Resources - Superintendent Evaluation Tips

1. Prior to evaluating the superintendent's job performance, the county board and superintendent should have a clear understanding as to what the evaluation process is to accomplish. Simply stated, the evaluation procedure should allow the county board to appraise or assess the superintendent's job performance over a given period of time through use of a specific process which includes, at minimum, an assessment or appraisal instrument, board/superintendent dialogue concerning the instrument and the evaluation process, and the clear citation of areas strength or any deficiencies noted through the evaluation process, with any plan of improvement carefully spelled out with specifically noted timelines. Thus, the superintendent's evaluation is part of a process, not the use of an appraisal or assessment instrument.

2. Before conducting the evaluation, the board should spend some time reviewing its own performance, using a formal instrument for such, which can be obtained from WVSBA.

3. Again, before initiating the evaluation, the board and superintendent should have a thorough understanding of the process that will be used. A pointer: Any actual superintendent evaluation instrument utilized should be one jointly developed (or agreed upon for use) by the board and superintendent. Don't try simply "adapting" a model superintendent evaluation instrument for use by the county board, unless the board and superintendent agree to such. Again, superintendent evaluation is a process, not use of an instrument. WVSBA maintains a series of "sample" evaluation instruments, several from West Virginia county boards.

4. Great care should be taken in the development and/or selection of any evaluation model so that the appraisal or assessment instrument is "user-friendly," easy-to-read, and easy to complete. This is especially true of instruments "adapted" for use. Also, in using "adapted" instruments, be aware of any vagaries of statute or laws in the states of their origin, and how these items may vary in West Virginia.

5. Although methods for conducting the superintendent evaluation or appraisal vary, one effective way to conduct the evaluation is for each member of the county board to complete the instrument separately, with the board president—or a designee of the board—then aggregating results. If the superintendent consents, he or she also may wish to complete the instrument as well in order to be able to compare his or her responses vis-a-vis those of the board. This is especially helpful for newly appointed superintendents. Yet, the evaluation is a process wherein the board collectively evaluates the superintendent's performance. A well thought-out process will allow the superintendent to formulate and compare his or her responses with those of the board.

6. Depending upon the evaluation process followed, it may be permissible for the board to conduct at least some of the superintendent's evaluation in executive session. The Open Governmental Proceedings Act permits county boards to consider, in executive session, matters arising from the employment of a public officer or employee. However, the Act also prohibits a county board from making any decision in an executive session. According to WVSBA Counsel Howard E. Seufer Jr., boards must be careful to observe this limitation. It is possible that an executive session discussion of the superintendent's performance—whether or not the superintendent participates—would be permissible. Voting on a consensus evaluation in executive session would not, according to Seufer. It is not clear, he says, whether a mere aggregation of the board members' individual evaluations constitutes a forbidden executive session 'decision.' Also, if the superintendent requests an open meeting, then no part of the process—even a discussion—may occur in executive session, says Seufer.

7. During the same session when evaluation results are shared with the superintendent, the board president or presiding officer first should reiterate the purpose of the evaluation (as stated above). Then, the presiding officer should note the items in which the superintendent's rating was high or very high, then areas in which the ratings were moderate, and then the areas, if any, in which the ratings were low. The presiding officer also should note any evaluation areas in which there were a wide array of board responses, especially areas in which the county board may have had difficulty interpreting the evaluation item(s).

8. Members of the board and superintendent should have time to enter into meaningful dialogue as to the evaluation results, with the superintendent having adequate time to respond to individual items, with the board and superintendent then discussing any areas or plans for improvement.

9. Any plan of improvement developed as part of the evaluation process should be clearly enunciated, both in terms of expectations, and any timelines. Avoid vaguely worded improvement suggestions or loose timelines.

10. The timeline for revisiting the plan of improvement and all the related items for such, as agreed upon by the board and superintendent, should be reduced to writing, and signed by the superintendent and board president (on behalf of the board). Before concluding the actual evaluation process, the board should take care to note any changes that should be made in the instrument, especially items that may need to be clarified as well as any desire to use a different evaluative instrument.

11. Once the evaluation has occurred, the board president (on behalf of the board) and the superintendent should sign a statement acknowledging that the process has occurred, as well as any plan or plans for improvement and any timelines. If possible, a date should be set for the next evaluation.

12. Once the evaluation process has been established, the board should be consistent in its application. Avoid "hit-and-miss" years for evaluations, especially "informal" evaluations wherein the board simply "discusses" the superintendent's performance among its members, but uses no formal appraisal or evaluative instrument.