Tuesday, December 12, 2006

2005-06 Annual Superintendent Evaluation

The School Board has completed the annual Superintendent Performance Evaluation and it is posted to the District web site. If the link doesn't work, here is the URL:



Anonymous said...

I agree with much of the assessment but there are two glaring problems.

One, the communications topic. "District communications have been timely, substantive, concise, and well formatted." None of those things as applied to district communications have been done well. I'd give communications a C-/D+.
And no mention of the Board's unhappiness with how Raj carried out Phase II (just that staff had to work a lot on C&C)? They were very unhappy with the way he did not follow their directions on Phase II. It's been cited as the straw that broke the camel's back and yet nothing.

Anonymous said...

I errored in saying they didn't mention Phase II. This assessment was from August to August. Also, this assessment is done from the Board's viewpoint which may differ from staff, teachers, parents, etc. I don't believe communications is doing anywhere near a good job.

Anonymous said...

Pure Fiction. Would very much like to see Superintendent graded much like our children are. He would not pass.

Did this come out of committee? Which committee?

In what context/where was it on the

District Communication piece would suggest that Boardmembers still do not get it and frankly at this point it has to be a conscious choice not to get it and to face-save.

Is there now a new Public Affairs person after the last gentlemen left and the other person was on leave - did not see it posted on vacancies a while back?

Perhaps a performance audit by Auditor Sontag is in order on the issue specifically of communication.

Does anyone know how to request such an audit?

Is the 2006-07 workplan in fact on the web now? Looked a while back and did not find it - is there a reason that committee mtg. minutes are not on the web? Frankly, find the web and public disclosure elements to be insulting at best and illegal at worst.

Might the new executive committee of Chow, Flynn and Stewart focus on these issues? One can hope.

Beth Bakeman said...

Read a funny and accurate comment on the superintendent's evaluation at: Seattlest

Melissa Westbrook said...

I thought the Seattest blog was unkind and unfair.

Beth Bakeman said...

I get why you might call it "unkind", Mel, but why "unfair"?

The language in that evaluation really doesn't make any sense.