Could Kentucky teachers give input on a principal’s formal performance evaluation?

Plain-English summary

A teachers association asked whether a superintendent could seek and consider teachers’ views when formally evaluating a school principal, and whether a district evaluation committee could require that input. The Attorney General concluded that teacher comments could be considered when they concerned the principal’s stated professional performance criteria. An evaluation committee could include a teacher-input requirement in its procedures, subject to approval by the district and the Kentucky Board of Education.

The opinion treated the superintendent or other authorized official as the evaluator. Teachers who supplied comments did not thereby become certified evaluators. It also quoted the Kentucky Department of Education’s view that a judgment in the final evaluation should rest on firsthand information or reliable supporting evidence. Comments unrelated to the criterion being assessed could not be used for that part of the evaluation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2001. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a Kentucky superintendent ask teachers about a principal’s performance? A: The Attorney General said yes under the regulation then in force, provided the comments related to the principal’s professional performance criteria.

Q: Could a district evaluation plan require the superintendent to consider teacher comments? A: Yes. The opinion said an evaluation committee could write such a procedure, but the district and the Kentucky Board of Education had to approve the plan.

Q: Did a teacher who commented become an official evaluator of the principal? A: No. The opinion distinguished contributing information from serving as a trained, approved performance evaluator.

Q: Could a personal complaint unrelated to an evaluation criterion affect the principal’s score? A: The opinion said comments could be considered only when they related specifically to the professional responsibility being evaluated.

Background and statutory framework

KRS 156.557 established statewide evaluation standards. The opinion said large districts such as Jefferson County had an exemption from some statutory procedures, but still had to meet standards set by the Kentucky Board of Education. The regulation, 704 KAR 3:345, called for district evaluation plans, specified evaluators and permitted observation and other documentation. The Attorney General read those information-gathering provisions to allow relevant teacher input while keeping formal evaluation responsibility with trained personnel.

Citations and references

Statute: KRS 156.557.

Regulation: 704 KAR 3:345.

Source

• Landing page: https://kdla.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_279df999-e06a-47cc-904e-c212d458ef0d/
• Original PDF: https://kdla.access.preservica.com/download/file/IO_279df999-e06a-47cc-904e-c212d458ef0d

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.

OAG 01-10

December 21, 2001

Subject: Authority of school superintendents to solicit or con- sider the comments and opinions of teachers in eval- uating the job performance of school principals.

Requested by: Stephen B. Neal, Executive Director
Jefferson County Teachers Association

Written by: Jennifer L. Carrico, Assistant Attorney General

Syllabus: The Kentucky Board of Education may grant superin- tendents the authority to solicit or consider the com- ments and opinions of teachers in evaluating the job performance of school principals.

Statutes construed: KRS 156.557, 704 KAR 3:345

Opinion of the Attorney General

The Jefferson County Teachers Association requests an opinion of the At- torney General on the following issues:

1. Could a school superintendent or assistant school superintendent
   lawfully solicit or consider the comments and opinions of teachers in evaluating the job performance of school principals?

2. Could an evaluation committee established pursuant to KRS
   156.557(3)(c) create evaluation plans and procedures that would re-

OAG 01-10
Page 2

quire a superintendent or an assistant superintendent to consider the comments and suggestions of teachers in evaluating the perfor- mance of school principals?

ANALYSIS

Job performance evaluations for certified school personnel are governed by Chapter 156 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes. Section 557 of KRS 156 re- quires the Kentucky Board of Education to establish statewide standards govern- ing performance evaluations and identifies the performance criteria on which certified personnel should be evaluated. Id. Paragraph 7 of Section 557 provides that:

Local school districts with an enrollment of sixty-five thou- sand (65,000) or more students shall have an evaluation system but shall be exempt from procedures or processes described in this section as long as the plan meets the standards established by the Kentucky Board of Education for local school district evaluation systems. The local plan shall include an appeals process for employees who be- lieve they were not fairly evaluated.

Id. This paragraph exempts the Jefferson County public school system from the requirements of KRS 156.557. However, that county is required to comply with administrative regulations promulgated by the Kentucky Board of Education es- tablishing minimum performance evaluation standards for certified school per- sonnel.

The Kentucky Board of Education has promulgated a regulation that es- tablishes performance evaluation standards for certified school personnel and guides local school districts in developing their own evaluation systems. 704 KAR 3:345. That regulation requires local school districts to develop perfor- mance evaluation plans for school personnel including school principals. Id. An “evaluation committee” for each school district develops the forms and proce- dures that implement the school district’s plan. 704 KAR 3:345. In practical ap- plication, the evaluation committee creates the evaluation plan under the direc-

OAG 01-10
Page 3

tion of the local school district, and the evaluation plan then is approved by the Kentucky Board of Education. Id.

