Superintendent Performance Evaluation: Current Practice and Directions for Improvement

307 Pages·1997·18.902 MB·English

by  I. Carl Candoli, Karen Cullen (auth.), I. Carl Candoli, Karen Cullen, Daniel L. Stufflebeam (eds.)

Superintendent Performance
Evaluation: Current Practice
and Directions for Improvement
Evaluation in Education and
Human Services
Editors:
George F. Madaus, Boston College,
Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
Daniel L. Stufflebeam, Western Michigan
University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, U.S.A.
Other books in the series:
Smith, M.:
Evaluability Assessment
Ayers, 1. and Berney, M.:
A Practical Guide to Teacher Education Evaluation
Hambleton, R. and Zaal, J.:
Advance.s in Educational and Psychological Testing
Gifford, B. and O'Connor, M.:
Changing Assessments
Gifford, B.:
Policy Perspectives on Educational Testing
Basarab, D. and Root, D.:
The Training Evaluation Process
Haney, W.M., Madaus, G.F. and Lyons, R.:
The FracturedMarketplacefor Standardized Testing
Wing, L.C. and Gifford, B.:
Policy Issues in Employment Testing
Gable, R.E.:
Instrument Development in the Affective Domain (2nd Edition)
Kremer-Hayon, L.:
Teacher Self-Evaluation
Payne, David A.:
Designing Educational Project and ProgramEvaluations
Oakland T. and Hambleton, R.:
International Perspectives on Academic Assessment
Nettles, M.T. and Nettles, A.L.:
Equity andExcellence in Educational Testing andAssessment
Shinkfield, AJ. and Stufflebeam, D.L.:
Teacher Evaluation: Guide to Effective Practice
Birt;nbaum, M. and Dochy, Filip J.R.C.:
Alternatives in AssessmentofAchievements, Learning
Processesand PriorKnowledge
Mulder, M., Nijhof, WJ., Brinkerhoff, R.O.:
Corporate Trainingfor Effective Performance
Britton, E.D. and Raizen, S.A.:
Examining the Examinations
Superintendent Performance
Evaluation: Current Practice
and Directions for Improvement
edited by
1. Cari Candoli
Austin, Texas
Karen Cullen
Cornell University
Daniel L. Stufflebeam
Western Michigan University
....
"
SPRINGER-SCIENCE+BUSINESS MEDIA, LLC
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Superintendent performance evaluation : current practice and
directions for improvement / edited by 1. Cari Candoli, Karen
Cullen, Daniel L. Stufflebeam.
p. cm. -- (Evaluation in education and human services)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-94-010-6251-0 ISBN 978-94-011-5356-0 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-5356-0
1. School superintendents--Rating of--United States. 1. Candoli,
1. CarI. II. Cullen, Karen. III. Stufflebeam, Daniel L.
IV. Series.
LB2831.762.S87 1997 97-2392
371.2'01l--dc21 CIP
Copyright @ 1997 by Springer Science+Business Media New York
Originally published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 1997
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1s t edition 1997
Ali rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, mechanical,
photo-copying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of
the publisher, Springer-Science+Business Media, LLC.
Printed on acid-free paper.
