1 / 78

Evaluating the Superintendent and the District

Evaluating the Superintendent and the District. A Public Process That Yields a Public Document. A Public Document That Focuses on Results. Board Members Rick Maloney Mary Lu Dickinson Kent Keel Paul Koppe Ray Tennison. Superintendent Patti Banks.

qamra
Download Presentation

Evaluating the Superintendent and the District

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  2. Board Members Rick Maloney Mary Lu Dickinson Kent Keel Paul Koppe Ray Tennison Superintendent Patti Banks University Place School District

  3. Your Observations, Please Please discuss with a neighbor: In your experience… What problems or concerns have you had with superintendent evaluation? 1 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 Improve Student Achievement OperateEfficiently M Deal w/Multiple Stakeholders P 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 Role shift

  11. I I M M P P Under Accountability • Superintendent role shift • Greater focuson student learning • From Manager to InstructionalLeader 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 • Supt in supporting role • Support managerial • Delegate/monitor • Scrutinize theinstructional • Obsess onresults Distraction I M P Can we?

  15. 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 – CommunityMissing Community values/priorities/voice missing – confidential vs public • The law… • The board… • The superintendent… • The community… All have expectations • Ignoring any one of them changes the nature of evaluation Executive session 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 limitedtimeand is affected by the timingof 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 – ExpectationsUnclear The Superintendent is judged accordingto criteria that the Board has not statedor 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. 10. Community 9. Subjectivity 8. Time & Timing 7. Past Mindset 6. (Mis)Alignment 5. Expectations 4. Voice(s) 3. Traits 2. Dialogue 1. Not Nike Our List Which

  29. Your Observations, Please Please discuss with a neighbor: With regard to this list… Which is of most concern? Why? 1 5. Expectations Unclear 4. No Single Voice 3. Traits vs. Results 2. Inadequate Dialogue 1. Just Don’t Do It 10. Community Missing 9. Subjectivity 8. Time & Timing 7. Past Mindset 6. Alignment Missing Given

  30. Now Let’s Hear From You Which is of most concern? Why? 5. Expectations Unclear 4. No Single Voice 3. Traits vs. Results 2. Inadequate Dialogue 1. Just Don’t Do It 10. Community Missing 9. Subjectivity 8. Time & Timing 7. Past Mindset 6. Alignment Missing 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 superintendentgoes 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 upwardassessment 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 jobis to ensure that the district… • Achieves • Avoids • Evaluation involves the board doing its job by judging whether the superintendent is doing his/her jobas written in policy End results What it should Limitations 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 DistrictOrganizational Results vs Personality Continuous MonitoringResults compared w/policy criteria, Record accumulates thru the year Continuous

  43. Simplification Process Expectations written into policyIf 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 reasonableprogress 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

More Related