Transcript Slide 1

Evaluating the
Superintendent
and the District
PublicDocument
Process That
A APublic
That
Yields
a Public
Document
Focuses
on Results
Your Observations, Please
Please discuss with a neighbor:
With regard to superintendent evaluation…
1
• Past - What potential problems or
areas of sensitivity have you either
experienced, read, or heard about?
2
• Present - What concerns or interests
do you have about this topic?
Agenda
Agenda




Role of the superintendent
Problems for boards to avoid
An approach to consider
Our strategy – policy governance
Supt Role
The Superintendent Role
Cuban (1998) - Superintendents are
expected to succeed at 3 roles:

Instructional

Managerial

Political
I
M
P
Improve Student
Achievement
Operate
Efficiently
Deal w/Multiple
Stakeholders
Standards
Standards
AASA (1993)
Professional Standards for the Superintendency
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
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
Sort
Standards
AASA (1993)
Professional Standards for the Superintendency
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
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
P
Age of Acct
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)
Role shift
Under Accountability

Superintendent role shift
• Greater focus
on student
learning
• From Manager to
Instructional
Leader
II
M
M
P
P
Challenge
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?
I
M
P
Not this way
Not This Way
The
“blame game”
Priorities
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?
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?
Questions
Questions to Consider


In superintendent evaluation, what
could possibly go wrong?
Let’s run through a (non-scientific)
Letterman-style ‘top ten’ list…
Community
Community
10. Community values/priorities/voice
missing – confidential vs public




The
The
The
The
law…
board…
superintendent…
community…
All have expectations
Subjective
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
Time
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?”
Past
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
Alignment
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
Expectations
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
Voice(s)
4. Failing to speak with one voice

Blurred message - multiple sources

Individual agendas

‘Stray zinger’ effect
Traits
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?
Dialogue
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
Nike
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?
Summary
Our List

10. Community

5. Expectations

9. Subjectivity

4. Voice(s)

8. Time & Timing

3. Traits

7. The Past

2. Dialogue

6. Alignment

1. Not Nike
Which
Your Observations, Please
Please discuss with a neighbor:
With regard to this list…
1
• Which of these ten is it most
important that we avoid? Why?
10. Community
9. Subjectivity
8. Time & Timing
7. The Past
6. Alignment
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
Expectations
Voice(s)
Traits
Dialogue
Not Nike
Given
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
What & How

Evaluating outcomes
• Object: Bottom line
(summative evaluation)

Evaluating how the superintendent
goes about getting there
• Object: Guide and shape
(formative evaluation)
Summative
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…
• End of story
Formative
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
False choice
False Choice
“Drive by” evaluation
• Too little…Baby Bear
“Dissection” evaluation
• Too much…Papa Bear
• … Mama Bear?
Another way
How About Another Way?

Limit the scope
• 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
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
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
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
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
Performance Oriented
& Continuous Process
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
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
Performance Oriented
& Continuous Process
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
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
It’s not personal…
…it’s strictly
business.”
Can it be?
Your Observations, Please
Please discuss with a neighbor:
With regard to a theory that superintendent
evaluation is “strictly business”…
1
• Can this hold true in practice?
PG
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
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
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
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
Public Process

Open Public Meetings
• 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
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
November
2
13
13,14
December
1,2,3,4
January
5
11,12
February
17
March
5,6,7
April
12
May
9,10
June
18
3
5,16
1
5
15
6
E-2
UPSD Ends Policy
Monitoring UPSD Ends
7th gr WASL
Monitoring UPSD Ends
Bd Response
Board Response to Monitoring
Response Ends
Response Ends
Response Ends
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:
1.
_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
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
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
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
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:
1.
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.
2.
Additional remarks:
- Good information about priorities.
- Clarity of budget documents is a strength.
Writ Eval
‘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
‘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
Aug 2005
What’s right
What’s Right about Supt Eval?





1.
2.
3.
4.
It is done
In-depth conversation
All through the year, few surprises
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
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
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
Questions
For more information:

University Place School District
• Rick Maloney, Board Member
[email protected]
• Patti Banks, Superintendent
[email protected]

Lake Washington School District
• Bob Hughes, Board Member
[email protected]
• Don Saul, Superintendent
[email protected]