Contents
Executive Summary ix
Contributors xxi
Preface xxiii
Acknowledgments xxvii
1
INTRODUCTION 1
Context and Definitions 2
Book Overview 4
2
METHODOLOGY 7
3
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 11
The Need for Consensus 11
Administrator Competencies 14
Generic Administrator Duties 20
The Personnel Evaluation Standards 22
The Evaluation Process 25
4
THE SUPERINTENDENCY 29
History 29
Transition to an Industrial Society 31
The Era of Scientific Management 31
The Human Relations Approach 32
The Behavioral School of Management 32
Evolution ofthe Position 33
Entry Requirements: Evaluation by Credential 34
Duties ofthe Superintendent 37
Administrative Skills Defined 39
Functions of the Office of Superintendent 42
Superintendent Contract and Tenure 43
vi CONTENTS
5
LITERATURE REVIEW FINDINGS 45
What is the Extent and Frequency of Superintendent
Performance Evaluation? 46
What are the Purposes of Superintendent Performance Evaluation? 47
What Criteria are Used to Evaluate Superintendents and
Who Establishes These Criteria? 53
What Methods are Used to Evaluate Superintendent Performance? 58
Who Conducts Superintendent Evaluations and How Well
Qualified Are They to Perform This Function? 60
What Other Stakeholder Groups Provide Input Intothe
Evaluation Process? 61
What is the Importanceof Superintendent Performance Evaluation
forthe Effectiveness ofthe Superintendency and/or
the School System? 63
Summary ofthe Literature Review Findings 64
6
DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT OF SUPERINTENDENT
EVALUATION MODELS 69
Board JudgmenVTraditional Approach 71
Descriptive Narrative Reports 75
Formative Exchanges About Performance 78
Stakeholder Evaluation 82
Printed Rating Forms 85
Report Cards 90
Management by Objectives 94
Performance Contracting 97
Duties/Responsibilities-Based Evaluation 100
Superintendent Portfolio 103
Student Outcome Measures 107
School and District Accreditation 110
7
AN EMERGING MODEL FOR SUPERINTENDENT EVALUATION 119
Draft of an Improved Model 119
Tasks in the Evaluation Process 120
Grounding Evaluation in Communication 123
Keying Evaluation to the Duties of the Superintendency 125
Proposed General and Illustrative Specific Duties of Superintendents 127
General Frameworkto Guide Collection and Use of Information for
Evaluating Superintendent Performance 131
Putting the Pieces Together 139
Implementing the Model Within Normal School Year Calendars 141
SUPERIN1ENDENT PERFORMANCE EVALUAnON vii
SuperintendentIBoard Interactions in the Context of an Annual
Evaluation Calendar 142
Main SuperintendenVBoard Performance Evaluation Activities
in Each Quarter 143
Differentiating Board and Superintendent Responsibilities for
Superintendent Performance Evaluation 145
Managing the Evaluation Process 147
Concluding Comments 148
GLOSSARY 151
APPENDICES 159
INDEX 287
Executive Summary
Every school district needs a system of sound superintendent performance
evaluation. U.S. schooldistrictsuperintendentsareandmustbeaccountabletotheir
school boards, communities, faculties, and students for delivering effective
educational leadership. Districts and their communities are not being served well,
however, by the present evaluation systems. This is unnecessary as well as
unfortunatesincethefield ofeducationhas issueddefmitivestandardsfordesigning
and conducting sound evaluations ofpersonnel and programs.
To assure that they are evaluated fairly, competently, and functionally,
superintendents need to help their school boards plan and implement evaluation
systemsthatadheretotheevaluationstandards. Thissummaryoutlinessomeofthe
problems and deficiencies in current evaluation practice and offers professionally
based leads for strengthening or replacing superintendent performance evaluation
systems. Boards and superintendents are advised to make superintendent
performance evaluationan integral partofthedistrict's largersystemforevaluating
district needs, plans, processes, and accomplishments.
General Characteristics of Current Superintendent Performance
Evaluation Practice
Thecurrentpractice ofsuperintendentperformanceevaluation can becharacterized
as follows:
Prevalence and Importance
1. Nearlyallschoolboardsregularlyevaluatethesuperintendent'sperformance-
79 percentannually and 7 percent semiannually.
2. The extent to which boards and superintendents perceive performance
evaluationsascontributingtotheoveralleffectivenessofthesuperintendency
and the school system is inconclusive.
Purpose
3. Among thecommonlystatedevaluationpurposesaretoclarifysuperintendent
andboardroles, informthesuperintendentoftheboard'sexpectations, assess
performance with standards, identify areas needing improvement, improve
educational performance, improve superintendentlboard communication and
relations, improve planning, aid in the superintendent's professional
development, inform personnel decisions, assure accountability, and fulml
legal requirements. These important purposes clearly require pertinent and
dependable performance evaluations.
x EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Criteria
4. Whilenearly 87percentofsuperintendentshavejob descriptions, only about
halfare evaluated according to thejob description criteria.
