1. Evaluating the Superintendent and the District
A Public Process That Yields a Public Document
A Public Document That Focuses on Results

2. Your Observations, Please
Please discuss with a neighbor:
With regard to superintendent evaluation…
Past - What potential problems or areas of sensitivity have you either experienced, read, or heard about?
Present - What concerns or interests do you have about this topic? 1
What is it about superintendent evaluation that can lead us into sensitive territory? What concerns do you have about superintendent evaluation? By exploring these concerns, we may understand better what good evaluation is and what it isn’t, so that we can focus on what works and achieve its fullest potential. 2
Agenda

3. Agenda Role of the superintendent Problems for boards to avoid
An approach to consider
Our strategy – policy governance
Supt Role

4. The Superintendent Role
Cuban (1998) - Superintendents are expected to succeed at 3 roles:
Instructional
Managerial
Political I
Improve Student Achievement M
Operate Efficiently
Larry Cuban (1998) describes three sometimes-conflicting roles for the superintendent: instructional, managerial, and political. As instructional leaders, they bear ultimate responsibility for improving student achievement. As managerial leaders, they have to keep their districts operating efficiently, with a minimum of friction, yet taking risks to make necessary changes. As political leaders, they have to negotiate with multiple stakeholders to get approval for programs and resources.
Source: Cuban, Larry. "The Superintendent Contradiction." Education Week 18, 7 (September 23, 1998): 56.
Alabama has listed 13 competencies areas, evaluated by trained administrator evaluators, with input from portfolio, :
Communication
Collaboration
Assessment/Evaluation
Organization
Planning
Laws/Policies
Problem Solving
Innovation
Technology Management
School System Management
Fiscal Management/Leadership
Professional Responsibilities
Leadership of Human Resources P
Deal w/Multiple Stakeholders
Standards

5. Standards AASA (1993) Professional Standards for the Superintendency
Leadership and District Culture
Policy and Governance
Communications and Community Relations
Organizational Management
Curriculum Planning and Development
Instructional Management
Human Resources Management
Values and Ethics of Leadership
AASA/NSBA standards first published in 1993.
Standard 1: Leadership and District Culture
Standard 2: Policy and Governance
Standard 3: Communications and Community Relations
Standard 4: Organizational Management
Standard 5: Curriculum Planning and Development
Standard 6: Instructional Management
Standard 7: Human Resources Management
Standard 8: Values and Ethics of Leadership
Sort

6. Standards
AASA (1993) Professional Standards for the Superintendency
Curriculum Planning and Development
Instructional Management
Organizational Management
Human Resources Management
Communications and Community Relations
Policy and Governance
Leadership and District Culture
Values and Ethics of Leadership I M
AASA/NSBA standards first published in 1993.
Standard 1: Leadership and District Culture
Standard 2: Policy and Governance
Standard 3: Communications and Community Relations
Standard 4: Organizational Management
Standard 5: Curriculum Planning and Development
Standard 6: Instructional Management
Standard 7: Human Resources Management
Standard 8: Values and Ethics of Leadership P
Age of Acct

7. Under Accountability
In an age of accountability, superintendents are in danger of being…
“…preoccupied with shoring up their political base and thus unlikely to take the bold steps needed for transforming schools.”
- Lashway (2002)
District leaders serve at the pleasure of the board, and must continually work to maintain credibility and support. In most cases this is a highly interactive and personal process, based more on relationships and impressions than on tangible criteria
Lashway (2002): School boards should work closely with superintendents to clarify their expectations for performance and evaluation. Without strong and highly visible board support, district administrators will be preoccupied with shoring up their political base and thus unlikely to take the bold steps needed for transforming schools.
Source: Larry Lashway, “The Superintendent in an Age of Accountability”, September 2002, ERIC Digest
Role shift

