Washington Superintendent Evaluation Initiative

Washington Superintendent Evaluation Initiative

A white paper approved by the WSSDA Board in support of a development of recommended superintendent evaluation frameworks, instruments and processes

September 2012

The need for a superintendent evaluation initiative

Introduction

A 2002 National School Boards Association report claimed, the most significant role of a school board may be “selecting and overseeing the district superintendent.” The report suggested that superintendent evaluation is the most important factor in the board/superintendent relationship. Research on superintendent evaluation suggests current practice typically lacks a clear process with objective measures. Effective evaluation could lead to district improvement. An accurate, fair and substantive evaluation of a school district superintendent may be one of the most significant levers a school board has to drive district improvement.

The Washington School Board Standards support the importance of the board/superintendent relationship and effective, fair performance evaluation. Standard One, Effective Governance, identifies the need to work toward mutual trust and commitment through teamwork and clear communication. This includes honoring the roles and responsibilities of the superintendent. The board standards highlight that effective school boards delegate authority through written policy and provide clear expectations for the superintendent’s performance and evaluation.

Recent legislation suggests there is a compelling public interest in improving the evaluation process for teachers and principals. Substitute Senate Bill 5895, requires school boards to establish evaluative criteria and procedures for certificated classroom teachers and certificated support personnel. Former school board member Rep. Kris Litton stated, “For an evaluation system to be effective, it needs to be fair, it needs to be reliable, and all the parties involved — parents, teachers, principals, and all the taxpayers who support our public schools — need to have confidence that it will really do what it sets out to do.”

Discussion of superintendent evaluation was not part of the recent deliberations on the legislation referenced above. Performance evaluation, by school boards, of a district superintendent, could pose unique and additional challenges regarding the effectiveness, fairness and reliability. Addressing these complications may be essential for stakeholders to have confidence that the evaluation will do what it sets out to do – provide an accurate measure of performance.

Just as with teacher and principal evaluation, this work needs to be supported through research-based, defensible frameworks. Not all districts are the same, and different districts may benefit from different leadership frameworks, evaluation instruments and processes. At the same time, there could be benefits to having coordination and oversight of efforts to develop validated frameworks, instruments and processes for recommendation to Washington school boards.

Model evaluation structure

The Washington State School Directors’ Association (WSSDA) is well positioned to oversee and guide this process. In this proposal the WSSDA Board provides the oversight for this endeavor. A joint task force of WSSDA, WASA and other education stakeholders comprise the steering committee to guide development of valid, reliable and defensible products. A grant funds research and development of up to five frameworks with corresponding instruments and processes for evaluation. Up to five independent work teams develop and beta test resources that could be recommended by the Oversight Committee. The following depicts a model for how this could happen in a coordinated and collaborative effort in our state:

Oversight Committee Charge

• Define the values and establish guiding principles for superintendent evaluation that are focused on system outcomes and improvement of student achievement.
• Guide and monitor steering committee research and development of model processes. These include leadership frameworks, evaluation rubricsand instruments for recommended use by Washington school boards and superintendents.

Steering Committee Charge

• Work collaboratively with school directors, superintendents and education stakeholders to develop research-based options for school boards and superintendents to use in the evaluation of superintendent performance.
• Ensure valid, reliable and defensible products aredeveloped and pilotedfor superintendent leadership frameworks, evaluation rubrics and instruments, and model processes.

Work Team Characteristics

Work teams includeboard members, superintendents and others who volunteer to collaborate and develop local implementation of a superintendent evaluation process with an emphasis on system improvement. These members:

• Share a common set of perspectives on superintendent leadership and performance evaluation.
• Demonstrate a strong commitment to share outcomes and experiences from pilots with other school districts.

Legal basis for evaluation

The authority of boards comes from state law, and it is the state legislature which assigns their duties. Washington law requires that school boards evaluate their superintendents. Dionne & Rorick LLP, a Seattle based law firm, wrote,the evaluation of a school district superintendents is mentioned in only a single law, RCW 28A.405.100.

This lawhas three broad requirements: (a) that the school board establishes evaluative criteria; (b) that the board establishes evaluative procedures; and (c) that the criteria include eight specified categories.” These eight categories are:

1. Knowledge of, experience in, and training in recognizing good professional performance, capabilities and development;
2. School administration and management;
3. School finance;
4. Professional preparation and scholarship;
5. Effort toward improvement when needed;
6. Interest in pupils, employees, patrons and subjects taught in school;
7. Leadership; and
8. Ability and performance of evaluation of school personnel.

Typically board policy and superintendent contracts speak to when and how evaluation is to take place. There is no legalrequirementon objectivity, quality or validity of superintendent evaluation. Sometimes, boards completely neglect or provide a cursory, subjective and inconsistent performance review. There is no standard of practice or quality in superintendent evaluation. Illinois Superintendent Larry Weber portrayed these concerns in his 2007article, Evaluate me on measures, not tales.