5. Criteriaused to evaluate superintendentperformanceinclude traits, qualities,
skills, processes, and outcomes.
6. The evaluation criteria used most frequently are superintendent/board
relationships, generaleffectivenessofperformance, and budgetdevelopment
and implementation.
7. Superintendent evaluations leading to terminations are often grounded in
personality factors rather than sound assessments of performance and
accomplishments. Whileboardsmustchoosesuperintendentswithwhomthey
can feel comfortable, the bottom line concern must be with selecting and
supporting superintendents who deliver effective leadership.
Models
8. Twelve main models for superintendent performance evaluation were
identified thatreflect3 mainorientations: globaljudgment,judgmentdriven
by criteria, andjudgmentdriven by data.
9. None of the models meets well the Joint Committee's The Personnel
Evaluation Standards.
10. However, the models driven by criteria showed the most promise, with the
strongest ones keyed either to explicit duties or to a printed rating form.
Evaluators
11. More than 90 percent of superintendents are evaluated by board members,
often with data input from the superintendent.
12. Input from other stakeholders, such as peers, subordinates, constituents,
teachers, and students. is solicited in no more than 10 percent of school
districts.
13. Many school board members are not adequately trained to evaluate
superintendents.
Assessment Methods
14. The prevalent methods are unvalidated rating scales and checklists, often
lacking in objectivity.
15. Ingeneral. there isa lackofvalidated superintendentperformanceevaluation
instruments that may be adapted to particular school district circumstances.
SUPERINIENDENT PERFORMANCE EVALUAnON xi
Reporting Methods
16. Fornearlyhalfofthesuperintendents,theirevaluationisdiscussedwith them
ata meeting ofthe board and superintendent.
Obvious deficiencies in present superintendentperformance evaluations include
insufficientfocusonjob-performancecriteria,inadequatelytrainedevaluators,weak
evaluation models, and technically inadequate methods. Given the important
purposes of superintendent performance evaluations, it is vital to correct these
deficiencies.
Standards for Sound Superintendent Evaluations
An appropriate place for boards and superintendents to begin the needed
improvement process is to adopt the accepted standards for sound personnel
evaluations. Thesehavebeenprofessionallydefinedandprovidespecific, technical
advice for defining the parameters of a sound evaluation system; assessing the
adequacy of evaluation processes, data, conclusions, and reports; training the
evaluators; and organizing a working evaluation system.
The national professional associations ofschool administrators and school board
members along with 12 other professional associations defined, through their
standingJointCommittee, thestandardsfor soundeducationalpersonnelevaluation
(also another set for program evaluation). This work is authoritative, since the
Committee is accredited by the American National Standards Institute as the only
U.S. body recognized to set standards for educational evaluation. The Personnel
Evaluation Standards are designed to help educators develop, assess, adapt. and
improvesystemsforevaluatingeducationalpersonnel,includingteachersandsupport
personnel as wellas administrators. Unfortunately, school districtshave been slow
toimplementtheStandards. Allschooldistrictsarestronglyencouragedtoformally
adopt the Joint Committee Standards as the policy basis for all their educational
personnel evaluations.
The Standards posit 4 basic values for the personnel evaluations of all school
districts,with each value defmed (much more specifically than can be shown here)
by several standards.
Proprietystandardsrequirethatevaluationsbeconductedlegally,ethically,and
with due consideration for the welfare ofthe evaluatees (e.g., superintendents) and
of their clients (students and community). The 5 Propriety standards are Service
Orientation,FormalEvaluationGuidelines,ConflictofInterest. AccesstoPersonnel
Evaluation Reports, and Interactions with Evaluatees.
Utility standards are intended to guideevaluations so that they are informative,
timely,andinfluential. The5UtilitystandardsareConstructiveOrientation,Defmed
Uses, EvaluatorCredibility, Functional Reporting, and Follow-up and Impact.
Feasibility standards require evaluation systems that are easy to implement.
efficientin using timeandresources, adequatelyfunded, andpolitically viable. The