McCoy wasn't very responsive to parents, as I recall. As in, not even a note or return e-mail to say "I got your message." I don't remember him being very involved in the community, starting any big new initiatives, or any of the things that Bailey has done.
When McCoy left, the status of computers in our schools was something out of the stone age. Impoverished county systems all around us had better equipment than we did. Bailey changed that.
Dr. Smallridge was, and is, first-rate. But that was in different times, when issues of funding shortfalls, No Child Left Behind, and other current challenges were not even dreamed of. That doesn't mean that Smallridge never faced crises (he did), but they were different crises, and the internet was not yet widely-enough used to provide the kind of minute-by-minute commentary and news distribution that occurs today.
NM -
How did McCoy and Smallridge's evaluations compare? Were they evaluated on the same criteria?
Trina, I'm not certain. I suppose one could go back to the old minutes to see if the criteria were the same, and what the outcome of those evaluations were.
The evaluation form is one that is provided by
TSBA, and it's reasonably thorough, I think. I'm much less satisfied with the "Board self-evaluation" form, which is not very effective in my opinion.
My question is why would anyone even care? Comparing people is ridiculous. People have different work styles, different strengths and weaknesses etc. Times are different and responsibilites change and so do job responsibilites. It is like comparing apples to oranges. People need to be judged for the job they do not for the job someone else did.
My question is why would anyone even care? Comparing people is ridiculous. People have different work styles, different strengths and weaknesses etc. Times are different and responsibilites change and so do job responsibilites. It is like comparing apples to oranges. People need to be judged for the job they do not for the job someone else did.
I tend to agree with you. I do wonder, however, if our supers (and boards for that matter) have all historically received high marks. If that were the case, then perhaps there needs to be some adjustment in the criteria or methodology. How else does one truly distinguish greatness from mediocrity or even failure?
I expect that failure would be fairly obvious in the short term, but to distinguish greatness from mediocrity (for the Superintendent) would take a longer time frame. Recruiting administrators who can hire and manage the very best staff, oversee the implementation of the best teaching practices, takes a few years to measure. Things like sound financial management are easier to measure over shorter periods, like one year.
Managing really big changes like building a new high school, on time, and (hopefully!) on budget, bringing district technology up to a somewhat workable level on a shoestring budget, and meeting mandates with as little disruption as possible are some of the things that would separate "average" from "great" in my estimation. In a school system like ours, it's not too hard to manage status quo (as though there is such a thing); what's harder is to bring actual improvements in tough economic times.
We haven't achieved nirvana or anything like that, but I do feel that we're moving in the right direction, and that we've got some good momentum going.