School Board Gives Superintendent Parsons Positive Annual Evaluation

At their November 12 meeting, the Churchill County School District Board of Trustees conducted the annual performance evaluation for Superintendent Derild Parsons, who has served in his role for just over two years. The Board approved Parsons’ assessment with an overall score of 2.93 on Part I and 2.31 on Part 2, out of a total of 4. (The evaluation rating scale ranges from Highly Effective - 4, Effective - 3, Developing - 2, and Ineffective - 1. Notably, Parsons did not receive any “ineffective” ratings in any area of the evaluation, indicating that the Board found his performance met expectations across all measured standards.

The evaluation tool is a three-part process. Part I of the evaluation rates the superintendent on professional performance standards – including areas of establishing a clear vision for the district, operations, board governance and policy, communication and community relations, and ethical leadership. Part II includes the objective of graduation rate, attendance, absenteeism, CTE program, proficiency targets, and reading achievement. Superintendent Parsons also completed a detailed self‐assessment and provided supporting evidence of the district’s progress under his leadership. By Nevada law, the Board must discuss the superintendent’s performance in a public meeting, so the evaluation results and feedback were reviewed in open session, allowing transparency for the community.

During the Board’s discussion, trustees praised Superintendent Parsons’ overall performance while also reflecting on the evaluation process itself. Several Board members stressed that the annual evaluation should encompass the superintendent’s entire year of work, cautioning against placing too much weight on any single incident or recent issue. “We need to be mindful that this is a year-long evaluation, and it is not wise to take one example to judge a whole year,” Trustee Kathryn Whitaker said, urging a fair, big-picture perspective.

 Trustees also discussed aligning evaluation criteria with the superintendent’s responsibilities and the timing of new initiatives. Whitaker pointed out that one of the evaluation items was actually a Board responsibility, not the superintendent’s, and thus “should never be happening” as part of the superintendent’s review. She raised concerns about evaluating progress on a very recent policy change. “To judge the superintendent on something that was approved two months ago is unfortunate,” referring to a new curriculum pacing policy the Board adopted in September. The consensus was that it would be unfair to criticize the superintendent for not fully implementing a brand-new directive in such a short time. Board President Gregg Malkovich (who led the evaluation discussion) agreed that the evaluation instrument may need refinement so that targets are realistic and within the superintendent’s control.

Remarks also touched on the district’s long-term goals, which the Board set earlier this year. For example, the district has a strategic goal to raise its four-year graduation rate from 84% (in 2024) to 90% by 2027. Because such goals span multiple years, Board members acknowledged that measurable progress will take time. They indicated that future evaluations should account for the timeline of these goals – tracking incremental improvements without expecting the 2027 targets to be met immediately. Overall, trustees expressed confidence that Parsons is moving the district in the right direction toward these objectives, even if some metrics (like higher graduation and proficiency rates) will require sustained effort over several years.

Superintendent Parsons thanked the Board for their feedback and the constructive discussion. He noted that undergoing a public evaluation is challenging but valuable. Parsons reaffirmed his commitment to the district’s mission, stating that he is dedicated to improving student outcomes, supporting staff, and achieving the Board’s long-range goals. He highlighted some of the accomplishments of the past year, including initiatives in curriculum and staff development, and acknowledged areas identified for growth.

The Board evaluation and comments of support appear to signal a strong working relationship between the trustees and Superintendent Parsons. Board members voiced their continued support, with Whitaker stating that they “fully support Mr. Parsons in his work as superintendent and look forward to working with him…so that we can continue to see progress” in the coming years. Both the superintendent and the Board indicated optimism that, by collaborating on the established goals and addressing any concerns raised, the district will continue to improve.