The regulation promulgated by the Kentucky Board of Education does not appear to prohibit superintendents from considering the comments and opinions of faculty when conducting a principal’s performance evaluation. Under 704 KAR 3:345, an “evaluation” is defined in part as:

(a) The process of assessing or determining the effective- ness of the performance of the certified employee ina given teaching and learning or leadership and manage- ment situation, and based in predetermined criteria, through periodic observation and other documentation in- cluding a portfolio, peer review, product or performance; and

Id.(emphasis added). This regulation permits the superintendent to analyze the principal’s performance under each criterion using “other documentation.” Id. The term “other documentation” is not defined by the regulation; however, it may be interpreted to encompass the comments and opinions of faculty. Cf. United States v. Ables, 167 F.3d 1021 (1999) cert. denied 119 S.Ct. 2378 (2000) (when interpreting a statute, courts must look first and foremost to the text of the statute); Mc Barron v. S&T Industries, Inc., 771 F.2d 94 (6" Cir. 1985) (courts must initially look to the plain language of the statute to determine the meaning of the enactment).

The comments and opinions of faculty might also effectively be incorpo- rated into the observation process. According to 704 KAR 3:345, observing the employee is a substantial part of the evaluation process. “Observation” is de- fined in the regulation as “a process of gathering information in the performance of duty, based on predetermined criteria in the district plan.” 704 KAR 3:345. This language permits the superintendent to “gather information’ to assist in the evaluation. Id. The comments and opinions of faculty might be one component of that information.

In practical application, the information gathered or observed regarding the performance of school principals must be analyzed according to the criteria established in 704 KAR 3:345. The evaluation is conducted using a list of perfor-

OAG 01-10
Page 4

mance criteria “characteristic of effective teaching or administrative practices.” Id. The principal’s performance is recorded using “specific descriptors or indica- tors that can be measured or observed and recorded.” Id. In other words, the principal is evaluated strictly on the basis of his or her professional responsibili- ties that are described in the performance evaluation criteria. For this reason, comments and opinions of faculty may be considered only if they relate specifi- cally to those criteria.

For example, if the criterion on which the principal is evaluated is the principal’s “knowledge and understanding of administrative functions,” then a faculty member’s opinion regarding the principal’s interpersonal skills is irrele- vant to the evaluation. Similarly, faculty opinions regarding the principal’s knowledge or understanding of a particular academic subject cannot be consid- ered if the principal is to be evaluated specifically on the basis of his or her “ad- herence to the professional code of ethics.”

Likewise, faculty members who are not certified performance evaluators but who nevertheless submit comments regarding a principal’s job performance cannot be considered official performance “evaluators.” Under 704 KAR 3:345(4) (1)(a), the immediate supervisor of the principal, or the superintendent, is the principal’s “primary evaluator.” Id. The regulation also authorizes the use of “additional trained administrative personnel” to “observe and provide informa- tion” to the primary evaluator. Id. The regulation requires these persons to be “trained, tested and approved as an evaluator by the Kentucky Department of Education.” 704 KAR 3:345(6)(1). Persons trained to conduct performance evalu- ations receive specific instruction on performance criteria and how to analyze an employee’s performance under those specific criteria. Id. Presumably, because the primary evaluator receives extensive training on how to conduct perfor- mance evaluations, he or she understands how to consider the comments and opinions of faculty.

This interpretation of 704 KAR 3:345 comports with the interpretation of that regulation by the Kentucky Department of Education, which states:

Nothing in the relevant statute or regulation would prohibit a primary evaluator from conversing with teachers regard- ing the performance of a principal. At the same time, the primary evaluator should only use information about the performance of the evaluatee that the primary evaluator

OAG 01-10
Page 5

has seen first hand or is supported with reliable evidence, when making a performance judgment that will be included in the summative evaluation.

Because 704 KAR 3:345 authorizes the evaluator to consider “other infor- mation” when conducting the performance evaluation, an evaluation committee may create evaluation plans and procedures that require a superintendent or an assistant superintendent to consider the comments and suggestions of teachers in evaluating the performance of school principals. Section (1) of 704 KAR 3:345 re- quires local school districts to appoint evaluations committees that “develop evaluation procedures and forms” for performance evaluations. Id. However, the procedures developed by the evaluation committee are subject to approval by the local school district as well as the Kentucky Board of Education. 704 KAR 3:345(2)(3).

CONCLUSION

The process of conducting performance evaluations for Jefferson County school principals is carefully regulated by the Kentucky Board of Education in 704 KAR 3:345. The Board requires that all persons conducting performance evaluations for certified school personnel be trained, tested and certified. Addi- tionally, the Board requires that employees be evaluated on the basis of criteria specifically related to the employee’s professional responsibilities. During the evaluation process, superintendents evaluating principals may consider “other documentation” and “gather information” regarding the principal's job perfor- mance. According to this formal evaluation process, comments and opinions of faculty regarding the performance of school principals may be considered by the superintendent if those comments and opinions relate specifically to the princi- pal’s professional responsibilities.

Albert B. Chandler, III
Attorney General

Jennifer L. Carrico
Assistant Attorney General

OAG 01-10
Page 6