BOE Self-Evaluation 09-10: Board/Superintendent Relationships & Board/Staff Relationships

Here's the latest installment in our Board Self-Evaluation for 2009-10. Remember, 4 = Commendable, 3 = Good, 2 = Adequate, 1 = Unsatisfactory. (The scores are BOE averages, plus the score I personally gave in parentheses.) Also, remember that the presentation and discussion of this evaluation took place at the Board meeting on 8/30, and you can watch the video by clicking here.

Section VII: Board/Superintendent Relationships:

Our Board:
1. respects the management responsibilities and administrative prerogatives of the superintendent. 3.5 (4)
2. works with the superintendent in a spirit of mutual trust and condfidence. 3.5 (4)
3. maintains ongoing open lines of communication, and observes the chain of command. 3.2 (4)
4. keeps the superintendent informed about community/school issues and aspirations. 3.7 (4)
5. conducts a comprehensive and fair annual evaluation of the superintendent in accordance with statute and code as per NJQSAC. 3.7 (4)
6. works with the superintendent to develop performance objectives for evaluation that are consistent with district goals and in compliance with district policy. 3.2 (3)
7. requires regular dialogue on progress towards district goals and objectives, student achievement and feedback on performance. 3.2 (2)

As a board member, I:
A. respect the management responsibility of the superintendent. 3.8 (4)
B. observe the chain of command. 3.6 (3)
C. participate fully in the superintendent evaluation process approaching the task of evaluation fairly and diligently. 3.8 (4)


Section VIII: Board/Staff Relationships

Our Board:
1. provides effective personnel policy direction and oversight. 2.8 (3)
2. recognizes the importance of staff development and provides the necessary time and funds. 2.8 (3)
3. provides for public recognition of staff achievements. 3.3 (3)
4. treats district staff with courtesy and respect, recognizing that the appropriate channel for board/staff communications is through the superintendent. 3.5 (4)
5. ensures that our actions and decision are quickly and effectively communicated to the staff. 3.3 (3)

As a board member, I:
A. communicate all concerns about staff members to the superintendent. 3.2 (2)
B. use and enforce the chain of command. 3.4 (3)
C. attend school and community activities. 3.4 (4)

BOE 09-10 Self-Evaluation: Board Operations & Board Performance

And now for the latest installment of my report on the Self-Evaluation exercise the Board undertook last month.

You can click here to see what the ratings of 1-2-3-4 mean. (Also, the first number is the average score; the 2nd number (in parentheses) is the score I gave.) Also, remember that the presentation and discussion of this evaluation took place at the Board meeting on 8/30/10, and you can watch the video by clicking here.

Section V: Board Operations:

Our Board:
1. holds our meetings in compliance with applicable statutes, policies and bylaws. 3.8 (4)
2. provides a climate that allows free, open and orderly discussion by all members at our meetings. 3.3 (3)
3. develops and utilizes skills in teamwork, consensus-building, collaborative problem solving and decision-making. 2.7 (2)
4. uses good decision-making processes, acting only after all appropriate information has been received and studies. 2.8 (2)
5. acts only after giving administration time to gather information and make recommendations. 3.0 (3)
6. respects the administration's leadership by thoughtfully deliberating on recommendations. 3.3 (4)
7. provides time, funding and opportunity for orienting and updating our members on local, county, state and federal levels in accordance with statutory travel regulations. 3.2 (4)
8. Our board method of governance contributes to overall effectiveness and efficiency of the board. 3.0 (2)
9. Our board method of governance has clearly defined bylaws. 3.2 (2)
10. Our board method of governance lessens the total work of board members. 2.5 (2)
11. Our board method of governance ensures appropriate communication to the board. 2.8 (2)

As a board member, I:
A. introduce new issues through the agenda process, allowing sufficient time for appropriate study. 3.4 (4)
B. recognize the importance of teamwork, problem solving and effective decision-making. 3.6 (4)
C. attend workshops to increase my effectiveness as a board member. 2.4 (2)

We seem to have a wider diversity of opinion on our Board operations...how we do business and work with each other. I think it's probably worth exploring these issues as a group. Not sure what the others think. Perhaps it's OK to agree to disagree?

