1. Home
  2. Resources

Superintendent Evaluation

Effective school boards consider superintendent evaluation to be identical to school system evaluation. For this reason, 100% of superintendent evaluation is based on progress relative to the Goals and Guardrails. The Board’s annual evaluation of the superintendent then becomes a summary of results reported throughout the year through progress monitoring. The annual evaluation allows the board to summarize its judgment of the Superintendent’s performance based on the objective evidence given through the monitoring report data provided throughout the previous year. The Board has the opportunity to discuss performance highs and lows and make a measured determination as to whether the current Superintendent remains adequate. The Board will also be able to deal with any adjustments to contract and compensation accordingly at this time.

Superintendent Evaluation Process

Phase 0: Throughout the Year

  1. Each month, board conducts monitoring of Goals and Guardrails (formative assessment)

Phase 1: Before Supt Eval

  1. 3rd party conducts evaluation training for the board (optional unless there will be a subjective element to the evaluation, then should be required for any board member who has not completed the training within the previous 24 months)
  2. 3rd party conducts board 360 eval (optional at board discretion)
  3. 3rd party conducts supt 360 eval (optional at supt discretion)
  4. Board conducts self eval
  5. Supt conducts self eval

Phase 2: During Supt Eval

  1. Supt shares and discusses self eval with board
  2. Board discusses 1) board self eval, 2) supt self eval (including data), 3) year's worth of Goals monitoring reports, and 4) year's worth of Guardrails monitoring reports
  3. Board chair drafts summary letter that addresses glows, grows, contract, and compensation
  4. Supt offers comments on draft letter
  5. Board discusses and adopts final evaluation letter for the supt

Phase 3: After Supt Eval

  1. Board reviews goal metrics to clarify Goals for following year
  2. Board adopts supt annual eval instrument, weights, and process for following year

Superintendent Evaluation Instrument

A Goal has “Met Annual Target” if either the end of School Year (SY) Actual is greater than or equal to the SY Target OR if at least two of the three Interim Goals have “Met Annual Target” or “Met 5yr Target”. A Guardrail has “Met Annual Target” if at least two of the three Interim Guardrails have “Met Annual Target” or “Met 5yr Target”.

No Data

Did Not Meet Annual Target

Almost Met Annual Target

Met Annual Target

Met 5yr Target

Goals

Guardrails

SY21

Target

SY21

Actual

Met or

2/3 Met

SY21

Target

SY21

Actual

2/3 Met

Goal 1: The % of 0-5 yr olds from low income census tracks who benefit from aligned 0-5 programming will increase from 22.80% in Aug 2019 to 34.8% in Aug 2026

24.8%

23.1%

2/3 Met

Guardrail 1: The Superintendent may not allow educators to be without weekly, high quality coaching supports

Did

Not Meet

Interim Goal 1.1: abc will increase from 23% on x month/year to 45% by z month/year

24%

24%

Interim Guardrail 1.1: abc will increase from 78% on x month/year to 91% by z month/year

81%

80%

Interim Goal 1.2: abc will increase from 56% on x month/year to 70% by z month/year

60%

62%

Interim Guardrail 1.2: abc will increase from 34% on x month/year to 68% by z month/year

37%

35%

Interim Goal 1.3: abc will increase from 15% on x month/year to 24% by z month/year

19%

17%

Interim Guardrail 1.3: abc will increase from 77% on x month/year to 100% by z month/year

80%

78.7%

Goal 2: The % of students still on track two years after graduation will increase from 76.2% in Jun 2019 to 80% by Jun 2026.

79.5%

79.2%

2/3 Met

Guardrail 2: The Superintendent may not allow the organization to incentivize the most effective teachers to leave the classroom

2/3 Met

Interim Goal 2.1: abc will increase from 79% on x month/year to 86% by z month/year

81%

82%

Interim Guardrail 2.1: abc will increase from 88% on x month/year to 100% by z month/year

93%

92.4%

Interim Goal 2.2: abc will increase from 85% on x month/year to 94% by z month/year

88%

86%

Interim Guardrail 2.2: abc will increase from 47% on x month/year to 80% by z month/year

51%

53%

Interim Goal 2.3: abc will increase from 38% on x month/year to 52% by z month/year

42%

52%

Interim Guardrail 2.3: abc will increase from 15% on x month/year to 70% by z month/year

45%

70%

Goal 3: The % of 3rd graders who are 2+ grade levels behind in ELA who grow by at least 1.5 grade levels on abc assessment will increase from 45% in Aug 2019 to 58% by Aug 2026.

48%

47%

Did Not Meet

Guardrail 3: The Superintendent may not propose major decisions to the board without engaging impacted students, parents, community, and staff.

2/3 Met

Interim Goal 3.1: abc will increase from 23% on x month/year to 47% by z month/year

41%

52%

Interim Guardrail 3.1: abc will increase from 28% on x month/year to 46% by z month/year

35%

46%

Interim Goal 3.2: abc will increase from 48% on x month/year to 62% by z month/year

49.5%

49%

Interim Guardrail 3.2: abc will increase from 800 on x month/year to 1200 by z month/year

1000

990

Interim Goal 3.3: abc will increase from 41% on x month/year to 57% by z month/year

42%

39.5%

Interim Guardrail 3.3: abc will increase from 51% on x month/year to 68% by z month/year

53%

70%

Summative Evaluation Considerations

The board needs to determine what the summative results of the above data means -- if it’s weighted or not and what the threshold for Satisfactory will be.

Sample Weights

Sample Levels

Goal - 60% (2/3)

Guardrail - 40% (2/3)

Overall 80% = Satisfactory

or

Goal - 50% (2/3)

Guardrail - 50% (2/3)

Overall 75% = Satisfactory

0-4 Goals & Guardrails Met = Not Satisfactory

5-6 Goals & Guardrails Met = Satisfactory

or

0-2 Goals & Guardrails Met = Not Satisfactory

3-4 Goals & Guardrails Met = Partially Satisfactory

5 Goals & Guardrails Met = Satisfactory

6 Goals & Guardrails Met = Exemplary