructive feedback. The facilitator highlighted the importance of the evaluation reflecting a team effort, with collaborative input from both the board and the superintendent to ensure mutual growth and accountability. Although there is no state requirement for evaluating superintendents, many districts incorporate it into contracts to encourage transparency and improvement.

The facilitator introduced the board to the cornerstones of school board leadership, contrasting the governance-focused responsibilities of the board with the operational management duties of the superintendent. An analogy was used to illustrate this relationship: the board acts like a train track setting the direction, while the superintendent is the train driver. The workshop further emphasized the need for vertical alignment in goal-setting, suggesting that while strategic plans may cover three to five years, both the board and superintendent should set one-year goals to avoid overwhelming the new superintendent.

Moreover, the meeting addressed concerns about the upcoming referendum scheduled for February. Discussions centered around setting realistic goals for the superintendent, as it was recognized that the referendum’s outcome is beyond their sole control. Instead, the board proposed focusing on community engagement and accurate information dissemination to support the referendum’s success.

To ensure a cohesive evaluation process, the board discussed developing a clear framework to align all members. The necessity of written feedback was emphasized for both the board’s and superintendent’s protection, especially during contract renewals. It was decided that the superintendent should receive a single consolidated evaluation summary at the next open meeting to maintain clarity and unity within the board.

The board also considered the merits and drawbacks of various evaluation methods, including 360-degree feedback. While such feedback could offer insights into district culture and climate, the board preferred keeping the evaluation within its purview to avoid potential biases. However, culture and climate surveys might be beneficial for understanding the district’s atmosphere, albeit not as evaluation tools in the superintendent’s first year.

Discussions further highlighted the importance of maintaining confidentiality and compliance with data practices laws during evaluations, especially concerning personnel data. The board explored the possibility of combining end-of-year evaluations with future goal setting, though it was agreed that a separate session might be more prudent if significant improvements were needed.

In terms of evaluation metrics, the board emphasized objective rubrics to prevent biases. This approach ensures that personal relationships do not influence the superintendent’s scores, maintaining a fair evaluation process.

Finally, the board engaged in an exercise to identify priority standards and elements for the superintendent’s evaluation. Communication and community relationships emerged as significant priorities.