Hey Y’all! In this post, I’m sharing notes from the most recent Memphis-Shelby County Schools Evaluation Committee meeting. This session was packed with critical discussions, including the evaluation process for Superintendent Dr. Feagins and the ongoing debate over the weighting of key competencies like student achievement and staff relations.

The board and superintendent are working through these important decisions as they finalize the evaluation tool by the October 25 deadline. Below, you’ll find key insights, proposals, and updates on where things stand. Please let me know if I have presented any inaccurate or misleading information.

Before you dive in! If you want to stay updated on the latest developments within Memphis-Shelby County Schools and beyond, be sure to subscribe to my newsletter for in-depth insights, resources, and updates delivered straight to your inbox.

And don’t forget to hop over and subscribe to my YouTube channel, where I break down key education topics, share actionable tips, and reflect on the impact of policies and decisions in our schools.

Evaluation Committee Meeting Notes

• The evaluation process must be finalized by October 25. The board has recommended using the current evaluation instrument for the 2024-2025 school year, which the superintendent has agreed to. However, key decisions are still pending, including the determination of competency weights, incorporation of quantitative measures, and the timeline and process for both informal and formal evaluations.
• During the most recent evaluation meeting, the board proposed the following weights for each competency:
  • Student Achievement (SA): 25%
  • Business and Finance (BF): 20%
  • Governance and Board Relations (GB): 20%
  • Community Relations (CR): 15%
  • Staff Relations (SR): 20%
• The superintendent recommended maintaining the original weights from previous evaluations, advocating for Student Achievement to be 30% and Staff Relations to be 15%. She has rejected the board’s proposed changes, preferring to keep the competency weights the same as before.
• The board has decided to retain the qualitative measures currently in the evaluation instrument and requested that the superintendent propose quantitative measures that align with the priorities outlined in the 2024-2025 budget. It was noted that the superintendent’s contract requires more specific evaluation criteria than board policy. The contract stipulates that the evaluation must be completed no later than May 1, and the superintendent must receive a 14-day notice prior to the evaluation. Therefore, the exact evaluation date still needs to be determined.
• Commissioner Huett-Garcia explained the justification for the board recommended weights stating that the board averaged the suggested weight changes and found the most significant movement for student achievement and staff relations. She emphasized that staff relations should hold equal weight to board relations, given the importance of staff in the district. She stated that student achievement should remain the highest priority, which is why the board set it at 25%.
• Commissioner Otey supported increasing the weight for staff relations, arguing that staff plays a critical role in moving the district forward. She also noted that the board, staff, and superintendent must collaborate closely, and therefore staff relations should be given more emphasis.
• Commissioner McKissack expressed hesitation about changing the evaluation midstream, given that the current instrument had been in use for some time. She suggested keeping the current evaluation model and taking more time to thoughtfully consider changes in the future.
• Commissioner McKinney aligned with commissioners’Huett-Garcia and Otey, emphasizing that the evaluation measures processes, and noted that achieving student success requires strong staff support. She agreed that staff relations should be prioritized.
• Superintendent Feagins stated her preference to keep the evaluation tool unchanged, acknowledging that while there are opportunities to improve it, now is not the right time for those changes. She recognized the current work being done and the opportunities ahead, but emphasized that increasing her evaluation weight at this time would not adequately address the district’s cultural challenges. She stated that she understood why staff relations were prioritized over community relations suggesting the current culture and climate among staff being  a concern the board have.  However, she emphasized the fact that community engagement was highlighted during her candidacy, but now being decreased in weight. 
• Feagins stressed that she is not afraid of being evaluated or held accountable, but believes this is not the moment to modify the evaluation tool in a way that fully reflects her contributions as a leader. She added that what she plans to bring to the district exceeds the expectations of the current tool and that no one can hold her to a higher standard than she holds herself. While she understands the need for formal evaluations, she disagreed with shifting the weight of certain competencies at this time.
• In response, Commissioner McKinney acknowledged Feagins’ points but noted that the board had already engaged in extensive discussions. She reiterated that the spirit and content of the tool remain consistent, with no changes to the qualitative measures. McKinney emphasized the importance of raising the focus on staff relations and recommended that the board move forward with their original recommendations for the weight adjustments.
• Commissioner McKissack raised a question about the next steps in case of dissent during the evaluation process. Commissioner Williams pointed out a concern regarding the achievement and growth measure, noting that there is currently no data available for this metric since testing occurs after May 1. He asked how the board would gather the necessary data.