Section VI: Board Performance:

Our Board members:
1. recognize that authority rests with the board as a whole, sitting in a legally authorized board meeting. 3.0 (4)
2. make every effort to attend all board meetings, coming prepared and having done their homework. 3.8 (4)
3. recognize the need for, and the importance of, confidentiality. 3.7 (4)
4. work together in an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect. 2.8 (3)
5. ensure that all members have input into decisions. 2.7 (3)
6. avoid even the appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest. 3.3 (4)
7. operates in accordance with the board member's Code of Ethics and the Ethics Act. 3.5 (4)

As a board member, I:
A. make no personal promises nor take any private action. 3.2 (3)
B. make every effort to attend all meetings, having done my homework and prepared to contribute. 3.6 (3)
C. maintain the confidentiality of board proceedings. 3.4 (3)
D. am respectful of everyone at our meetings and I listen with an open mind. 3.2 (3)
E. adhere to ethical standards. 3.2 (3)

It seems we still feel we operate ethically, honestly and confidentially, but some of our "working together" scores are a bit low. Something to work on (although not exactly sure how...)

The next post on this topic will cover Board/Superintendent Relationships and Board/Staff Relationships.

BOE 09-10 Self-Evaluation: Student Achievement & Finance

To save time, I'm combining two topics in the ongoing report of our Board of Education Self-Evaluation for the 09-10 school year.

Once again: Board members (and Dr. Fishbein) rated each statement on a scale of 1-4:
1 = Unsatisfactory.
2 = Adequate
3 = Good
4 = Commendable
("Not Observed" was also an option)

Each section has two subsections: "About the Board" and "About You, the Board Member." (Only Board members rated the statements in the second subsection.)

I am sharing the average scores for each statement and then, (in parentheses), the score I gave. Also, remember that the presentation and discussion of this evaluation took place at the Board meeting on 8/30, and you can watch the video by clicking here.

Section III. Student Achievement:

Our Board:
1. determines the district educational goals with input and data from administration. 3.2 (3)
2. requires written curriculum with specific evaluation components in accordance with all statutes. 3.3 (4)
3. requires systematic evaluation of and feedback on the instructional program. 3.2 (2)
4. uses the expertise of the professional staff, in development of curriculum, insuring it is focused on student achievement. 3.5 (3)
5. monitors the effectiveness of our instructional programs by measuring student achievement aqgainst state and local standards and other pertinent data. 3.7 (4)
6. sets high standards for all students based on multiple, assessment measures. 3.3 (3)

As a Board member, I:
A. am involved in determining district educational goals. 2.4 (2)
B. am aware of the communitiy's educational aspirations. 3.4 (4)
C. focus on improving student achievement as a basis in my educational decision-making. 3.2 (3)

The comments in this section mentioned the challenge of balancing student needs and high standards with financial constraints.

Section IV. Finance

Our Board:
1. exercises financial oversigh of all aspects of district operations in accordance with statutes. 3.7 (4)
2. provides policy guidelines and parameters, related to our goals, for budget development/evaluation. 3.2 (4)
3. requires that all requests for unbudgeted expenditures be accompanied by specific indication of need and funding sources. 3.2 (4)
4. balances the educational needs of students with the impact of budgetary increases. 3.7 (4)
5. reviews, understands and evaluates all financial reports to ensure that all educational dollars are used in an efficient and effective manner. 2.8 (3)

As a Board member, I:
A. understand the relationship between our budget and our district's goals. 3.4 (4)
B. understand and participate in our district's budgeting process. 3.6 (4)
C. understand and review the monthly reports. 3.4 (4)
D. understand and review the results of the annual audit. 3.0 (3)

Comments in this section talked about the difficult budget development process last year.

So, there you have it. The next sections of the self-evaluation cover Board Operations and Board Performance.

BOE 09-10 Self-Evaluation: Policy

continued...

This is a continuation of my previous post on our Board self-evaluation, which was discussed at the 8/30 Board meeting (click here for webcast).

