Evaluating the superintendent is the paramount duty of the school board. Current evaluation practices are inconsistent and meaningless for providing effective feedback. The researcher was interested in understanding this issue from the school board’s perspective. Research questions addressed were: (1) What current evaluation practices exist? (2) What further training and support do school board members need? and (3) How does a school board member’s relationship with the superintendent affect their perception of the superintendent evaluation? In this qualitative study, findings confirm inadequate and inconsistent evaluation practices and a desire for ongoing support in evaluation training.
AlkinM. (1969). Evaluation theory development. Evaluation Comment, 2(1), 2–7.
2.
AlkinM. (2013). Comparing evaluation points of view. In AlkinM. (Ed.), Evaluation roots: A wider perspective of theorists’ views and influences (pp. 3–10). Sage Publications.
3.
AlkinM.ChristieC. (2004). Evaluation theory tree. In AlkinM. (Ed.), Evaluation roots: Tracing theorists’ view and influences (pp. 12–65). Sage Publications.
4.
AlsburyT. (2015). Improving school board effectiveness: A call for balanced governance. In AlsburyT.GoreP. (Eds.), Improving school board effectiveness: A balanced governance approach (pp. 3–13). Harvard Education Press.
BalchB.AdamsonM. (2018) Building great school board-superintendent teams: A systemic approach to balancing roles and responsibilities. Solution Tree Press.
7.
BanickiB.PachaJ. (2011). Illinois board of education closed sessions: Does the superintendent make a difference?Connexions Content Commons. http://cnx.org/content/m41413/1.1/
BjorkL.LindleJ. (2001). Superintendents and interest groups. Educational Policy, 15(1), 76–91.
10.
BorbaA. (2010). The superintendent’s evaluation: Bridging the gap from theory to practice. AASA New Superintendent E-Journal. https://www.aasa.org/content.aspx?id=12766
11.
Browne-FerrignoT.BjörkL. G. (2018). Reflections on education reform and team leadership. Research in Educational Administration & Leadership, 3(2), 339–347.
ChristieC.AlkinM. (2013). An evaluation theory tree. In AlkinM. (Ed.), Evaluation roots: A wider perspective of theorists’ views and influences (pp. 11–57). Sage Publications.
14.
ClevelandP.PetersenG.SharpW.WalterJ. (2000). A three state examination of school board evaluations of superintendents. Educational Research Quarterly, 23(3), 3.
15.
DavidsonF.SchwanenbergerM.WiggallR. (2019). What matters most in superintendent evaluation. Educational Leadership Review, 20(1), 217–233.
GreeneJ. (2013) The educative evaluator. In AlkinM. (Ed.), Evaluation roots: Tracing theorists’ view and influences (pp. 97–105). Sage Publications.
25.
GrissomJ.AndersenS. (2012). Why superintendents turn over. American Educational Research Journal, 49(6), 1146–1180.
26.
HendricksS. (2013). Evaluating the superintendent: The role of the board. NCPEA Education Leadership Review, 14(3), 62–72.
27.
HoyleJ.SkrlaL. (1999). The politics of superintendent evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13(4), 405–419.
28.
JohnsonK.GreenseidL.ToalS.KingJ.LawrenzF.VolkovB. (2009). Research on evaluation use: A review of the empirical literature from 1986 to 2005. American Journal of Evaluation, 30(3), 377–410.
29.
JonesN. (2012). Factors contributing to successful transitions into the role of a new superintendency in Texas: A mixed methods triangulation convergence inquiry. Administrative Issues Journal: Education, Practice, and Research, 2(1), 489.
30.
KowalskiT.BrunnerC. (2011). The school superintendent: Roles, challenges, and issues. Educational Leadership Faculty Publications, 43, 142–167.
31.
LaveC.MarchJ. (1993). An introduction to models in the social sciences. University Press of America.
32.
MadausG.StufflebeamD.ScrivenM. (1983) Program evaluation: A historical overview. In StufflebeamD. L.MadausC.KellaghanT. (Eds.), Evaluation models (pp. 1–18), Kluwer Academic Publishers.
33.
MayoC.McCartneyG. (2004). School superintendents’ evaluations: Effective and results-based?ERS Spectrum, 22(1), 19–33.
34.
McMillanJ. (2004). Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer. Pearson Education, Inc.
35.
MeltonT.ReevesL.McBrayerJ.SmithA. (2019). Navigating the politics of the superintendency. AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 16(3), 23–35.
36.
MountfordM. (2008). Historical and current tensions among board-superintendent teams: Symptoms or cause? In AlsburyT.GoreP. (Eds.), Improving school board effectiveness (pp. 81–114). Rowman and Littlefield Education.
37.
MyersA. (2018) Rethinking superintendent evaluation [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Delaware.
SchalmR.KellowayE. (2001) The relationship between response rate and effect size in occupational health ad psychology research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(2), 160–163.
42.
StakeR. (2013). Responsive evaluation IV. In AlkinM. (Ed.), Evaluation roots: Tracing theorists’ view and influences (pp. 189–197). Sage Publications.
43.
StufflebeamD. (1994, April4–8). Evaluation of superintendent performance: Toward a general model. Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, United States. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED375489.pdf
44.
StufflebeamD.CorynC. (2014). Evaluation theory, models, and application (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
45.
TekniepeR. (2015). Identifying the factors that contribute to involuntary departures of school superintendents in rural America. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 30(1), 1–13.
46.
TylerR. (1942). General statement on evaluation. Journal of Educational Research, 35(7), 492–501.
47.
VranishP. (2011). Making superintendent evaluation fun?School Administrator, 68(12), 10–15.
WeberL. (2007). Evaluate me on measures, not tales. School Administrator, 64(6), 16.
52.
WeissG.TempletonN.ThompsonR.TremontJ. (2014). Superintendent and school board relations: Impacting achievement through collaborative understanding of roles and responsibilities. School Leadership Review, 9(2), 4.
