Outcome-based evaluations for all!

MNPS Superintendent Jesse Register will be evaluated in a new way, per Joey Garrison at The Tennessean:

The Metro school board in the coming months is planning to overhaul the way it evaluates the director of schools’ performance annually to also include student outcomes — a move that is believed to be a first for the district. The change, to be a part of a larger still-undefined rubric, comes as the state is in the middle of its second year of teacher evaluations that factor in students’ test scores and growth.

This is an improvement. I don't wish to see Register lose his job or be humiliated by a poor review. A better evaluation process isn't about the person; it's about a position. This establishes a better practice of governance. As someone who thinks student outcomes matter most, it makes sense that part of an educator's evaluation should include how much their students grow. Though superintendents aren't in the classroom directly influencing students, they make decisions that profoundly influence how well students do over time. 

I'm also pleased to see who is chairing the relevant committee:

“There certainly is accountability at the teacher level and the principal level, and in many ways, this is no different,” said school board member Elissa Kim, who is heading the board’s director’s evaluation committee.

As I argued this summer, I can't think of a better person to chair a committee designing a fair and thorough evaluation. Having someone lead this who is familiar with best practices from districts and nonprofits across the country bodes well for good governance. Garrison describes the changes here:

Kim, who oversees evaluations routinely through her work as executive vice president of recruitment for Teach For America, said the existing criteria includes only “process steps” in which to hold the superintendent accountable: cost management, HR and people management and communications, among a list of several others. 

Register, whose contract with Metro runs through 2015, supports the change in scoring, calling it “appropriate” to take student outcomes into account.

“The old evaluation was heavily process-oriented, and the new approach will be more balanced,” he said. 

I have no idea if revamping the superintendent's review was in the works before the new board took office or if this is a new idea. I'm sure other members besides Kim have played a part in putting this together. For all involved, it's a step in the right direction.