Toprovide effective evaluations, boards may need to agree to evaluateon objective measures of performance. Education researcher and Professor David Petersonquestioned in 1987 whether board members could and needed to evaluate superintendentsHe answered “yes” to both questions.

Current status of evaluation

Although performance evaluation is common practice in public education, its consistency, relevance and effectiveness is frequently questioned. In a 1997 research paper, Carl Candoli and others wrote, “There is widespread dissatisfaction, especially on the part of the public but among school professionals as well, concerning evaluations of school professionals, schools, and programs.”

Superintendent evaluation poses particular and well-noted challenges. These influence the capacity for effective, fair and reliable outcomes that inspire confidence of all stakeholders.These issues relate directly to a common complaint that school boards often have difficulty working together and with their superintendent. That makes it impossible for them to be an effective governance team.

As Linda Dawson (October, 2010) lamented in an article for The American Association of School Administrators, “Most superintendent evaluation “processes” (we use the term loosely) have little or nothing to do with job performance, and usually all to do with whether board members like the superintendent’s style, appearance, or other subjective criteria. Most of the time, the evaluation is based on a checklist or values that were never discussed with the superintendent in advance. Result? The superintendent has little more than a vague notion about what was expected during the period being evaluated, and certainly no idea how to predict the result of the process.”

Despite the difficulties, researchers regularly conclude that good superintendent evaluation is critical to improving the performance of a superintendent.

The big challenge is to move away from personally subjective and often inconsequential measures. The evaluation needs to be about job performance and be based on meaningful criteria. These criteria need to be clearly understood in the same way. The evaluation process itself must also be recognized as meaningful and valid, and accepted by all parties in advance.

The significance of superintendent evaluation cries out for valid and meaningful performance criteria, and a process that all parties trust.

Superintendents’ perspectives

Superintendents cite a general lack of objective, clear and consistent performance evaluation by school boards.That belief, however, may not affect their opinion on the fairness of their own evaluations.

Michael DiPaola, Chancellor Professor in the School of Education at the College of William & Mary and a former superintendent, recalls, “I often would ask: ‘What does this rating mean?’ and ‘What data were used to arrive at this rating?’ Absent specific responses to these questions, it was impossible to plan for growth and improvement.”

DiPaola also observed from a 2007survey of 100 superintendents in three states revealed that more than three quarters said they were treated fairlyin their most recent evaluation.”

One difficulty, DiPaolasaid,is that lay elected school board members typically lack the experience and expertise to consistently evaluate a superintendent’s performance based on previously agreed upon evidence and outcomes. He cites research contending that a superintendent could be highly rated on evaluation criteria and still be non-renewed due to politics or personality conflicts outside his or her control.

Superintendent tenure

The evaluation process can enhance collaboration to improve district performance and accomplish a long term vision. Nevertheless, it is rare to find board members or superintendents that are comfortable with the necessary level of clarity of expectations, rigor in the process and eventual outcomes of evaluation. Inadequate and unfair evaluations can lead to unnecessary turnover among superintendents.If boards increase their capacity to conduct superintendent evaluation, superintendents may be able to have greater longevity.

Research strongly suggests turnover on a board creates big challenges that also increase administrative turnover. New board members often want a new superintendent. The turnover harms student achievement.

Research also suggests that longevitycan enhance system performance and student achievement. Tim Waters and RobertMarzano concluded in 2006 that “superintendent tenure is positively correlated with student achievement.” Statistically significant effects between superintendent tenure and student achievement begin to occur in as early as two years.

The Waters and Marzano study describes key actions of a superintendent that impact the outcomes of the district. These actions include: focus on creating goal-oriented districts, and “defined autonomy” – the practice of establishing clear student learning goals for schools while allowing school leaders the authority and responsibility for latitude in how they meet those goals.

The potential for superintendent evaluation

One of the best ways for a board to demonstrate support for a superintendent and his or her work could be objective, fair and valid performance reviews.

Larry Lashway, a former Wisconsin school board member and researcher for the Washington Professional Educators Standards Board,described in 2002how superintendents can directly influence student achievement. “By focusing professional development on instructional issues and basing principal evaluation on instructional improvement,” Lashway said, “superintendents can create powerful learning communities within their districts … District leaders can be firm in asserting the instructional agenda and aligning the organization to support it.”

Lashway suggests that boards should work closely with superintendents to clarify their expectations for performance and evaluation. “Without strong and highly visible board support,” he said, “district administrators will be preoccupied with shoring up their political base and thus unlikely to take the bold steps needed for transforming schools.”

