Recent years have raised legitimate questions about the Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS) superintendent evaluation process—specifically regarding the near-perfect ratings in 2023 and 2026. In 2023, Dr. Swift received a score within a few hundredths of perfection just prior to a negotiated resignation that cost the district nearly $400,000, which was quickly followed by the news of a $25 million budget shortfall. In 2026, Superintendent Parks received a remarkably similar 2.97 out of 3.00, despite ongoing labor negotiation deadlocks and community concerns over transparency. For a district that prides itself on educational excellence and rigorous standards, the disconnect between these glowing official performance reviews and our operational realities has further eroded public trust in the school board. Furthermore, virtually the same rating was given to the superintendent who led the district into a massive deficit as to the one who has begun to rebuild the fund balance.
My question is not about whether either individual deserved a positive review, but rather about the mechanics of the evaluation tool itself: Is the evaluation framework designed in a way where nearly perfect marks are the default? Right now, AAPS evaluates its superintendent using a standard Michigan Association of School Boards 3-point rubric, which rates each desired behavior as (1) not present, (2) sometimes present, or (3) consistently present. Frankly, that type of generic checklist fails to highlight real strengths or pinpoint specific weaknesses; if a superintendent simply performs standard administrative duties regularly, they receive top marks. We cannot expect meaningful leadership accountability when the scoring mechanism treats basic operational compliance as peak professional excellence.
We need a more descriptive model built on explicit performance goals developed collaboratively between the board and the superintendent. Meaningful metrics should measure the general health of the school district as well as progress toward goals. Examples of good metrics include:
The board’s evaluation of the superintendent should assess improvement in these metrics over time as well as favorable comparisons to benchmarks from comparable school districts. When specific operational or performance concerns arise, the board and superintendent must use the evaluation process as a tool for proactive course correction. Clear, quantifiable metrics can provide the board with the data needed to evaluate the superintendent’s impact fairly while supporting professional growth. Ultimately, transforming the superintendent evaluation from a passive checklist into a rigorous accountability framework is a vital step toward restoring public confidence and ensuring that district leadership drives real, verifiable results for Ann Arbor’s students.
Superintendent Parks assumed leadership of a district in significant crisis. In the wake of an abrupt administrative transition, the board and community faced deep division over leadership decisions and how they were communicated and executed. Months later, the discovery of a $25 million shortfall placed Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS) under state fiscal monitoring, necessitating a formal Deficit Reduction Plan and $20 million in budget cuts for the 2024–25 school year—including difficult staff and administrative reductions. Over a short span, AAPS navigated the disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic, leadership instability, and a sudden fiscal emergency that unsettled staff and the broader community.
Pending audit confirmation that AAPS sustained a fund balance above 5% through the 2025–26 fiscal year, the district will successfully fulfill its requirements to exit state oversight. Achieving this standard so rapidly was likely a core performance objective shared by the board and superintendent. Incorporating this goal explicitly into the superintendent evaluation framework—along with clear metrics for success—would provide the community with greater clarity and transparency regarding the board’s assessment of leadership performance.