Routine performance evaluations are nearly universal for any number of professionals. But the quality and focus of those reviews for superintendents are far from uniform.
In fact, many district leaders say the processes put in place for them are unclear, incomplete, or weighed down by too many objectives, rendering them basically useless.
In a recent survey of more than 2,400 superintendents by AASA, The School Superintendents Association, more than 90 percent of district leaders said they undergo annual performance reviews, and only 1.5 percent said they never have performance reviews.
But more than half, 53 percent, said their employment contracts don鈥檛 specify a process for those evaluations or the measures their bosses, local school boards, will use to evaluate them.
That disconnect can leave district leaders feeling lost at sea, with little direction about what, specifically, is expected of them. Even worse, current and former superintendents say, is that the lack of clear performance expectations and evaluation processes can leave entire districts without a clear focus.
鈥淚f you look at a lot of the evaluations that you see out there, quite frankly, they鈥檙e lacking in a lot of different ways,鈥� said Terry Grier, former superintendent of Houston schools.
Grier, who retired in 2016 with 32 years of experience as a superintendent in various districts, said school board members鈥� political agendas and micromanagement too often get in the way of fairly and accurately evaluating superintendents鈥� performance鈥攁nd effectively steering a district.
Sometimes, he said, school boards are too focused on trivial issues in individual schools鈥攍ike what color to paint a gym or which brand of lawnmower to purchase鈥攁nd lose sight of big-picture priorities on which they鈥檙e supposed to be focused.
Like teacher evaluations鈥�a standard practice in districts across the country often spelled out in great detail鈥攕uperintendent evaluations in each district should have a set rubric, established at the beginning of a new superintendent鈥檚 tenure and reviewed and updated frequently, Grier said.
Teacher evaluations are required annually in at least 22 states, , while 37 states only require that probationary teachers undergo annual reviews. The criteria for teacher evaluations are generally established at the state or district level, and can vary greatly among districts.
The trick is to develop a superintendent evaluation process with a limited number of clear, measurable goals. The goals should align with those in the district鈥檚 strategic plan, keeping everyone鈥檚 focus, including the superintendent鈥檚, on what the school system has decided is most important.
Often overlooked is the importance of being focused and succinct when setting objectives for superintendents, Grier said. 鈥淚f you鈥檙e trying to focus on everything, you鈥檙e focusing on nothing,鈥� he said.
Josh Starr, a former superintendent in Stamford, Conn., and Montgomery County, Md., said the best evaluation process spans the entire year, rather than a single session annually when the school board pulls an evaluation rubric off the shelf. It should involve ongoing conversations with the school board in which board members provide feedback to the district leader based on the outlined objectives, he said.
鈥淎ny good boss continuously gives their employees feedback, they help them adjust, they support them, and so on,鈥� Starr said. 鈥淎nd in the best situations that鈥檚 what school boards should be doing with their superintendent.鈥�
If superintendents or school boards don鈥檛 feel comfortable ironing out the details themselves, they can bring in mediators or professional organizations to help, Starr said.
Evaluations aren鈥檛 binding
One wrinkle about evaluating superintendents, who face a job that is as much political as it is operational, is that even if a school board develops the perfect evaluation process, it鈥檚 not binding.
So, essentially, a superintendent can get perfect scores, and a board can still decide to fire them or not renew their contract.
School board members can also rate a superintendent poorly, even if they met all of the outlined objectives.
Still, even if positive reviews don鈥檛 secure a superintendent鈥檚 job, they鈥檙e still worthwhile, Starr said.
If nothing else, superintendents can point to their track record as they look for their next jobs. And, at its most basic level, at least the process that leads to the review gives district leaders a sense of what is expected of them and what to prioritize, Starr said.
Good processes keep the superintendent and school board focused on district goals
Wendy Birhanzel, in her fifth year as superintendent of the Harrison 69传媒 District 2 in Colorado Springs, Colo., said she feels her district鈥檚 process is one that could be replicated elsewhere.
Birhanzel said her school board sets goals at the start of each academic year, and she then has the 鈥渓eeway to do what is needed within the legal and ethical parameters to get those results.鈥� The school board then evaluates her based on her progress toward those goals.
Her goals are centered on students鈥� academic achievement, social-emotional well-being, culture, and school operations (buildings鈥� cleanliness and safety, for example).
Once Birhanzel and the board determine those priorities and goals, the board schedules times for periodic updates from staff on each topic during routine public meetings, Birhanzel said.
The district uses preselected state assessment and internal data to measure students鈥� academic progress, and Birhanzel receives feedback from the board about the district鈥檚 progress in all four priority areas. That gives her direction and routine guidance, and the ability to adjust as needed. The process also directs the school board鈥檚 energy, she said.
鈥淭he advantage is that the composition of your school board meetings is geared toward students and what they really need and how they鈥檙e doing, versus what color we should paint the cafeteria at one school or something,鈥� she said. 鈥淭hat keeps our focus on what we鈥檙e doing to support our students, which is what the conversation should always be about.鈥�
Having clear evaluation criteria also helps dissuade board members鈥攁nd, to a lesser extent, the community at large鈥攆rom making rash judgments, Birhanzel said.
鈥淚 think we get into trouble when those objectives and the process are not transparent and leave room for people to be evaluated based on political allegiances or certain decisions that were made that we might not agree with,鈥� Birhanzel said. 鈥淭his takes the ambiguity out because it鈥檚 transparent and lays out what we鈥檙e looking for and the policy it aligns with.鈥�
In a column in AASA鈥檚 monthly magazine for administrators this fall, Karen Rue, an executive superintendent for the Texas Association of School Administrators, said it can be useful for superintendents to frame goals outlined in their contracts as goals for the system as a whole.
鈥淕oals framed as board/superintendent priority goals, which relate to the beliefs, vision, mission and goals of the district, allow the board and superintendent to work in tandem,鈥� she wrote.
