Making the grade

File photo: Dr. Diane Gullett, the Superintendent of Marion County Public Schools, listens as people speak and hold signs against pornography during the “Citizen Emergency Rally To Stop Pornographic Books” in Marion County Public Schools libraries rally during a meeting of the Marion County Public School Board in Ocala, Fla. on Tuesday, March 28, 2023. [Bruce Ackerman/Ocala Gazette] 2023.

In 2020, Dr. Diane Gullett made local history by becoming the first person in more than 150 years to be appointed, not elected, to oversee Marion County public schools. She recently added another milestone to her credentials: the first school superintendent in the county to receive a public evaluation.

Gullett, in the third and final year of her first contract with Marion County Public Schools (MCPS), received a cumulative score of 3.32 out of 4 from the Marion County School Board during its May 25 work session. The scores were accompanied by praise from members about Gullett’s leadership skills along with acknowledging there is more work to be done to improve the district.

Each board member summarized the reasoning behind their scores and discussed them with Gullett before the session. With all five board members’ scores integrated, the cumulative score of 3.32 placed Gullett above an “effective” rating in her evaluation, noting her ability to produce high-quality work for the schools, students, and staff within Marion County.

“It’s been an honor to serve Marion County Public Schools as its first appointed superintendent,’’ Gullett read in a prepared statement. “The role has required leading a new governance model for the district, creating systems to recognize the need for continuous improvement and re-engage in the community as partners in our work to serve each and every student.”

The evaluation included the five goals outlined in the MCPS’ Achieve 2026 Five-Year Strategic Plan and an additional goal intended to evaluate professionalism. These six areas were valued to determine competency:

Goal 1 is student success, which aims to increase achievement, access, and opportunities for students in the district.

Goal 2 is to create a safe, supportive and positive learning and working environment for students and staff.

Goal 3 is to improve talent management, striving to ensure diverse surroundings and staff in schools.

Goal 4 is better fiscal and operational efficiency, ensuring resources adapt and align with the district’s strategic plan.

Goal 5 of improving community engagement and communications works to form partnerships, furthering productivity and collaboration.

Goal 6, as outlined in the evaluation, requires the superintendent to represent the district positively and to demonstrate leadership, upholding the strategic plan and updating board members of its progress.

After taking into consideration Gullett’s ability to act on each, the board scored each goal by rating her performance as highly effective, 4; effective, 3; progressing, 2; or unsatisfactory, 1.

For Gullett to be ranked highly effective at a 4 in a category, her work would have had to exceed expectations and surpass the targets described for each goal.

To score a 3, her performance level would have had to be effective, and her actions accomplishing progress for the plan. This score means she is on target with the goals and that tasks are met promptly.

At a progressing level of 2, corrective action needs to be taken as measures do not meet the expectations set in the plan.

To be unsatisfactory, with the score of 1, she would have had to fail to perform services altogether. However, Gullett did not receive a 1 in any category of her evaluations.

Results

The highest average score of 3.57 was given by Vice Chair Nancy Thrower, with mostly 4 values for the superintendents’ efforts. Thrower said she looks forward to continued work with Gullett.

Board Member Lori Conrad rated Gullett’s performance level at an average score of 3.38.

“Dr. Gullett is an outstanding leader and Marion County is fortunate to have such a knowledgeable and dedicated superintendent,’’ Conrad said in her evaluation summary. “She continues to build her leadership team as well as district staff, while equipping them with the best tools to move our district forward in raising student achievement.”

Board Member Eric Cummings gave Gullett an average score of 3.28 and expressed in his evaluation summary that he does not agree with the scoring system. He valued many categories under a 2.5, displaying a score between the effective and progressing levels. Cummings said the description of progressing had a negative connotation and should instead correlate with “improvement.”

Board Chair Allison Campbell distributed 3’s and 4’s across her evaluation with an average score of 3.24. She shared in her summary that despite the challenges in the school district today, Gullett is the right leader for MCPS.

“It’s not easy to make the significant changes needed in our schools and district overnight, nor should we expect instantaneous change. This district has come a long way in a few years and with consistent leadership from the top, driving us to help every student succeed, we will achieve our goals by 2026 if not before,” Campbell said.

The lowest average score, of 3.14, came from Board Member Sarah James.

“I believe this evaluation acknowledges that while the majority of the areas are effective, there is still much work to be done to become an ‘A’ rated district. Our district, as Dr. Gullett has referred to before as a ‘turn-around district,’ has grave needs throughout. There is much heavy lifting to complete, but Dr. Gullett continues to demonstrate the willingness and drive to complete this tireless work,” James said.

Remarks

In the work session, Campbell commented she felt the assessment was missing a self-evaluation tool for Gullett to evaluate herself on accomplishments and what she needs to work on in her role as superintendent. Campbell also advocated including documentation to support the grading system and goals.

James, Cummings, Thrower and Conrad all gave input on the progressing tool rating and how its connotation should be a continual growth effort, not a lacking factor. They requested a language change in the evaluation system to improve the words’ meaning.