Sean C. Morgan
Recently released information regarding the School Board’s rating of Supt. Don Schrader shows that District 55 School Board board members believe Schrader needs to improve in organization and communication but has done well in curriculum development.
According to information released July 9 to The New Era by Board Chairman Jason Redick, the board gave Schrader an overall rating of 1.84, “needs improvement,” just under a “satisfactory” rating of 2.
The evaluation showed a range of ratings from a low of 1 to a high of 2.8 on nine standards. Each area is rated on a scale of 0 to 4, with 2 representing “satisfactory.”
The superintendent scored between 2 and 3 in curriculum planning and development, his highest score of 2.8; instructional leadership; and labor relations.
He scored between 1 and 2 in leadership and culture, policy and governance, communications and community relations; organizational management, human resources leadership; and values and ethics of leadership, rated at 1, his lowest score.
“We don’t feel that adequate improvement has been made on this standard,” said the summary of the evaluation regarding values and ethics of leadership. “We feel that a lack of organization gives the appearance of deception.”
The board also asked the superintendent to improve setting and keeping appointments with staff and board members and to ensure accurate information is conveyed.
The key issue relating to the Schrader’s rating on values and ethics of leadership was how the trimester schedule reached the board, Redick said. The board approved the 2014-15 calendar prior to a request from high school and junior high staff to switch to a trimester schedule next school year.
Schrader did not have that information at the time the calendar had to be approved, so it didn’t appear with the new calendar, Redick said, adding that better organization could have helped; but “I do not think it was deceptive.”
The rating was substantially tied to the availability of information, Redick said, acknowledging that some of that information changes rapidly with the state providing moving targets for school districts.
For example, it remains unclear whether all-day kindergarten will be mandated in 2015 or simply funded with the option open to districts, he said.
On the other end of the spectrum, the board noted that Curriculum Planning and Development “continues to be your strongest standard,” adding that the board would like more timely updates on changes directed by the state.
In other areas, the board likes the positive direction of the faculty development efforts such as professional learning communities, learning walks and other Friday activities aimed at improving school staffs, while urging more emphasis on college readiness and direction for those who don’t have college as part of their plans.
Schrader has heavily focused on expanding the use of new technology in the schools, including electronic devices and information for board members. The board indicated it would like to see data presented in paper form as well along with more complete data “with unbiased and accurate information” before making recommendations.
The board said that the ESPY awards for students has been a great program, bringing people in and supporting positive communication. The board would like to see more frequent communication through the district website and social media, with better two-way communication with the community.
The board asked the superintendent for more preparation on agenda items so questions could have a response during board meetings.
The board also asked the superintendent to continue accepting direction from the board, remaining open and accepting of board members, community members and staff when they question or disagree with his positions or ideas. The board asked him to collaborate with other administrators and staff to obtain facts up front to support decisions and encourage subordinates to communicate and keep him informed on critical issues.
The board indicated it was uneasy with some recent administrative choices and that not all of the new hires have been the best candidate choice. The board also felt that district morale has dipped slightly and has concerns with some of the promotions. The board would like to go back to being involved in the hiring process.
The board feels that overall labor relations have been good but would like to see grievances and complaints handled “better.”
Redick said he, like Schrader, has some concerns about the evaluation. Of nine board members, only six participated in the evaluation, he said. Kevin Burger, David VanDerlip and Jason Van Eck did not evaluate the superintendent.
Van Eck was newly appointed to the board when the evaluation took place and declined to weigh in for lack of adequate information for an informed opinion.
“I think it skewed it to a certain extent,” Redick said of the two-thirds participation level. “I think it could’ve looked a little different had there been more input, but I can’t say that for sure. My personal opinion, I think he’s doing a good job.”
He said he believes the evaluation is a vital part of board’s responsibility.
“I think it’s one of the most important jobs we do as a School Board,” he said. Members directly oversee the superintendent, who oversees district employees.
The direction the district has taken has not been easy on Schrader, Redick said. For example, he’s taken a large amount of criticism for the four-day week, which the was already a discussion item for budget reductions when Schrader arrived in Sweet Home in July 2011.
Schrader has said a number of times that he could go either way, four or five days, Redick said.
Redick said the evaluation process needs revision, and the board has been discussing changing the standards.
The nine standards overlap, Redick said. He would like to see it cleaner and more concise, directing and clarifying what the board wants. He thinks it should have three levels instead of five.
“It’s too many levels for clear direction, in my opinion,” Redick said. He prefers a three-level system, with “needs improvement,” “meets” and “exceeds.”
“I think the key now is giving clear direction what the board wants to see,” Redick said. That’s the purpose of an evaluation, which is meant to be directive rather than corrective.
The board gave clear directions in its comments, he said, and “there’s already action on these directions. He’s taking action on the direction the board has asked him to go.”
Redick believes Schrader will receive a positive evaluation in six months, when the board evaluates again.