The superintendent of Clarkston schools has an upgraded rating after a meeting of an abbreviated Board of Education last Thursday.
Superintendent Dr. Rod Rock’s new score: 79.2 out of 100, within the 68-84 point range for “Effective.” The December total board score was 65.2, in the “Minimally Effective” range of 50-67.
“That wraps up 2014,” said board President Steve Hyer, who had an evaluation letter prepared in advance of the meeting, with “insert label here” for the rating.
Board President Steve Hyer and trustees Elizabeth Egan, Cheryl McGinnis, and Kelli Horst voted unanimously to approve the rating and letter after discussing and rescoring about half the evaluation in open session.
Board members Susan Boatman, Craig Hamilton, and Joan Patterson did not attend the meeting.
In a Jan. 27 email announcing the planned absence of the three board members, Boatman said they would not “help legitimize the corruption of our agreed upon evaluation process.”
Mary Kerwin, senior adjunct staff with Michigan Association of School Boards who facilitated the meeting, recommended the re-evaluation include the whole school board.
However, Hyer surveyed board members for availability at the Jan. 12 meeting, and six board members said they could attend.
“It makes sense to use the time scheduled for this, to put 2014 behind us so we can focus on 2015,” he said.
“I wish the entire board would have been here ? (but) it was their choice not to be here,” McGinnis said. “I’m comfortable with this.”
Board members receive $24 per meeting, capped at 36 meetings per year. An email requesting information regarding consulting fees for the meeting was unanswered as of press time, Tuesday.
Horst, who was elected to the board last November and took her seat in January, said participating was the best thing to do.
“I’ve read a lot of comments in the paper and the public, accusing this process of being corrupted,” she said. “Frankly, from what I’ve heard tonight, the process was corrupted in December.”
Speaking during public comment, Dawn Schaller said the December evaluation should be maintained.
“This mocks the evaluation process done in December by the then-in-place board,” Schaller said. “I still find absolutely no reason Kelli Horst should do this evaluation of Dr. Rock, to measure him for a time period she was not a board member.”
Hyer said the data analysis portion of the evaluation doesn’t require a trustee to have served during that period.
“Any person should be able look at data and perform the evaluation,” he said.
The board reviewed a 141-page PDF file of teacher and administrator evaluation, student performance, attendance, and survey reports.
“We used the same data for the reconsideration. We were just matching it up to the rubric together as a group,” Hyer said.
During the December process, each board member completed individual evaluations, which were compiled and averaged for the final rating. The school board met in closed session with the superintendent on Dec 5.
“We did not have a facilitated discussion, we just completed it individually in December,” the board president said.
The recalculation used the scores from A-F from the original evaluations filled out individually. The categories are Relationship with the Board; Community Relations; Staff Relationships; Business and Finance; Educational Leadership; and Personal Qualities.
Scores for sections G-K were changed to those determined by the four-person board at the Jan. 26 meeting. These categories are Evaluation; Progress Towards the School Improvement Plan; Student Attendance; Student/Parent/Teacher Feedback; and Student Growth and Achievement.
“We weighed each section according to the tool, which the board agreed to, and summed them up to generate the final evaluation label of ‘Effective,'” Hyer said.
Also on the Jan. 29 agenda was the superintendent contract for 2015-2017, superintendent goals for 2014-2015, and 2014-2015 evaluation tool and process.
The proposed contract includes a two-percent raise to $140,000 a year plus a one-time payment of $2,800, payable in June or July. It also includes attendance at the National Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development National Conference and National Legislative Conference, Learning Forward National Conference, two annual Project Zero conferences, an additional advocacy event in Washington D.C., a National Student Championship event, and the Future of Learning Conference.
Hamilton sent an email to Hyer, asking the items be removed from the agenda.
“I would appreciate if you would remove the additional items that have been added to the agenda for Thursday’s meeting beyond changing the evaluation to make the superintendent effective,” Hamilton said. “The other items are important, and although it is unlikely anything I say will change what you have already set into motion, I would still appreciate having it at a regularly scheduled meeting that I am able to attend.”
Discussion of the 2015 evaluation process included splitting it in two, with sections G-K during the summer, when data becomes available, and sections A-F in December.
Rock offered to have a full evaluation in June so the entire board could be involved.
“I’m not saying I would enjoy it, but maybe it would be best for the board,” he said.
The board voted 4-0 to table the contract, goals, and evaluation.
Hyer said he would put them on the Feb. 9 meeting agenda, and will ask for Kerwin to be present to facilitate.