Walter H. Warfield is scholar-in-residence and J. Gregory Reynolds is a visiting assistant professor, both at the University of Illinois at Springfield.
The school board is vested with a number of important and difficult tasks. Ranking at the top of the scales of importance and difficulty is evaluating the superintendent.
Beyond a statutory requirement to evaluate the superintendent, the board also has a moral responsibility to systematically monitor the actions of and contribute to the maximum effectiveness of the school district's leader. Executed properly, an evaluation can be a powerful tool for continued school improvement. Given the myriad of other tasks the school board performs, an efficient method of conducting the evaluation is desirable.
The difficulties are two fold. One is knowing how and what to evaluate, given the reality that part of the evaluation covers the technical side of the job for which the superintendent is typically far more knowledgeable than the board.
The other is the universal difficulty of sitting across the table from someone, looking that person in the eye and rendering judgment on the value of that person's work.
Examining the process is worth the time.
In the beginning
All responsible and reasonable descriptions of the board/superintendent relationship begin with the explanation and division of responsibilities:
Actually, the distinction often is not as clear, making it critical for the board and superintendent to develop clear expectations of each other. But do not fear that we have just added to your burdensome list of duties. This can all be done, and should be done, in the regular course of business as long as an understanding exists that there are two basic reasons for meetings:
By doing this, the ability of the board to evaluate the work of the superintendent becomes easier through a clearer understanding of the defined responsibilities of the position and the quality with which the superintendent performs those responsibilities.
The evaluation should examine performance from a number of perspectives, including but not necessarily limited to the superintendent's ability to:
Let us be clear: evaluation is a process, not an event. Evaluating your superintendent should not be viewed or conducted as something that takes place once a year. In order for it to be a school improvement tool as intended, superintendent evaluation should be recognized as a process.
Certain ongoing matters between the board and superintendent maintain focus on the vision. In the interim, and as an integral part of what the school district is all about, lies the responsibility and commitment to educate every student who comes to the school house door to the maximum of each individual's potential.
The focus of the evaluation should be identification of the superintendent's strengths and encouragement to make them even better. The philosophy behind any good evaluation comes from the premise that there is always room for improvement.
It should also focus with equal tenacity on the superintendent's weaknesses, with the intent of providing guidance and encouragement for improvement. That is the formative part of the evaluation.
The other focus is to determine the fundamental worth of the superintendent's performance as the school leader relative to future employment in the school district. That is the necessary and unavoidable nature of the summative evaluation.
This all begins with a board/superintendent leadership team focused on achieving agreed upon goals through a process whereby the board monitors the progress toward those goals through the work of the superintendent. Evaluation requires clear expectations that can be acquired by answering the following questions:
Necessary documents
The superintendent should be evaluated with two major documents: a job description and performance goals. The job description represents the regular, ongoing tasks that cause the district to function effectively. Job description tasks are a relatively stable set but extremely important.
Performance goals are more dynamic but every bit as important. Goals provide focus for those things that need to be achieved in order for the district to execute its mission in the manner it has determined best with maximum efficiency.
The question then arises: Are these superintendent goals or board goals? The answer is — they should be one in the same.
If the superintendent's function is to be the agent of the board — and it is — then it follows that the school board's goals are, in fact, the superintendent's goals. It further follows that an evaluation should focus on the superintendent's execution of the job description and achievement of the goals.
An evaluation instrument can be designed many ways with any combination of narrative, definitive "Yes" or "No" statements on the completion of tasks, or less definitive statements of completion on a Likert Scale. Some job description tasks are more conducive to one method over the other, but the more effective evaluation instruments will incorporate all three.
What is important is for the instrument to reflect that the board members and superintendent agree on an accurate way to complete the evaluation. The evaluation should contribute to clear communication between the board and superintendent on how the board perceives the effectiveness of the superintendent.
Properly designed and implemented evaluation systems will contribute to the objectivity of the evaluation and lessen stress, realizing that no system can be designed to remove all elements of stress and subjectivity.
Another contributor to the effectiveness of the evaluation process is that of the board receiving timely and accurate information from the superintendent on matters of evaluation significance, which by definition are significant to the effectiveness and efficiency of the district.
Board members should never be burdened with having to seek out relevant information. It is the function and duty of the superintendent to provide it.
The terms and conditions of the superintendent's evaluation should be set out in the superintendent's employment contract. The process and document should be developed by both parties.
An excellent starting point to develop an instrument is the master evaluation system available from the Illinois Association of School Boards. It can be modified to address the identified needs of the local school board. Board members and superintendents should not be overly anxious about the specific design of the system, so long as it is one that is designed, agreed to, understood and executed by all parties involved.
In our experience, a school board that approves of the job its superintendent is doing rates the superintendent high on performance regardless of the process design, and a board that is dissatisfied with the job the superintendent is doing rates low. As such, the evaluation instrument serves as both a formal document and a vehicle for fruitful discussion between the board and superintendent.
Lastly, it is important to emphasize that an evaluation process is not a disciplinary or problem solving tool. These conditions are best addressed outside of the evaluation process and are a topic of discussion for another day.
To use the evaluation process to address a discipline situation is like a carpenter using a sledgehammer to drive thumb tacks, or in the case of a problem situation, like putting a Band-Aid on a dead horse. Neither is properly suited for the task, and both are destined for failure and frustration.
The process of evaluations, like most board member responsibilities, falls short of being an exacting science. What is exacting about this area is that in this day of growing demand for public school accountability, it is here to stay. In keeping with our philosophy, if we have to do it, and we should do it, then let us do it as best we can.
It can only result in better schools for our students.
References
"Evaluating Your Superintendent," Becoming a Better Board Member: A Guide to Effective School Board Service, National School Boards Association in partnership with Illinois Association of School Boards, 1982
Planned Appraisal of the Superintendent, IASB, 1978
Theodore J. Kowalski, The School Superintendent: Theory, Practice and Cases, Second Edition, Sage Publications, 2006
Fred C. Lunenburg and Allan C. Ornstein, Education Administration: Concepts & Practices, Fifth Edition, Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2008