Two Sides Evaluating Each Other Annually

Board-Savvy Superintendent

IT IS AN annual rite of passage for school boards to evaluate superintendents at the conclusion of a school year. In New York’s Corning-Painted Post Area School District, where I have served as superintendent for 12 years, the evaluation functions as a two-way street as I get an opportunity to evaluate my school board as well, and we evaluate our effectiveness as one unit.

I was hired at a time when our school district was in crisis. We had a highly divided board of education, an operating budget that was rejected twice by the community and years of failed school facilities referendums.

During 2007-08, my first year, the board began to recognize the need for major changes. Among the most significant was the collective realization that the superintendent and nine-member board of education were equally dependent on each other if the school district was to move forward with any success.

New Measures

The board developed a new evaluation tool and superintendent evaluation system that is based on goal setting and basic operating procedures and practices. We use a board/superintendent evaluation checklist that includes indicators relating to vision/philosophy/goals, organizational structure, policy development and financial management. In addition, we set a series of goals and objectives annually from our master plan and assess progress quarterly toward completion of each goal.

This model clearly reflects that the superintendent cannot achieve the assigned goals and objectives without the support of the board and solid board operating practices. At the conclusion of each school year, I provide feedback to the board that enables the members, individually and collectively, to examine their own actions to gauge whether they are supporting or hampering pursuit of the goals of the district or superintendent.

We have adopted several modifications to board/superintendent operations as a result of this two-way review. The model proved its value, for instance, when we were planning a major facilities referendum for public vote. The district had suffered four failed attempts at getting public approval over a 10-year period, owing largely to the divided posture of the school board.

In 2008, we were at a critical juncture in our planning for the next facilities referendum. As we had seen previously, board members were beginning to interfere in the overall process and in the recommended option to submit to voters. They were allowing themselves to be influenced by constituents in the community who really did not want to see change. But at a board retreat that year, during our annual review, we used this process to deliver feedback to board members for the first time.

In this instance, the feedback was not kind. We were in a dire situation with the state of our buildings. Financially, we needed to consolidate schools to protect our programs. The divisions in the board had been the basis of the previous failures. This was called out and discussed. Fortunately, the board self-corrected, and since that time, we have passed two facilities referendums totaling $163 million, along with successful annual budget votes during the past 11 years.

Since then, we used this process to drive changes in adopting board policy, managing information requests, staffing leadership positions and managing new board members. It has been a foundation for the success of the board-superintendent team.

Protecting Trust

For this process to work, the board and superintendent must believe they have permission to be candid and honest with one another. The focus on building a respectful and trusting culture is paramount. In our district, the school board frequently has used an outside consultant to run training sessions on team building, leading board members to consistently update and review communication practices. Trust is the key, and we protect that trust between both entities at all times.

A positive, trusting board and superintendent relationship ensures success of the district’s schools. One entity cannot succeed without the other. This two-year feedback model ensures both parties focus on continual improvement with equal investment.

MICHAEL GINALSKI is superintendent of the Corning-Painted Post Area School District in Corning, N.Y.