8. Under Accountability I I M M P P Superintendent role shift
Greater focus on student learning
From Manager to Instructional Leader P M I P I M
NCLB's emphasis on academic achievement and accountability has the tendency to shift the role of the superintendency from that of management to that of instructional leader focused on student learning.
Source: Patricia First (2004) “NCLB and the Role of the School District Superintendent” Journal of Law and Education, Jul 2004
Challenge

9. Challenge for Boards
How do we ensure the instructional gets top priority for supt time?
How do we avoid a preoccupation with the managerial/political?
How do we maintain balance?
However:
Even assuming we can somehow get a handle on political distractions, we still find ourselves in a situation where urgent issues in the managerial arena crowd out important issues in the instructional arena.
The challenge for boards and superintendents is: How do we invert the superintendent role pyramid without leaving the superintendent (and the district) inherently unstable?
Along the path to student achievement are strewn the debris of superintendencies and districts tripped up by political and managerial obstacles. I M P
Not this way

10. Not This Way The “blame game” Priorities
Whether from the perspective of the superintendent or that of the board itself, the accountability movement can easily slip into a version of the “blame game” in which the cross-hairs of the public are trained on the board, or the superintendent, or both. Even if the reality is not a blame game, cynics are tempted to consider it that way.
Priorities

11. Board Priorities Have Impact
Lead in the political realm
Supt in supporting role
Support managerial
Delegate/check
Scrutinize the instructional
Obsess on results I M P
Can we?

12. Your Observations, Please
Please discuss with a neighbor:
With regard to Cuban’s description of the superintendent’s role…
How can board priorities support the superintendent in the political realm?
How can board priorities reduce managerial distractions?
What is it about superintendent evaluation that can lead us into sensitive territory? What concerns do you have about superintendent evaluation? By exploring these concerns, we may understand better what good evaluation is and what it isn’t, so that we can focus on what works and achieve its fullest potential.
Questions

13. Questions to Consider
In superintendent evaluation, what could possibly go wrong?
Let’s run through a (non-scientific) Letterman-style ‘top ten’ list…
For our board, we looked into superintendent evaluation methods and instruments from across the country, and considering ways in which the superintendent evaluation process can go wrong, we prepared a “top ten” list of things to avoid, in the style of Letterman.
Community

14. Community
10. Community values/priorities/voice missing – confidential vs public
The law…
The board…
The superintendent…
The community…
All have expectations
"Most board evaluation is done in executive sessions [closed to the public and the press], and in most states is mandated by statute," according to AASA's 2000 Study of the American School Superintendency.
Source: Jay Matthews (2001) School Administrator, Feb 2001,
The law in Washington State:
RCW 28A (2) Every board of directors shall establish evaluative criteria and procedures for all superintendents, principals, and other administrators. It shall be the responsibility of the district superintendent or his or her designee to evaluate all administrators. Such evaluation shall be based on the administrative position job description. Such criteria, when applicable, shall include at least the following categories: Knowledge of, experience in, and training in recognizing good professional performance, capabilities and development; school administration and management; school finance; professional preparation and scholarship; effort toward improvement when needed; interest in pupils, employees, patrons and subjects taught in school; leadership; and ability and performance of evaluation of school personnel.
Subjective

15. Subjectivity 9. Feedback that is subjective
Dialogue, unguided, tends toward the subjective
e.g. ‘style’
Even checklist criteria that, on paper, appear objective, are often subjective in practice
Over the years, I've accumulated numerous evaluation instruments for superintendents. Each year, younger, less-experienced colleagues call me, asking to have copies of any evaluation instruments I might have. Their supposition is, "if I have an objective evaluation instrument that measures my clearly defined goals, the board will have to give me a positive evaluation."
This is predicated on the idea that people will evaluate you on the job you do, and those extraneous political factors over which you have no control will not enter into the evaluation process. This is a logical assumption and in a perfect world it would be true. Unfortunately, superintendents don't work in a perfect world.
Time