Reminder: Board members (and Dr. Fishbein) rated each statement on a scale of 1-4:
1 = Unsatisfactory.
2 = Adequate
3 = Good
4 = Commendable
("Not Observed" was also an option)

Each section has two subsections: "About the Board" and "About You, the Board Member." (Only Board members rated the statements in the second subsection.)

I am sharing the average scores for each statement and then, (in parentheses), the score I gave.

So here we go. Today let's look at...

Section 2: Policy:

Our Board:
1. operates as a "policy-making body." 3.2 (3)
2. develops broad policies that give the administration sufficient authority and latitude to manage the day-to-day operations. 3.2 (4)
3. uses written policies as the framework for our decision-making process. 3.0 (3)
4. reviews and updates the policy manual regularly as required by NJQSAC insuring that our bylaws, policies and procedures reflect current regulatory, and statutory requirements. 3.7 (4)
5. ensures that the administration develops appropriate procedures and regulations to implement the board's policy intent. 3.3 (4)

As a board member, I:
A. am familiar with the Board's policies. 2.8 (2)
B. use Board policy as a basis for decision-making. 3.0 (3)
C. leave policy implementation to the administrative staff. 3.2 (3)
D. avoid involvement in day-to-day operations of the district. 3.0 (2)

My next Board Self-Evaluation post will cover Student Achievement.

Alfie Kohn's take on the failure of "value-added" teacher evaluations.

today's Huffington Post contained an essay from education expert Alfie Kohn, offering some good points on the dialog about measuring value-added data for teachers, "What Passes for School Reform: 'Value-Added' Teacher Evaluation and Other Absurdities." If you're interested in this nationwide discussion of how to improve teaching and learning by ensuring effective teachers, I recommend you read it.

The most interesting section (in my opinion) is this (reprinted):

What if we asked other questions instead? We could do so about any of the policies I've mentioned, but for now let's consider the idea of judging teachers with a "value-added" method.

Question 1: Does this model provide valid and reliable information about teachers (and schools)? Most experts in the field of educational assessment say, Good heavens, no. This year's sterling teacher may well look like crud next year, and vice versa. Too many variables affect a cohort's test scores; statistically speaking, we just can't credit or blame any individual teacher.

Unfortunately, many of the experts who point this out tend to stop there, even though the problem runs far deeper than technical psychometric flaws with the technique. For example. . .

Question 2: Does learning really lend itself to any kind of "value-added" approach? It does only if it's conceived as an assembly line process in which children are filled up with facts and skills at each station along a conveyor belt, and we need only insert a dipstick before and after they arrive at a given station (say, fourth grade), measure the pre/post difference, and judge the worker at that station accordingly. The very idea of "value-added measures," not just a specific formula for calculating them, implicitly accepts this absurd model.

Question 3: Do standardized tests assess what matters most about teaching and learning? If not, then no value-added approach based on those tests makes any sense. As I've argued elsewhere -- and of course I'm hardly alone in doing so -- test results primarily tell us two things: the socioeconomic status of the students being tested and the amount of time devoted to preparing students for a particular test.

Regarding individual students, at least three studies have found a statistically significant positive relationship between high scores on standardized tests and a relatively shallow approach to learning. Regarding individual teachers, let's just say that some of the best the field has to offer do not necessarily raise their kids' test scores (because they're too busy helping the kids to become enthusiastic and proficient thinkers, which is not what the tests measure), while some teachers who are very successful at raising test scores are not much good at anything else. Finally, regarding whole schools, if test scores rise enough, and for long enough, to suggest a trend rather than a fluke, the rational response from a local parent would be, "Uh-oh. What was sacrificed from our children's education in order to make that happen?"

It won't do to fall back on the tired slogan that test scores may not be perfect, but they're good enough. The more you examine the construction of these exams, the more likely you are to conclude that they do not add any useful information to what can be learned from other, more authentic forms of assessment. In fact, they actively detract from our understanding about learning (and teaching) because their results are so misleading.