Daniel Stufflebeam and many others have argued that systematic, careful evaluation is vital for an effective school system. The performance of the superintendent and the alignment between what he or she and the board are working towards is critical. The evaluation process provides an opportunity for better communication and clearer roles. In turn, this makes it easier to identify expectations and priorities for the district.

An initial framework

In 2008, Washington’s Professional Educator Standards Board (PESB) convened a task force to adapt the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium’s (ISLLC) nationally recognized administrator standards for use in superintendent preparation programs in Washington. Representatives from higher education, the Association of Washington School Principles (AWSP), the Washington Association of School Administrators (WASA) and the Washington State School Directors’ Association (WSSDA) met over a period of a year to develop a proposed set of standards with a framework for evaluation.

The committee presented its proposal in July 2009 to the PESB, and it was unanimously approved. Theframework identifies six broad standards a qualified superintendent is expected to be able to meet, criteria for the standard, along with impact-based indicators and performance-based indicators.As described in the 2008 ISLLC Report, the Washington standards describe, “Observable behaviors and actions required to meet performance standards” (2008, p. 20). The table below provides a sample from this framework.

Standard II of the Washington superintendent credential standards

Standard II: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of each student by leading through advocating, nurturing, and sustaining district/school cultures and coherent instructional programs that are conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.
Criteria /

Impact-based indicators

/

Performance-based indicators

1. Advocating, nurturing, and sustaining an effective district-wide culture
Demonstrates understanding that student learning is the fundamental purpose of schools. Identifies features of organizational cultures promoting student learning.
Analyzes how both the district and school cultures affect student learning.
Uses a variety of skills and strategies to design systems that respect and support diverse cultural perspectives and customs in order to promote success of each student. Ensures the creation and supports the implementation of district-wide and school improvement plans that focus on a culture of continuous learning. / Each School Improvement Plan reflects the school and district vision, guides decision-making and actions, and is regularly monitored and updated.
Student learning is frequently the focus of school and district level meetings and conversations.
Members of the school community feel respected, valued, and important.
Interpersonal and intergroup relationships within the school community are characterized by honesty and mutual respect. / Develops shared understanding, capacities, and commitment to high expectations for each student and closing achievement gaps.
Develops time and resources to build a professional culture of openness and collaboration, engaging teachers in sharing information, analyzing outcomes, and planning improvement.
Provides ongoing feedback using data, assessments, and evaluation methods that improve practice. Develops shared understanding of rigorous curriculum and standards-based instructional
programs, working with teams to analyze student work, monitor student progress, and redesign curricular and instructional programs to meet diverse needs.

Conclusion

Effective and fair evaluation of the superintendent may be one of the most important ways school boards can lead an aligned and highly effective school system. An effective and fair evaluation can clarify board/superintendent roles and strengthen their relationship. The Washington School Board standards underscore the significance of this responsibility. State law supports the importance of superintendent evaluation. And, the public deserves appropriate monitoring of the performance of school districts.

Just as with teacher and principal evaluation, a one-size-fits-all approach could be a mistake. Superintendents and boards play a key role in the performance and school systems. State law does not currently dictate research-based frameworks for an evaluation, but that is not a good excuse to ignore the need for them. Because of our responsibility to coordinate policy for Washington school districts, WSSDA is best positioned to oversee and guide this effort.

As representative of our members, the WSSDA Board should define the values and establish guiding principles for superintendent evaluation and then guide and monitor research and development of model processes. We can work with our partners to develop research-based options for school boards and ensure valid, reliable and defensible products are developed. This can help improve the likelihood for more objective superintendent evaluation occurring in our state.

References

Bredeson, P. V. & Kose, B. W. (2005, April). School superintendents as instructional leaders: Responses to a decade of education reform 1994-2003.Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Bridges, M. (2005). Superintendent evaluation for increased organizational performance: From traits to triangulation. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from UW Libraries. (3178062.pdf).

Candoli, I. C., Cullen, K., & Stufflebeam, D. L. (1997). Superintendent performance evaluation: Current practice and directions for improvement. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Carol, L., Cunningham, L., Danzberger, J., Kirst, M., McCloud, B., & Usdan, M. (1986).School boards: Strengthening grass roots leadership. Washington, D.C.: The Institute for Educational Leadership, Inc.

Dawson, L. J. & Quinn, R. (October, 2010). Superintendent Evaluation: A Travesty that Need Not Be. American Association of School Administrators. New Superintendents E-Journal. Available online at:

Dionne & Rorick LLP. (November 1, 2011). Superintendent performance evaluations under Washington law. Available online at:

DiPaola, M. F. (2007). Revisiting superintendent evaluation: Do you and your school board members view it as an event or a continuous process? The School Administrator, 64(6), (Retrieved online at: