Clarkston Board of Education rated Superintendent Dr. Rod Rock as “barely adequate” in its evaluation last month.
However, board members said they would call to revisit the evaluation at the school board meeting on Jan. 12, after deadline for this Super News edition.
“Based on some things I have learned since we did the official evaluation on’Dec. 8’and based on a formal request by Dr. Rock to the board to revisit the objective data based portions of the evaluation, I am going to suggest at the school board meeting on Monday, Jan. 12, that the board consider revisiting these sections of the evaluation,” said Trustee Steve Hyer in an email, Jan. 8. “This is a decision that only the full board can make at a school board public meeting.”
The board used the same evaluation format as last year, provided by Michigan Association of School Boards, said board Vice President Sue Boatman in a phone interview, Jan. 11.
“We had a process we agreed to,” Boatman said. “We agreed the results would stand.”
“We had three meetings of the entire board ? we put the time in,” said board Treasurer Joan Patterson in a phone interview last Friday. “I don’t understand why there’s an issue ? we agreed on the process and we followed that process.”
Trustee Elizabeth Egan said the board should have used district improvement plans as the data basis of the evaluation.
“In the board self-evaluation, which was an open meeting/workshop, the facilitator explained to the board that the District Improvement Plan and School Improvement Plan should be the basis for the superintendent goals and relate to the board goals,” Egan said. “The Michigan Legislature passed PA 25 in 1990, which is the foundation for these plans.”
Board Secretary Craig Hamilton said when the board discussed school improvement plans at the retreat, they found them not in compliance with state law.
According to the law, “school board members, school building administrators, teachers and other school employees, pupils, parents of pupils attending that school, and other residents of the school district shall be invited and allowed to voluntarily participate in the development, review, and evaluation of the district’s school improvement plans.”
That hasn’t happened, Hamilton said.
“There has been no community input,” he said.
The school board met in closed session, Dec. 8, for the evaulation. Kelly Horst, elected to the board last November, takes her seat this week. She replaces board President Rosalie Lieblang, who was not re-elected.
School administration responded to a Freedom of Information Act request on Jan. 7, providing the 2013-2014 Superintendent Evaluation letter. Superintendent Rock was rated “effective” in last year’s evaluation.
This year’s evaluation was not included because it was incomplete, said Heidi S. McClain, district FOIA coordinator.
However, the 2014-2015 evaluation letter was included in the information packet for the Jan. 12 meeting, which was uploaded to the district website as of Jan. 9.
According to the letter, written by Lieblang, “the superintendent’s relationship with the board of education is critical to effective leadership of our district. At times we have had challenges in this area as the board has not always been informed of some of the future plans and district initiatives in a timely manner.”
This statement was also included in the previous year’s letter.
According to a evaluation worksheet provided to The Clarkston News, individual board member totals varied widely ? scores totalled 99.20, 97.65, 97.60, 48.75, 45.35, 39.65, and 28.37. Board member names were not included in the document.
The scores were averaged into a total board score of 65.2. Ratings include “ineffective,” “minimally effective,” “effective,” and “highly effective.”