Notice, by the way, that everyone who declares that we ought to reward good teachers and boot the bad ones is assuming that all of us agree on what "good" and "bad" mean. But do we? I'd argue that a dipstick, test-based model is endorsed by newspapers, by public officials, and by billionaires who have bought their seat at the policy-making table (seat, hell; they own the table itself) precisely because we often don't agree.

More good points to ponder...

BOE self-evaluation discussed at 8/30 meeting.

At our last BOE meeting, members of the Board reviewed our annual "self-evaluation." As I did last year, I thought it would be good to share the results of our evaluation with you.

A little background...
The state requires Boards of Education to conduct self-evaluations each year, and actually Ridgewood has been doing an annual evaluation since long before the state required it. Currently, we use the services of the New Jersey School Boards Association. NJSBA gives us a Self-Evaluation form, which is completed by members of the BOE and Dr. Fishbein. Each topic includes questions about the Board’s performance, and then questions for individual Board members to evaluate their own performance. We all completed our evaluations, which consisted of questions with ratings from 1 to 5 plus the opportunity for free-form comments, and then our NJSBA rep compiled the responses and brought us back a report. We don’t know how individual members answered, and we don’t know which comments are from whom.

One of the purposes of the self-evaluation is to help us identify challenges facing the district and to guide us as we develop Board and District goals for the school year. After we reviewed the evaluation, we brainstormed on goals. I think we'll be discussing the potential goals we came up with, at our next meeting (Sept. 13).

So, like I said, I want to share the ratings from our self-evaluation, just so you can see where some of the conversation was focused. (What? You didn't watch the meeting on Channel 77 or live on the web?!?)

The evaluation covered the following categories:

Planning
Policy
Student Achievement
Finance
Board Operations
Board Performance
Board/Superintendent Relationships
Board/Staff Relationships
Board & Community

Over the next week or so, I will report on our self-evaluation for each of these categories. First up will be Planning...

Students' test scores only show part of a teacher's "effectiveness."

Yesterday I wrote about the LA Times' recent project to score and rank (and publicize) teachers in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Teachers are able to review their scores online, and they have the opportunity to respond in writing to their scores.

This response from a 5th grade teacher to his score is indicative of the problems with value-added data scoring. How can this teacher be reduced to "less effective" or "average?" Clearly he is neither of those things.

I shake my head, hating to think that someone (parents, administrators) skimming down a list of scores, could write-off this teacher as not effective.

Count on this: no easy solutions in the effort to evaluate teachers.

Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.

This quote is usually attributed to Albert Einstein (although I couldn’t find any proof of his writing or saying it). It’s an interesting and valid thought. And it’s often mentioned in the nationwide conversation about teacher performance and test scores.

Last Wednesday’s New York Times contained the story, “When Does Holding Teachers Accountable Go Too Far?” I found it to be a good review of some of the challenges faced by educators who, with budget-driven urgency, are trying anew to determine the best way to evaluate teachers (and, it follows, to better connect performance with compensation). The story’s main focus was the concept of measuring “value-added data” for teachers. This is a statistical technique where student test scores are analyzed, measuring improvement from when a teacher started teaching the student to when he/she completed the year. According to the theory, the change in test scores is a measure of the “value” added by the teacher: more increase = more value added and, it follows, better teaching.

The Los Angeles Times recently analyzed seven years of elementary school test scores and created a ranking of 6,000 teachers. “The newspaper named a few teachers — both stars and laggards — and announced that it would release the approximate rankings for all teachers, along with their names.”

The Los Angeles Times articles got teachers riled up, the union called for a boycott of the paper, but...the union also said, more calmly, that they’re willing to discuss making such scores at least a part of teachers’ evaluations. That’s encouraging.

