Transcript Slide 1

1
Evaluating the
Superintendent
and the District
PublicDocument
Process That
A APublic
That
Yields
a Public
Document
Focuses
on Results
2
University Place School District
Board Members
 Rick Maloney
 Mary Lu Dickinson
 Kent Keel
 Paul Koppe
 Ray Tennison
Superintendent
 Patti Banks
Your Observations, Please
Please discuss with a neighbor:
In your experience…
1
What problems or concerns
have you had with
superintendent evaluation?
Agenda
4
Now Let’s Hear From You
What problems or concerns
have you had with
superintendent evaluation?
Agenda
5
Agenda




Role of the superintendent…
Problems for boards to avoid…
An approach to consider…
Our board’s experience with this approach,
under policy governance…
and the impact on superintendent evaluation
Supt Role
6
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
7
Standards
AASA/NSBA (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
Sort
8
Standards
AASA/NSBA (1993)
Professional Standards for the Superintendency








Leadership and District Culture
Policy and Governance
Communications and Community Relations
Curriculum Planning and Development
Instructional Management
Organizational Management
Human Resources Management
Values and Ethics of Leadership
Age of Acct
9
Standards
AASA/NSBA (1993)
Professional Standards for the Superintendency








Curriculum Planning and Development
Instructional Management
Organizational Management
Human Resources Management
Leadership and District Culture
Values and Ethics of Leadership
Communications and Community Relations
Policy and Governance
I
M
P
Age of Acct
10
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)
I
M
P
Role shift
11
Under Accountability

Superintendent role shift
• Greater focus
on student
learning
• From Manager to
Instructional
Leader
II
M
M
P
P
Challenge
12
Challenge for Boards



How do we ensure the instructional gets the
most superintendent time?
How do we avoid preoccupation by the
superintendent with managerial/political?
How do we maintain balance?
I
M
P
Not this way
13
Not This Way
The
“blame game”
Priorities
14
Board Priorities Have Impact

Take the lead in political arena
Distraction
• Supt in supporting role

Support managerial
• Delegate/monitor

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
reduce distractions/support
the supt in the political and
managerial areas?
Questions
16
Now Let’s Hear From You
How can board priorities reduce
distractions/support the supt in
the political and managerial
areas?
Questions
17
Questions to Consider


In superintendent evaluation, what could
possibly go wrong?
Let’s review the research. Dr. Dave says…
The top ten things
that can go wrong in
superintendent
evaluation are…
Community
18
#10 – Community
Missing
Community values/priorities/voice
missing – confidential vs public




The
The
The
The
law…
board…
superintendent…
community…
Executive
session
All have expectations

Ignoring any one of them changes the
nature of evaluation
Subjective
19
#9 – Subjectivity
Feedback that is subjective

Unfocused dialogue leans
toward the subjective
• e.g. ‘style’

Even checklist criteria that,
on paper, appear objective,
can morph into the subjective
Time
20
#8 – Time & Timing
Board focus gets limited time
and is affected by the timing
of the evaluation process

Limited time planned/available
• Important end-of-yr conversation
crowded out by other priorities

Timing of annual conversation
• Recent events color the tone
• “What have you done (for me) lately?”
Past
21
#7 – Past Mindset
Past vs. future mindset
leads to



Punishing past peccadilloes…
“Let the flogging begin”
Thinking about the cup as “half-empty” vs.
thinking about filling it
The past cannot be changed, but
the future can be built
Alignment
22
#6 – (Mis)Alignment
Various district elements affecting
evaluation are not aligned







Superintendent Job Description
Superintendent Contract
Policies and Procedures
Strategic Plan
Annual District Report Card
Budget
Superintendent Evaluation
Expectations
23
#5 – Expectations
Unclear
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

Supt’s often find themselves guessing
Voice
24
#4 – Voice(s)
Failing to speak with one voice

Multiple sources – blurred message

Individual agendas

‘Stray zinger’ effect
Traits
25
#3 – Traits
Standards emphasize approved
traits or behaviors rather than
district results

Most evaluation checklists describe
standards - focusing on:
• Who the superintendent is and
• What the superintendent does

Q: How much is focused on the district
and its results?
Dialogue
26
#2 – Dialogue
Failing to really communicate;
Evaluation that is not serious




Missed opportunity
Annual ritual – going thru motions
Just doing it to get it done
Skirting around important issues
Nike
27
#1 – Not Nike
Just Don’t Do It!” Evaluation is not done

~20-25% of all districts

Waiting for the next crisis

How does this compare with just going
thru the motions?
Summary
28
Our List

10. Community

5. Expectations

9. Subjectivity

4. Voice(s)

8. Time & Timing

3. Traits

7. Past Mindset

2. Dialogue

6. (Mis)Alignment

1. Not Nike
Which
Your Observations, Please
Please discuss with a neighbor:
With regard to this list…
1
Which is of most concern?
Why?
10. Community Missing
9. Subjectivity
8. Time & Timing
7. Past Mindset
6. Alignment Missing
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
Expectations Unclear
No Single Voice
Traits vs. Results
Inadequate Dialogue
Just Don’t Do It
Given
30
Now Let’s Hear From You
Which is of most concern?
Why?
10. Community Missing
9. Subjectivity
8. Time & Timing
7. Past Mindset
6. Alignment Missing
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
Expectations Unclear
No Single Voice
Traits vs. Results
Inadequate Dialogue
Just Don’t Do It
Given
31
Given



Given what can get in the way of
superintendent evaluation, and…
Given a desire to shift focus toward
instruction and student outcomes…
How should the board approach the
evaluation process?
What v How
32
What & How
Evaluating outcomes
• Object: Grade the Bottom Line
• Summative evaluation
Evaluating how the superintendent
goes about getting there
• Object: Guide and Shape
• Formative evaluation
Summative
33
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
34
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
35
False Choice
“Drive by” evaluation
• Too little…Baby Bear…Ignores the supt
“Dissection” evaluation
• Too much…Papa Bear…All about supt
Is there a third way?
• Mama Bear?
Another way
36
How About This?