• Tomeka Hart responded by referring to the superintendent’s contract, which specifies that the evaluation must be completed by May 1. She emphasized the importance of collaboration and partnership in the evaluation process, suggesting that the board and the superintendent must agree on the data and evidence to be shared for each competency. The board needs to decide on the instrument to use in partnership with the superintendent, while the superintendent will determine what evidence to present.
• Hart stressed that the evaluation process should be approached with mutual understanding and cooperation, and that the ratings are essential to both the board and the superintendent. She also clarified that the search process for the superintendent involved questions across all competencies, not just community relations.
• Commissioner McKinney added that it would be helpful for the board to review the specific descriptors for each competency.
• Commissioner Huett Garcia clarified that the intention behind increasing the weight of staff relations wasn’t driven by ulterior motives but was simply about recognizing what’s most important for leadership. She expressed willingness to keep the current ratings for now but emphasized that staff relations should be a higher priority in future evaluations. She also stressed the importance of determining quantitative measures for the superintendent’s priorities.
• Commissioner McKissack agreed that adjustments are needed for the evaluation tool, including the weights, but suggested that it’s better to wait and make these changes thoughtfully rather than rushing them before the deadline. She advocated for keeping the current instrument as it is for now and revisiting changes later.
• Commissioner McKinney pointed out that the evaluation measures processes, and while someone could follow all of these steps, it might not result in significant improvement. She emphasized the need to ensure the evaluation reflects the superintendent’s work accurately.
• Superintendent Feagins expressed frustration with the current evaluation tool, stating that it is not effective. She questioned why any changes are being made if the tool itself remains unchanged. According to Feagins, if student achievement is the district’s “North Star,” then its weight should be increased to 30%. She emphasized that if changes are going to be made, the entire tool should be revised, not just parts of it. While she is open to discussing a comprehensive overhaul of the evaluation tool, she acknowledged that there isn’t enough time to implement such changes before the deadline. Additionally, she noted that the level of support and feedback she has received so far has not been high, but her focus remains on prioritizing the needs of students and staff.
• Tomeka Hart advised the board that another meeting is necessary, as there is still no clear agreement on the evaluation process. She pointed out that the discussion has been focused on positions and processes, rather than on what truly needs to be addressed. Hart reminded the board that they have until October 25 to finalize the evaluation tool, and they must decide whether they want to change it entirely. She stressed the importance of determining the most critical elements to measure and recommended that the board schedule at least two more meetings to resolve these issues.
• Commissioner Otey emphasized the importance of focusing on staff relations, stating that there can be no student achievement without the support and well-being of staff. She highlighted that there has been a significant emphasis on staff relations this season. Commissioner McKinney sought clarification on what exactly the board had asked the superintendent to bring to the meeting.
• Tomeka Hart responded by encouraging the board to focus on what the district needs to move forward. She suggested that the board has the flexibility to be creative in weighting the evaluation competencies. Hart reminded the board that this process is being done now due to policy requirements and the superintendent’s contract, stressing the importance of aligning their decisions with the district’s priorities.
• Commissioner Williams inquired if staff input was included in the evaluation process. Tomeka Hart clarified that the board can make its own recommendations and shouldn’t wait for others to dictate the process, adding that the board is closer to consensus than they might think. Commissioner Love reiterated her long-standing advocacy for a new evaluation system that maintains a focus on student achievement while also incorporating teacher input.
• Commissioner McKinney asked for Superintendent Feagins’ input, and she outlined the following priorities for consideration:
  • Priority 1: Improve academic growth, achievement, and literacy levels for all students.
    • Grades 3-5: From 25.4% to 27.4%
    • Grades 6-8: From 17% to 19%
    • Grades 9-12: From 24.6% to 26.6%
  • Priority 2: Recruit and increase the retention of the most effective district leaders and teachers in the nation for our students.
    • Decrease teacher and instructional vacancies by 1%
    • Reduce the number of unlicensed teachers by 2%
  • Priority 3: Prepare students for the global workforce through rigorous coursework and certifications in supportive, high-quality facilities and learning environments.
    • Expand Career and Technical Education (CTE) program offerings from 47 to 49
    • Increase on-track students from 88.2% to 89%
    • Raise dual enrollment participation by 2%

The meeting concluded without clear next steps or a scheduled date for the next evaluation committee meeting. As always, I’ll keep you updated as soon as new information becomes available.

In the meantime, here are the notes from the latest board committee meeting. Be sure to sign up for my newsletter to stay informed on all developments.

Staff relations was a major focus tonight, so I encourage you to check out my latest YouTube video where I dive deep into the staff relations competency, discuss how it’s measured, and review how Dr. Feagins has been performing in this critical area so far.