16. Time & Timing
8. Board focus gets limited time and is affected by the timing of the evaluation process
Limited time scheduled/available
Timing of annual conversation
Recent events color the tone
“What have you done (for me) lately?”
"What I hear most of the time from superintendents is that their board spends all of five to 10 minutes per year on the evaluation," says Joe Rudnicki, superintendent in Sunnyvale, Calif.
Past

17. The Past 7. Past vs. future mindset
Punish past peccadilloes… “Let the flogging begin”
Thinking about the cup as “half-empty” vs. what is needed to fill it
The past cannot be changed, but the future can be built
Further buttressing the ill feeling about the process, he noted, 58 percent agreed or strongly agreed that the evaluation has a significant influence in identifying superintendent weaknesses. Only 66 percent thought the evaluation process was fair and less than half thought it was designed to identify their administrative strengths.
Alignment

18. Alignment
6. Various district elements affecting evaluation are not aligned
Superintendent Job Description
Superintendent Contract
Policies and Procedures
Strategic Plan
Annual District Report Card
Budget
Most superintendents have a job description, but in AASA's 2000 Study of the American School Superintendency only 50.2 percent said they are evaluated according to the criteria in the job description.
Unfortunately, attempts to define the role of the superintendent and establish priorities for performance by local or state boards often fail to include many dimensions of the role. Local school boards traditionally have defined the responsibilities of the superintendent in terms of a job description--a generalized overview that often is loosely related to actual job responsibilities and even more loosely connected to the superintendent's performance evaluation. Most superintendents have a job description, but in AASA's 2000 Study of the American School Superintendency only 50.2 percent said they are evaluated according to the criteria in the job description.
In an attempt to define the profession of the superintendency, AASA established a commission in 1992 that developed a set of eight profess anal standards and a corresponding set of competencies. When coupled with defined professional responsibilities, the standards can serve as a framework for defining the role of superintendent and serve as a basis for meaningful evaluation (see Table 1, page 21).
Source: Michael F. Depaola and James H. Stronge (2001) “Credible Evaluation: Not Yet State-of-the-Art” School Administrator, Feb 2001
Expectations

19. Expectations
5. The Superintendent is judged according to criteria that the Board has not stated or not clarified
Imagine a teacher publicly announcing a grading policy that says: “Guess what it takes to get an A”
Now imagine not announcing that policy
Voice

20. Voice(s) 4. Failing to speak with one voice
Blurred message - multiple sources
Individual agendas
‘Stray zinger’ effect
Traits

21. Traits
3. Standards that emphasize approved traits or behaviors rather than district results
Most evaluation checklists describe standards & focus on what the superintendent does
How much is based on what the district does?
In a 2000 survey of superintendents in Illinois, Missouri and Texas, student performance failed to make the list of the five most common evaluation criteria used for measuring school system executives. Instead, the top five were: (1) Board relations (93 percent); (2) Fiscal management (89 percent); (3) Community relations (86 percent); (4) Facilities (75 percent); and (5) Personal qualities (75 percent). Student performance placed seventh (64 percent).
The AASA Commission on Standards for the Superintendency issued a 16-page document in 1992 that described performance standards in eight areas, as follows:
* Leadership and District Culture
* Policy and Governance
* Communications and Community Relations
* Organizational Management
* Curriculum Planning and Development
* Instructional Management
* Human Resources Management
* Values and Ethics of Leadership.
Dialogue

22. Dialogue
2. Failing to really communicate; Evaluation that is not serious
Annual ritual – going thru motions
Just do it and get it over with
Skirting around important issues
Even where superintendent evaluation is regularly done, superintendents sometimes report a missed opportunity for indepth dialogue about the most important issues facing the district.
One superintendent I know once had a meeting with the board, wherein the chair opened the discussion with “Does anyone have anything to discuss?” and when no one spoke, he said “Well, the evaluation for this year is satisfactory.”
Nike

