Evaluating the Superintendent and the District

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
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
OperateEfficiently
M
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

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
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)

Role shift
8
Under Accountability

• Superintendent role shift
• Greater focuson student learning
• From Manager to InstructionalLeader

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?

I
M
P
Not this way
10
Not This Way
The blame game
Priorities
11
Board Priorities Have Impact

• Lead in the political realm
• Supt in supporting role
• Support managerial
• Delegate/check
• Scrutinize theinstructional
• Obsess onresults

I
M
P
Can we?
12
Your Observations, Please

• Please discuss with a neighbor
• With regard to Cubans description of the
  superintendents role
• How can board priorities support the
  superintendent in the political realm?
• How can board priorities reduce managerial
  distractions?

Questions
13
Questions to Consider

• In superintendent evaluation, what could possibly
  go wrong?
• Lets run through a (non-scientific)
  Letterman-style top ten list

Community
14
Community

• 10. Community values/priorities/voice missing
  confidential vs public
• The law
• The board
• The superintendent
• The community
• All have expectations

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

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?

Past
17
The Past

• 7. Past vs. future mindset
• Punish past peccadilloesLet 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
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

Expectations
19
Expectations

• 5. The Superintendent is judged accordingto
  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?

Dialogue
22
Dialogue

• 2. Failing to really communicateEvaluation that
  is not serious
• Annual ritual going thru motions
• Just do it and get it over with
• Skirting around important issues

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?

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
5. Expectations 4. Voice(s) 3. Traits 2.
Dialogue 1. Not Nike
10. Community 9. Subjectivity 8. Time Timing 7.
The Past 6. Alignment
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
• Object Bottom line
• (summative evaluation)
• Evaluating how the superintendentgoes 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
  SatisfactorySee you next year
• End of story
• If the motion failsSupt search
• End of story

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

False choice
30
False Choice

• Drive by evaluation
• Too littleBaby Bear
• Dissection evaluation
• Too muchPapa Bear
• Mama Bear?

Another way
31
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
32
Simplify the Job Description

• The boards job is to assure, on behalf of the
  community, that the district works
• The superintendents jobis 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 boards job is in
  regard to evaluation
• Writing (in policy) the superintendents 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 DistrictExpectations
  Organizational Results
• Process of Continuous MonitoringResults compared
  against criteria written in policy written
  response accumulates throughout the year

Continuous
36
Performance Oriented Continuous Process

1. Expectations written into policyIf expectations
   changeso do policies
2. Organizational performance monitored
   systematically throughout the year
3. Performance data compared w/ criteria
4. Board makes judgments about whether criteria are
   met
5. If not met, Board judges whether there is
   reasonable progress

6-10
37
Performance Oriented Continuous Process

1. Board judgments written in monitoring response
   documents
2. Adjustments then made in policy based on
   monitoring/judgments
3. Compilation of board response to monitoring
   constitutes the ongoing district evaluation
4. The districts annual evaluation becomes the
   superintendents evaluation
5. Reduced sensitivity, because

Business
38
Its not personal

• its 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
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
• Its strictly district business

Bd Job
41
Under PG Our Boards 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 Superintendents 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
  Productsthe 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
• 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 2 18
November 13 13,14
December 1,2,3,4 11,12
January 5
February 17
March 5,6,7 3
April 12 5,16
May 9,10 1 15
June 5 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
• 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 areasThe 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.

ELs
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 ELs

• Budget Planning EL-7
• Financial planning for any fiscal year shall not
  deviate materially from the Boards 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 boards
  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 ELs
(EL-7) the Superintendent may not present to the Board a recommended budget which 1. Is not consistent with the Boards established priorities. (EL-7) the Superintendent may not present to the Board a recommended budget which 1. Is not consistent with the Boards 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 ELs

• 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 Superintendents
  performance during the previous year has beena.
  _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
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 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 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 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
Whats right
59
(No Transcript)
60
Whats 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
Whats Right? (contd)

• 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 cant
  refuse.
• AndIts strictly business.

Questions
63
Questions

• For more information
• University Place School District
• Rick Maloney, Board Memberrmaloney_at_ospi.wednet.ed
  u
• Patti Banks, Superintendentpbanks_at_upsd.wednet.edu
  
• Lake Washington School District
• Bob Hughes, Board Memberbhughes_at_toysrbob.com
• Don Saul, Superintendentdsaul_at_lwsd.org