The Tools of Evaluation Plied by the Board

Board-Savvy Superintendent

Most superintendents realize their school board’s evaluation of their performance is typically one of the most uncomfortable tasks of the entire year for both parties.

For many superintendents, this evaluation process, while encouraged, is still optional, while for others, it is a requirement included in their contracts. In some states, an annual superintendent performance evaluation is mandatory under state statute.

Regardless whether voluntary or required, the process of evaluation is valuable to both the superintendent and the school board, assuming the instrument is objective and both boards and superintendents responsibly approach the evaluation process.

Rubrics Recommended

A successful evaluation begins with a valid, objective assessment instrument. The absence of such a tool is perhaps the greatest factor contributing to many superintendents’ misgivings about the evaluation process or, more importantly, who the players are going to be in the process. Consequently, responsibly determining and reviewing the instrument and the process for executing the evaluation is a joint effort between the superintendent and school board.

Additionally, for this to be a meaningful exercise, the assessment tool must not only be objective, but the performance criteria within the instrument must be understood. Rubric performance evaluations, while requiring significantly greater development over Likert scale or narrative models, are the best and leave the least-private interpretation opportunities for either evidence production or performance rating.

Initial training in the district’s evaluation process, as well as the annual review, for new school board members and new superintendents is strongly encouraged. This training and review serve as both instruction and a reminder of the purpose of the assessment exercise.

An objective evaluation instrument relies predominantly on evidence that supports the performance criteria. Rather than relying on board members’ memories of the preceding 12 months to accurately depict performance, the savvy superintendent leaves nothing to chance. He or she systematically collects evidentiary artifacts throughout the year to illustrate the evaluation performance criteria and objectives. This does require organization and a conscious understanding that, while a typical evaluation process may occur only once a year, few board members or superintendents have the ability to effectively or accurately recall from memory alone enough evaluation-worthy actions as sufficient evidence of performance throughout the year.

Rather, an evaluation absent of supporting performance documentation ultimately reflects a subjective assessment of what has occurred most recently, or emotional or high-profile issues that are rarely representative of the superintendent’s performance throughout the entire year.

Showcase Event

The formal evaluation is an opportunity for a superintendent to showcase his or her performance and, for many superintendents, a positive annual evaluation performance is essential to contractual increases or extensions. The last thing the savvy superintendent prefers is that this important review be left to the school board’s interpretation alone.

Data supplied to augment the process help to ensure that private interpretations remain at a minimum and the underlying benefit is that board members will be more appreciative of the superintendent who eliminates subjectiveness and guesswork from the evaluation process. It makes their role easier and less speculative.

If there are any drawbacks to a more regimented evaluation process that requires performance evidence, it is the additional time requirement to accumulate, prepare and present the artifacts for consideration. However, in this era of greater accountability, spending a few extra minutes to ensure the annual evaluation performance is supported by evidence is time well-spent for both superintendents and school boards.

The bottom line is that legitimate performance evidence is difficult to refute or ignore. Equally significant is that the absence of data makes performance evaluations little more than popularity contests.

Michael Adamson is director of board services with the Indiana School Boards Association in Indianapolis, Ind.