The critics of value-added data point to some real limitations. According to the NY Times, “scores can bounce around from year to year for any one teacher...so a single year of scores — which some states may use for evaluation — can be misleading. In addition, students are not randomly assigned to teachers; indeed, principals may deliberately assign slow learners to certain teachers, unfairly lowering their scores. As for the tests themselves, most do not even try to measure the social skills that are crucial to early learning.” And, thinking about Ridgewood, what about teachers who are already very successful or whose students begin at fairly high-achieving levels? If your students already score very high, and there’s not much higher for them to go, is it fair to judge that teacher as not “adding value?” This is exactly what happened to Ridgewood in last year’s state QSAC evaluation – the District received a lower score in student achievement because our test scores didn’t improve enough. But it was physically impossible for our scores to improve that much – they would have had to have been higher than 100% perfect.

Some educators feel that value-added data can probably help identify the best and the worst teachers, but probably won’t help much in truly evaluating teachers in the middle. Other educators have suggested using the value-added data on the school level, without tying the scores to individual teachers' names. I agree with the NY Times’ writer’s feeling that an important first step would be for us all to agree that no system will ever be perfect. No system can do it all. And, personally, I will never feel good about placing too much emphasis on standardized tests, especially when the tests we have are so imperfect.

The New Jersey Department of Education recently announced a special committee that will be working on teacher evaluation. The big deal, according to them, is that the committee contains teachers, administrators, school board members, legislators, "experts," etc. An apparently inclusive group that will calmly and rationally research and develop some solutions. When I heard they wanted school board members, I immediately tried to volunteer. Turns out, their idea of school board representation was that a staffer from the New Jersey School Board Association will participate. Darn.

Clearly, parents and communities want their schools to be accountable. I believe teachers want to be accountable. It’s in our human nature to rank things, to create order, to understand the value (relative or intrinsic) in everything we do. Test scores are such a seemingly easy solution – what could be more cut and dried than numbers? “The scores don’t lie,” sounds so simple. But aren’t there more things that “count?” Can’t we find a way to wrap our human brains around the concept of things that can’t be counted?

Something to think about as we begin the new school year – a school year in which a new contract will be negotiated with our Ridgewood teachers.

Have a great first day of school tomorrow!

BOE 08-09 Self-Evaluation: Board/Superintendent Relationships & Board/Staff Relationships

Here's the latest installment in our Board Self-Evaluation. Remember, 4 = Commendable, 3 = Good, 2 = Adequate, 1 = Unsatisfactory. Also, remember that the presentation and discussion of this evaluation took place at the Board meeting on 7/20, and you can watch the video by clicking here.

Section VII: Board/Superintendent Relationships:

Our Board:
1. respects the management responsibilities and administrative prerogatives of the superintendent. 3.7 (3)
2. works with the superintendent in a spirit of mutual trust and condfidence. 3.7 (3)
3. maintains ongoing open lines of communication, and observes the chain of command. 3.6 (3)
4. keeps the superintendent informed about community/school issues and aspirations. 3.8 (3)
5. conducts a comprehensive and fair annual evaluation of the superintendent in accordance with statute and code as per NJQSAC. 3.7 (3)
6. works with the superintendent to develop performance objectives for evaluation that are consistent with district goals and in compliance with district policy. 3.4 (3)
7. requires regular dialogue on progress towards district goals and objectives, student achievement and feedback on performance. 3.1 (2)

As a board member, I:
A. respect the management responsibility of the superintendent. 3.6 (3)
B. observe the chain of command. 3.2 (2)
C. participate fully in the superintendent evaluation process approaching the task of evaluation fairly and diligently. 3.4 (3)


Section VIII: Board/Staff Relationships

Our Board:
1. provides effective personnel policy direction and oversight. 3.5 (3)
2. recognizes the importance of staff development and provides the necessary time and funds. 3.6 (2)
3. provides for public recognition of staff achievements. 3.7 (3)
4. treats district staff with courtesy and respect, recognizing that the appropriate channel for board/staff communications is through the superintendent. 3.7 (4)
5. ensures that our actions and decision are quickly and effectively communicated to the staff. 3.0 (3)

As a board member, I:
A. communicate all concerns about staff members to the superintendent. 3.4 (3)
B. use and enforce the chain of command. 3.4 (3)
C. attend school and community activities. 3.6 (4)

BOE 08-09 Self-Evaluation: Board Operations & Board Performance

continued...

I was thinking that this little exercise, sharing with you our Board Self-Evaluation, is actually a good way to inform the public of just what it is the Board of Education is expected to do, at least as far as the state is concerned. The statements throughout this document can be read as a checklist of the activities and priorities the state expects us to have. Anyway...

Remember, click here to see what the ratings of 1-2-3-4 mean. Also, remember that the presentation and discussion of this evaluation took place at the Board meeting on 7/20, and you can watch the video by clicking here.

Section V: Board Operations:

Our Board:
1. holds our meetings in compliance with applicable statutes, policies and bylaws. 3.8 (3)
2. provides a climate that allows free, open and orderly discussion by all members at our meetings. 3.7 (2)
3. develops and utilizes skills in teamwork, consensus-building, collaborative problem solving and decision-making. 3.0 (2)
4. uses good decision-making processes, acting only after all appropriate information has been received and studies. 3.2 (2)
5. acts only after giving administration time to gather information and make recommendations. 3.4 (3)
6. respects the administration's leadership by thoughtfully deliberating on recommendations. 3.4 (3)
7. provides time, funding and opportunity for orienting and updating our members on local, county, state and federal levels in accordance with statutory travel regulations. 3.2 (3)
8. Our board method of governance contributes to overall effectiveness and efficiency of the board. 3.2 (2)
9. Our board method of governance has clearly defined bylaws. 3.0 (2)
10. Our board method of governance lessens the total work of board members. 3.1 (3)
11. Our board method of governance ensures appropriate communication to the board. 3.2 (2)

As a board member, I:
A. introduce new issues through the agenda process, allowing sufficient time for appropriate study. 3.0 (3)
B. recognize the importance of teamwork, problem solving and effective decision-making. 3.4 (3)
C. attend workshops to increase my effectiveness as a board member. 2.4 (3)

OK, so this is where we see some differences of opinion...and I wish we knew which opinions belong to Board members and which are administrators. I guess it's good that everything falls into "adequate" or above -- except for one, about our "clearly defined bylaws," which some rated "unsatisfactory." Something else to follow-up on...

Section VI: Board Performance:

Our Board members:
1. recognize that authority rests with the board as a whole, sitting in a legally authorized board meeting. 3.9 (4)
2. make every effort to attend all board meetings, coming prepared and having done their homework. 3.8 (4)
3. recognize the need for, and the importance of, confidentiality. 3.8 (4)
4. work together in an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect. 3.1 (4)
5. ensure that all members have input into decisions. 3.4 (4)
6. avoid even the appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest. 3.9 (4)
7. operates in accordance with the board member's Code of Ethics and the Ethics Act. 3.9 (4)

As a board member, I:
A. make no personal promises nor take any private action. 3.6 (4)
B. make every effort to attend all meetings, having done my homework and prepared to contribute. 3.8 (4)
C. maintain the confidentiality of board proceedings. 3.6 (4)
D. am respectful of everyone at our meetings and I listen with an open mind. 3.6 (4)
E. adhere to ethical standards. 3.6 (4)

Clearly, we feel we operate ethically, honestly and confidentially. I'm a bit concerned that someone feels there is a lack of mutual respect (hence the lower score for #4). Unfortunately, the confidentiality of this process makes it hard to follow-up and resolve those issues, at least in this process. Something to work on...

The next post on this topic will cover Board/Superintendent Relationships and Board/Staff Relationships.

BOE 08-09 Self-Evaluation: Student Achievement & Finance

OK, in the interest of pacing...I thought I'd combine two sections tonight.

I'm not going to re-list the points system. You can click here to see what the ratings of 1-2-3-4 mean. Also, remember that the presentation and discussion of this evaluation took place at the Board meeting on 7/20, and you can watch the video by clicking here.

Section III. Student Achievement:

Our Board:
1. determines the district educational goals with input and data from administration. 3.7 (2)
2. requires written curriculum with specific evaluation components in accordance with all statutes. 3.8 (4)
3. requires systematic evaluation of and feedback on the instructional program. 3.6 (3)
4. uses the expertise of the professional staff, in development of curriculum, insuring it is focused on student achievement. 3.8 (4)
5. monitors the effectiveness of our instructional programs by measuring student achievement aqgainst state and local standards and other pertinent data. 3.8 (4)
6. sets high standards for all students based on multiple, assessment measures. 3.7 (3)

As a Board member, I:
A. am involved in determining district educational goals. 3.4 (3)
B. am aware of the communitiy's educational aspirations. 3.4 (3)
C. focus on improving student achievement as a basis in my educational decision-making. 3.4 (3)

The comments in this section focused on our work on the elementary math textbook process over the past year, as well as future evaluations of the new middle school schedule.

Section IV. Finance

Our Board:
1. exercises financial oversigh of all aspects of district operations in accordance with statutes. 3.6 (3)
2. provides policy guidelines and parameters, related to our goals, for budget development/evaluation. 3.4 (2)
3. requires that all requests for unbudgeted expenditures be accompanied by specific indication of need and funding sources. 3.3 (2)
4. balances the educational needs of students with the impact of budgetary increases. 3.8 (3)
5. reviews, understands and evaluates all financial reports to ensure that all educational dollars are used in an efficient and effective manner. 3.4 (4)

As a Board member, I:
A. understand the relationship between our budget and our district's goals. 3.4 (3)
B. understand and participate in our district's budgeting process. 3.4 (3)
C. understand and review the monthly reports. 2.8 (3)
D. understand and review the results of the annual audit. 3.0 (2)

Comments in this section talked about the work in developing this year's budget and making tough decisions on cuts.

So, there you have it. The next sections of the self-evaluation cover Board Operations and Board Performance.

BOE 08-09 Self-Evaluation: Policy

continued...

This is a continuation of my previous post on our Board self-evaluation, which was discussed at the 7/20 Board meeting (click here for webcast).

Reminder: Board members (and administrators) rated each statement on a scale of 1-4:
1 = Unsatisfactory.
2 = Adequate
3 = Good
4 = Commendable
("Not Observed" was also an option)

Each section has two subsections: "About the Board" and "About You, the Board Member." (Only Board members rated the statements in the second subsection.)

I will share the average scores for each statement about the Board and about Board members, and then for the individual self evaluation, I'll also tell you the score I gave myself (in parentheses).

So here we go. Tonight let's look at...

Section 2: Policy:

Our Board:
1. operates as a "policy-making body." 3 (2)
2. develops broad policies that give the administration sufficient authority and latitude to manage the day-to-day operations. 3.3 (2)
3. uses written policies as the framework for our decision-making process. 3.4 (3)
4. reviews and updates the policy manual regularly as required by NJQSAC insuring that our bylaws, policies and procedures reflect current regulatory, and statutory requirements. 3 (2)
5. ensures that the administration develops appropriate procedures and regulations to implement the board's policy intent. 3.2 (2)

As a board member, I:
A. am familiar with the Board's policies. 2.6 (2)
B. use Board policy as a basis for decision-making. 3 (3)
C. leave policy implementation to the administrative staff. 3 (3)
D. avoid involvement in day-to-day operations of the district. 3 (2)

As you may know, school boards are supposed to be concerned primarily with policy. Our Board of Ed hired a firm, Strauss Esmay, to review, revise and update our entire policy manual. We will be reviewing the result of their work sometime in the next few months.

My next Board Self-Evaluation post will cover Student Achievement.

BOE 08-09 Self-Evaluation: Planning

As I suggested the other day, let's go through the 08-09 Board Self-Evaluation. Keep in mind, this is the first time I've done this. I'm not sure how helpful it will be, but let's give it a try. I feel like sharing the info with you, although I'm not prepared to do a deep analysis right now. If you have any questions, I'll answer as best I can from my personal perspective. (And please let me know if you think this is helpful, or interesting, or a waste of time, or...)

As the Board discussed this evaluation at our July 20 meeting, we did start working on goals for the 09-10 school year, and those goals were definitely informed, in part, by this discussion. Those goals will be discussed and approved at future (soon) Board meetings.