23. Not Nike 1. Failing to “Just Do It!” - Evaluation that is not done
~20-25% of all districts
Waiting for the next crisis
How does this compare with just going thru the motions?
“Barely 25 percent of school boards conduct any form of superintendent evaluation. Of those that do, 75 percent do not evaluate the superintendent on an annual basis.”
Source: Edward W. Costa (2004) “School Administrator” American Association of School Administrators
Summary

24. Our List 10. Community 9. Subjectivity 8. Time & Timing 7. The Past
6. Alignment
5. Expectations
4. Voice(s)
3. Traits
2. Dialogue
1. Not Nike
Which

25. Your Observations, Please
Please discuss with a neighbor:
With regard to this list…
Which of these ten is it most important that we avoid? Why? 1
What is it about superintendent evaluation that can lead us into sensitive territory? What concerns do you have about superintendent evaluation? By exploring these concerns, we may understand better what good evaluation is and what it isn’t, so that we can focus on what works and achieve its fullest potential.
10. Community
9. Subjectivity
8. Time & Timing
7. The Past
6. Alignment
5. Expectations
4. Voice(s)
3. Traits
2. Dialogue
1. Not Nike
Given

26. Given Given what can be wrong about superintendent evaluation, and…
Given a desire to focus on instruction and student outcomes…
How should the board approach the evaluation process?
What v How

27. What & How Evaluating outcomes (summative evaluation)
Object: Bottom line
(summative evaluation)
Evaluating how the superintendent goes about getting there
Object: Guide and shape
(formative evaluation)
Summative

28. Should We ‘Just Do it’ Like This?
The ‘Drive by’ Summative Evaluation:
Meet annually to review results
Only one agenda item…
Motion: Retain the Superintendent?
If the motion passes, annual eval is ‘Satisfactory’…See you next year…
End of story
If the motion fails…Supt search…
Formative

29. Or Like This? The ‘Dissection’ Formative Evaluation:
Superintendent develops a detailed portfolio
Members of the public respond to a detailed opinion survey on superintendent performance…
Central office and principals provide an upward assessment of the superintendent…
Trained evaluator uses surveys/interviews to assess professional superintendent standards…
Each board member fills out an assessment checklist
Exhaustive, and exhausting, process that focuses on the process rather than on results
Alabama has listed 13 competencies areas, evaluated by trained administrator evaluators, with input from a superintendent portfolio, :
Communication
Collaboration
Assessment/Evaluation
Organization
Planning
Laws/Policies
Problem Solving
Innovation
Technology Management
School System Management
Fiscal Management/Leadership
Professional Responsibilities
Leadership of Human Resources
False choice

30. False Choice “Drive by” evaluation “Dissection” evaluation
Too little…Baby Bear
“Dissection” evaluation
Too much…Papa Bear
… Mama Bear?
Another way

31. How About Another Way? Limit the scope Get more value from the process
Increase attention on WHAT
Reduce emphasis on HOW
Get more value from the process
Increase time
Most important/critical issues…
Issues we are better qualified to judge
Simplify

32. Simplify the Job Description
The board’s job is to assure, on behalf of the community, that the district ‘works’
The superintendent’s job is to ensure that the district…
Achieves what is desired
Avoids what is unacceptable
Evaluation involves the board doing its job by judging whether the superintendent is doing his/her job as written in policy
If we follow

33. If We Follow This Third Option…
First we fulfill our policymaking role by:
Writing (in policy) what the board’s job is in regard to evaluation
Writing (in policy) the superintendent’s job:
Achieve desired district end results*
Avoid unacceptable conditions*
* both described in detail
Writing criteria (in policy) for judging whether the job is done
Follow policy

34. If We Follow This Third Option…
Then we follow our policy by:
Monitoring for criteria:
Achievement of prescribed ends
Avoidance of unacceptable means
Judging whether the district has made:
Progress toward ends
Compliance with limitations
Focus