Limit the scope
• Reduce emphasis – HOW (supt)
• Increase attention – WHAT (district)

Get more value
• Increase time – distributed
• Most important (district) issues…
Issues we are qualified to judge

KISS
Simplify
37
Simplify
Now, explain it to me like I'm a
four-year-old.
38
Simplify




Job Descriptions
Policy
Execution
Focus
39
Simplify Job Descriptions


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
• Avoids

What it should
End results
Limitations
Evaluation involves the board
doing its job by judging whether the
superintendent is doing his/her job
as written in policy
If we follow
40
Simplify Policy
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
Writing criteria (in policy) for judging
whether the job is done
Follow policy
41
Simplify Execution
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
42
Simplify Focus
Focus on the District
Organizational Results vs Personality
Continuous Monitoring
Results compared w/policy criteria,
Record accumulates thru the year
Continuous
43
Simplification Process
Expectations written into policy
If expectations change…so do policies
1
6-10
44
Simplification Process
Organizational performance
monitored systematically throughout
the year
2
45
Simplification Process
Performance data compared w/
criteria
3
46
Simplification Process
Board makes judgments about
whether criteria are met
4
47
Simplification Process
If not met, Board judges whether
there is reasonable progress
5
48
Simplification Process
Board judgments written in
“monitoring response documents”
6
Business
49
Simplification Process
Adjustments then made in policy
based on monitoring/judgments
7
50
Simplification Process
Compilation of board response to
monitoring constitutes the ongoing
district evaluation
8
51
Simplification Process
The district’s annual evaluation
becomes the superintendent’s
evaluation
9
52
9-Step Process




Expectations written
into policy
Performance
systematically
monitored
Performance data
compared with written
criteria
Board judges whether
criteria are met





Reasonable progress?
Monitoring response
documents
Adjustments in policy
Compilation of board
response documents
becomes evaluation
District’s annual
evaluation becomes
the superintendent’s
53
Process
Reduced sensitivity, because…
54
It’s not personal…
…it’s strictly
business.”
Can it be?
Your Observations, Please
Please discuss with a neighbor:
Given a theory that suggests a
simpler superintendent evaluation can
1 “strictly business”…
be
How do we do this in practice?
PG
56
Now Let’s Hear From You
Given a theory that suggests a
simpler superintendent evaluation
can be “strictly business”…
How do we do this in practice?
PG
57
Can we do this?

We believe we have changed the
terms of superintendent evaluation

Now it is ‘strictly business’

Part of a total system change…
Evaluation is one feature

A change in how we look at
board and superintendent roles
58
Policy Governance

A strategy that
• Focuses on district ends,
• Provides limits on district means, and
• Evaluates based on district criteria


Offers a more narrowly focused
approach but devotes more time to
evaluation
It’s strictly [district] business
Bd Job
59
Under PG Our Board’s Job
Is to ensure:
 Linkage with the Community
Discern community expectations & values
that are to be written in policy

Written Policy that guides the district
Prescribe ‘What’ & proscribe ‘How’

District Performance
By monitoring and comparing results
against expectations written in policy
Supt Job
60
The Superintendent’s Job

IS NOT HOW:
• Education/curricular knowledge/skill
• Demonstration of political skills
• Demonstration of leadership skills
• Demonstration of management skills
• Intelligence – Sociability – Charm

IS WHAT: District Performance in 2
‘Job Products’…the district
• Achieves what it should achieve
• Avoids conditions it should avoid
Supt Eval
61
Superintendent Evaluation
Comparison* of Job Performance vs
Pre-Stated Expectations
Is the Superintendent…


Achieving What is Expected?
Avoiding What is Not Acceptable?
*part-time (lay) board is able to do
Public
62
Public Process

Open Public Meetings
• Linkage that ID’s 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
63
Throughout the Year
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
64
Example Ends Policy
65
Monitoring Ends
7th gr WASL
66
Board Response to Monitoring
Response Ends
67
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
68
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
69
Example EL Policy
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
70
Monitoring 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
71
Board Response – Means
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
72
‘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
73
‘Writing’ the 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
74
75
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 superintendent judged
6-10
76
What’s Right about Supt Eval?





6. Expectations based on
community values/priorities
7. District evaluation not ‘personal’
8. Future mindset
9. Criteria used in making judgments
10. Substantive discussion in public
Conclusion
77
Conclusion


Superintendent
evaluation, using a
strategy that works,
makes you an offer
that you really can’t
refuse.
And…
It’s strictly business.
Questions
78
Questions
For more information:

University Place School District
• Rick Maloney, Board President
[email protected]
• Patti Banks, Superintendent
[email protected]