First, some definitions.

Board members (and administrators) rated each statement on a scale of 1-4:
1 = Unsatisfactory.
2 = Adequate
3 = Good
4 = Commendable
("Not Observed" was also an option)

Each section has two subsections: "About the Board" and "About You, the Board Member." (Only Board members rated the statements in the second subsection.)

I will share the average scores for each statement about the Board and about Board members, and then for the individual self evaluation, I'll also tell you the score I gave myself (in parentheses).

So here we go. Tonight let's look at...

Section 1: Planning:

Our Board:
1. with broad community input, established a district wide vision, mission and multi-year plan for education. 3.0
2. plans, and collaboratively sets district and board goals and establishes priorities annually. 3.2
3. reviews Action Plans developed to support the goals. 3.0
4. regularly monitors progress towards achieving the district's vision, mission and goals making adjustments as needed. 3.1

As a board member, I:
A. participate fully in the district planning process. 2.6 (1)
B. recognize the importance of meaningful public participation in the planning process. 3.4 (4)
C. support the district vision, mission and goals. 3.2 (3)

The next Board Self-Evaluation post will cover Policy.

Board of Ed Self-Evaluation discussed at July 20 meeting

It’s time to start getting in gear for the new school year, so I thought I’d set things up with some reflection on last year.

A little background…
The state requires Boards of Education to conduct self-evaluations each year, and actually Ridgewood has been doing an annual evaluation since long before the state required it. Currently, we use the services of the New Jersey School Boards Association. NJSBA gives us a Self-Evaluation form, which is completed by members of the BOE, Dr. Fishbein, and members of the “cabinet” (Mrs. Botsford and Mr. DeSimone)*. Each topic includes questions about the Board’s performance, and then questions for individual Board members to evaluate their individual performance. We all completed our evaluations, which consist of questions with ratings from 1 to 5 plus the opportunity for free-form comments, and then our NJSBA compiles the responses and brings us back a report. We don’t know how individual members answered, and we don’t know which comments are from whom (although, between you and me, sometimes a particular “voice” was recognizable in the comments!).

Like all our meetings, the one on July 20 where we discussed our self-evaluation was public, although no one was in attendance at the Ed Center and I think I heard that no one had yet tuned in to the webcast a couple hours into it. (It is, of course, posted on the district website, so if you’re interested, you can view it by clicking here.) While the meeting was public, we try to use the evening as a chance to speak candidly about the job we’re doing. Or at least, I want to speak candidly. But it those darn cameras definitely have an affect (in my opinion).

One of the purposes of the self-evaluation is to help us identify challenges facing the district and to guide us as we develop Board and District goals for the school year.

I think I’d like to share some of the ratings from our self-evaluation, just so you can see where some of the conversation was focused. I do think it’s interesting that we have a wide range of opinions on some questions. To me, the range of the scores is in some ways more interesting (or potentially alarming) than the compiled average scores. If we all rate something differently, doesn’t our lack of alignment or different perceptions mean something?

Anyway, the evaluation covered the following categories:

Planning
Policy
Student Achievement
Finance
Board Operations
Board Performance
Board/Superintendent Relationships
Board/Staff Relationships
Board & Community

Over the next week or so, I will report on our self-evaluation for each of these categories. First up will be Planning...

*Almost forgot to explain the asterisk! One of the discussions at the Board table on 7/20 revolved around the issue of who participated in the evaluation process. My personal opinion is since it's a self-evaluation, it should only be completed by members of the Board of Ed. Let me be clear: I respect Mr. DeSimone and Mrs. Botsford and I would like to hear their evaluation of the Board's performance, but I think that is a separate conversation. I think the evaluation would be a much more powerful and useful tool if it contained only the opinions of Board members (and possibly Dr. Fishbein, who I was told is technically a non-voting member of the Board). Apparently, according to our NJSBA rep, "most" districts do include administrators in the evaluation process. I think that's odd. We agreed that we would discuss the issue next spring prior to the evaluation, and decide what we want to do.