HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 Report 04-098 Performance Appraisal of the Director of Education•
o,_J]
OTTAWA CARLETON
DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
/G
March 31, 2004
Report No. 04 -098 to Chairs' Committee
Re: Performance Appraisal of the Director of Education
ORIGINATOR: Lome M. Rachlis, Director of Education
PURPOSE:
To discuss with trustees a process for the performance appraisal of the Director of Education.
BACKGROUND:
2. At the Board meeting of March 8, 2004, trustees approved the following motion, supporting a
policy for the performance appraisal of the Director of Education.
THAT the Ottawa - Carleton District School Board:
A. approve for implementation 1 September 2004, the policy for evaluation of the
performance of the Director of Education;
B. approve the revised job description for the Director of Education;
C. by 31 May 2004, review and make any further appropriate revisions to the job description
for the Director of Education required by the board job description;
D. by 31 May 2004, working collaboratively with the Director of Education, establish
evaluation instruments for evaluation of the Director of Education in accordance with
policy;
E. approve an interim evaluation process for the Director of Education whereby the
Director submits to Committee of the Whole (in camera), in May 2004, a record
of accomplishments for the school year as evidence to be considered in
reviewing the Director's performance for 2003/04, to be sorted by the categories
outlined in section 4.7 of this report, namely: education leadership, fiscal
responsibility, personnel management, policy role, Director/Board relations,
strategic planning and reporting, organizational management, communications
and community relations, and leadership practices. Direct Board observation
shall also be considered as evidence."
STATUS:
3. In order to meet the timelines outlined in part C of this motion, a process will be put
in place to develop the Board's job description. Communication with an outside
facilitator has been initiated to assist with this process.
4. In order to meet the timelines in part D, there is a need to determine which trustees
will work collaboratively with the Director to develop the evaluation instruments.
As well, this group will need to determine the method of collection of `evidence
from direct Board observation', as noted.
5. Policy P.05 LGOV: Evaluation of Director of Education and Secretary of the Board
is attached for reference.
... /2
- 2 -
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT a committee of trustees be struck to meet with the Director to begin the implementation of
the process for the performance appraisal of the Director of Ed uc 'on.
Lome M. Rachlis
Director of Education/
Secretary of the Board
Att.
F]
IN
OTTAWA - CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
/0�1
POLICY P.051.GOV
TITLE: EVALUATION OF DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND SECRETARY OF THE BOARD
Date issued: September 2004
Last Revised:
Authorization: Board 08 March 2004
1.0 OBJECTIVE
To establish the parameters for the evaluation of the Director of Education and Secretary of the Board as a
model of accountability for the school district.
2.0 POLICY
2.1 The Director of Education shall be formally evaluated annually by the Board with all Board
Members participating in the evaluation process.
2.2 The purpose of the evaluation is to provide for professional growth of the Director and to ensure
accountability. To this end, the evaluation shall focus on affirmations, and, where appropriate,
redirection.
2.3 The evaluation of the Director shall be based on duties as assigned in provincial statutes,
regulations, policies and guidelines and on a current job description for the position of Director of
Education.
2.4 The evaluation of the Director shall be based on observable evidence.
2.5 The observable evidence shall be in a manageable form and limited to the amount sufficient to
provide a fair, clear and accurate representation of the performance of the Director.
2.6 The sources of evidence for evaluation of the Director shall be: (a) internal monitoring reports
from the Director to the Board; (b) external monitoring reports; and (c) on direct Board
observation. The evaluation instruments shall be determined by the Board working collaboratively
with the Director and shall be in accordance with all conditions regarding evaluation as specified
in the Director's contract of employment with the Board.
2.7 The annual evaluation cycle shall include:
a) a review with any necessary revisions to the job description of the Director by the Board
by August 31;
b) collaboratively setting goals or deliverables (clear and measurable expectations) by
September 30,
C) upon the request of the Board or the Director a mid -year discussion with no formal report
on progress towards the goals,
4- P.051.GOV
/-7
d) a report from the Director on progress towards the goals by May 15, 140)
e) a discussion with the Director on the report by May 31, and
f) a summative written evaluation by the Board by June 15.
2.7 The Director shall have the opportunity to respond in writing to the written evaluation and the
response shall form part of the record of the evaluation.
-2- P.051.GOV