35. Evaluation Focus & Process
Focus on the District Expectations – Organizational Results
Process of Continuous Monitoring Results compared against criteria written in policy; written response accumulates throughout the year
Continuous

36. Performance Oriented & Continuous Process
Expectations written into policy If expectations change…so do policies
Organizational performance monitored systematically throughout the year
Performance data compared w/ criteria
Board makes judgments about whether criteria are met
If not met, Board judges whether there is reasonable progress
6-10

37. Performance Oriented & Continuous Process
Board judgments written in “monitoring response documents”
Adjustments then made in policy based on monitoring/judgments
Compilation of board response to monitoring constitutes the ongoing district evaluation
The district’s annual evaluation becomes the superintendent’s evaluation
Reduced sensitivity, because…
Business

38. It’s not personal… …it’s strictly business.” Can it be?
To borrow from the Godfather, a well-designed superintendent evaluation system isn’t personal, rather “…it’s strictly business”
Can it be?

39. Your Observations, Please
Please discuss with a neighbor:
With regard to a theory that superintendent evaluation is “strictly business”…
Can this hold true in practice? 1
What is it about superintendent evaluation that can lead us into sensitive territory? What concerns do you have about superintendent evaluation? By exploring these concerns, we may understand better what good evaluation is and what it isn’t, so that we can focus on what works and achieve its fullest potential. PG

40. Policy Governance A strategy that
Focuses on district ends,
Provides limits on district means, and
Evaluates based on district criteria
Offers a narrowly focused approach to superintendent evaluation but devotes more board time to it
It’s strictly [district] business
Bd Job

41. Under PG Our Board’s Job
Is to ensure:
Linkage with the Community
Determine community expectations & values that are to be written in policy
Written Policy
That prescribes ‘What’ & proscribes ‘How’
District Performance
By comparing results against expectations written in policy
Supt Job

42. The Superintendent’s Job
IS NOT:
Education/curricular knowledge/skill
Demonstration of political skills
Demonstration of leadership skills
Demonstration of management skills
Intelligence – Sociability – Charm
IS: District Performance in the form of 2 ‘Job Products’…the district
Achieves what it should achieve
Avoids conditions it should avoid
Supt Eval

43. Superintendent Evaluation
Comparison of Job Performance vs Pre-Stated Expectations
Is the Superintendent…
Achieving What is Expected*?
Avoiding What is Not Acceptable*?
*As described in written policy
Public

44. Public Process Open Public Meetings Executive Session
Linkage that shapes expectations
Board response to linkage
Monitoring of ‘achieves’ (board agenda)
Monitoring of ‘avoids’ (consent agenda)
Board response to monitoring
Accumulation of district evaluation
Executive Session
Addendum - personnel file (if needed)
Schedule

45. Scheduling the Evaluation
Board
Bd/Supt Rel
Ends
Limits
July
1,2,3,4 2
August 8
1,3,4,7,8
September 11
9,10
October 18
November 13
13,14
December
11,12
January 5
February 17
March
5,6,7 3
April 12
5,16
May 1 15
June 6
E-2

46. UPSD Ends Policy

47. Monitoring UPSD Ends
7th gr WASL

48. Monitoring UPSD Ends
Bd Response

49. Board Response to Monitoring
Response Ends

50. Response Ends

51. Response Ends

52. UPSD Board Response - Ends
Monitoring Response Document (Ends) B/SR 5-E-1
Policy Monitored: E-2 Date Report Submitted: Oct 26, 2005
The Board on the date shown above received and reviewed the official internal monitoring report of its policy E-2 (Competence Goal 1 – Academic Standards) submitted by the Superintendent. Following its review of the report, the Board concludes:
_x_ Based upon the information provided, the Board finds that the Superintendent has reasonably interpreted the provisions of the relevant Ends policy, and the district is making reasonable progress toward achieving the desired results called for in the relevant policy. The Board commends the Superintendent for exemplary performance in the following areas: The district has made commendable progress in most areas of Reading, Writing, and Math at the 4th and 7th grade levels, and in writing at the 10th grade level.
EL’s

53. Executive Limitations Policies
Means guidance for Superintendent
What are the parameters within which the Superintendent may act?
What conditions or actions would be unacceptable?
Any means not prohibited in EL policies are permissible
Budget

54. UPSD EL’s Budget Planning EL-7
Financial planning for any fiscal year shall not deviate materially from the Board’s Ends policies, risk fiscal jeopardy to the district, or fail to be derived from a multi-year plan.
Accordingly, the Superintendent may not present to the Board a recommended budget which:
1. Is not consistent with the board’s established priorities;
2. Is not in a comprehensive summary format understandable to the Board;
3. Fails to adequately describe major budget initiatives and funding sources;
4. Fails to show the amount budgeted for each major fund type for the most recently completed fiscal year, for the current fiscal year and the amount budgeted for the next fiscal year;
Monitor EL

55. Monitoring UPSD EL’s
(EL-7) “…the Superintendent may not present to the Board a recommended budget which:”
1. Is not consistent with the Board’s established priorities.
In Compliance.
Despite on-going shortfalls in State revenues and escalating costs (in some case, e.g., fuel costs, this escalation is very large) the district continues to maintain support for all strategic student achievement initiatives, e.g., significantly reduced class size, math and reading specialist support, all day kindergarten option (now expanded to all four primary schools) and comprehensive extended learning opportunities (achievement academy and after school programs).
Bd Response

56. UPSD Board Response – EL’s
Monitoring Response Document (Means) B/SR 5-E-2
Policy Monitored: EL-7 Date Report Submitted: Aug 24, 2005
The Board on the date shown above received and reviewed the official internal monitoring report of its policy EL-7 (Budget Planning) submitted by the Superintendent. Following its review of the report, the Board concludes:
With respect to the provisions of its policy, EL-7 the University Place Board of Directors concludes that the Superintendent’s performance during the previous year has been a. _x_ In compliance.
b. ___ In compliance, with the following exceptions:
c. ___ Not in compliance.
Additional remarks:
- Good information about priorities.
- Clarity of budget documents is a strength.
Writ Eval

57. ‘Writing’ the Evaluation
Each Board response document adds to a continuously accumulating annual evaluation
Superintendent evaluation discussion runs all year, in considerable depth
Superintendent is judged against criteria that the Board has taken the time to put in writing, in advance.
UPSD Eval

58. ‘Writing’ the UPSD Evaluation
Annual Summative Evaluation of the Superintendent
During the current year, the following Ends and Executive Limitations policies have been monitored by the Board, with acceptance of monitoring reports considered to be evidence of satisfactory organizational and Superintendent performance:
E-1
District Mission
Proj: May 2006 
E-2
Academic Standards
Oct 2005
E-3
Contributing Citizens
Proj: Mar 2006
EL-1
Expectations of Superintendent
Aug 2005
EL-2
Emergency Superintendent Succession
July 2005
EL-3
Treatment of Parents, Students, and the Public
What’s right

60. What’s Right about Supt Eval?
1. It is done
2. In-depth conversation
3. All through the year, few surprises
4. Aligned w/ job description, contract, board self-evaluation, policies, strategic plan, budget
5. Expectations stated upfront, then the superintendent is judged against them
6-10

61. What’s Right? (cont’d)
6. Expectations are based on community values/priorities
7. Evaluating district results is not ‘personal’
8. Future mindset
9. Criteria used in making judgments
10. Substantive discussion in public
Conclusion

62. In Conclusion
Superintendent evaluation, using a strategy that works, makes you an offer that you really can’t refuse.
And… It’s strictly business.
Questions

63. Questions For more information: University Place School District
Rick Maloney, Board Member
Patti Banks, Superintendent
Lake Washington School District
Bob Hughes, Board Member
Don Saul, Superintendent