Superintendent

Evaluation

Superintendent Evaluation Amended Fall 2019

Introduction
The Revised School Code requires school boards to evaluate their superintendent's job performance annually as part of a comprehensive
performance evaluation system that takes into account student growth data and requires certain additional factors. MASB is pleased to provide this
superintendent evaluation instrument based on the requirements of the Revised School Code. The instrument provides school districts a
straightforward option for superintendent evaluation. It may be used alone or in conjunction with a facilitated evaluation.

Professional Standards for Educational Leaders

This evaluation instrument is based in part on two bodies of research: The Professional Standards for Educational Leaders, which were reviewed and
published by the National Policy Board for Educational Administration in 2015 and School District Leadership that Works: The Effect of
Superintendent Leadership on Student Achievement which was conducted by Mid‐continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL) in 2006.
For detailed information on the research base, please consult the appendixes of this document.

Requirements, Process, Timeline and Resources

Elements that are required in the Revised School Code appear in red in the evaluation instrument. Please consult the appendixes of this document
for considerable supplementary information and guidance on superintendent evaluation.

Scoring
MASB recommends scoring on the rubric be limited to whole numbers (i.e., 2, 3, etc.); ratings of half numbers may be used if necessary (i.e., 2.5, 3.5,
etc.). Scoring in lesser increments undermine the reliability of the evaluation instrument.

Training
The Revised School Code requires Board of Education members to receive training on the evaluation instrument to be used for the superintendent
beginning in 2016‐2017. Training must also be provided to the superintendent regarding the measures used in the evaluation system and how each
measure will be used.

Posting Requirements
Districts must post comprehensive information on their websites in regards to the evaluation instrument being used. For details in regards to the
MASB Superintendent Evaluation instrument’s posting requirements, please visit www.masb.org/postingrequirements.

Who to Contact
Topic Contact
Superintendent Evaluation [email protected] or 517.327.5928
Training on Superintendent Evaluation [email protected] or 517.327.5904
Legal Questions [email protected] or 517.327.5929
Facilitated Evaluation [email protected] or 517.327.5904
Table of Contents

A. Governance & Board Relations 4

B. Community Relations 6
C. Staff Relations 8
D. Business & Finance 10
E. Instructional Leadership 12
F. Determining the Professional Practice Rating 15
G. Other Required Components of Evaluation 16
Student Growth 16
Progress Toward District‐Wide Goals 16
H. Compiling the Summative Evaluation Score 17
Appendix A – Research Base 18
Appendix B – Process for Completing Year-End Evaluation for Superintendent 19
Appendix C – Conducting the Formal Evaluation and Conference 20
Appendix D – Considerations Related to the Closed Meeting Exception 21
Appendix E – Possible Timelines for Evaluation of the Superintendent 22
Appendix F – Establishing Performance Goals for the Superintendent 23
Appendix G – Evidence 24
Appendix H – Possible Evidence of Performance 25
Appendix I – Contingencies 27
Appendix J – Student Growth 28
Appendix K – Developing an Individual Development Plan for the Superintendent 29
Appendix L – Training 30
Authors 31
A. Governance & Board Relations Nikki Nash 12.18.23 Weight: 20%
Ineffective (1 pt) Minimally Effective (2 pt) Effective (3 pt) Highly Effective (4 pt) Rating
A1 Policy involvement Makes decisions without Provides correspondence from policy Is actively involved Is proactive in the determination of
Professional regard to adopted policy. provider with recommendation(s) in the development, district needs and policy priorities;
Standards for for adoption. Follows as written. recommendation and administration has a system in place to ensure
3.5
Educational Leaders: of district policies. timely administration of district
2, 9 policies.

A2 Goal development Goals are not developed. Goals are defined by implementing Facilitates the development of short‐ Has a system in place for
Professional state curriculum and seeking to term goals for the district. Provides establishing, reporting on and
Standards for maximize student scores. the necessary financial strategies to monitoring goals. Budget practices 3.5
Educational Leaders: meet those goals. help to ensure alignment of
1, 9, 10 resources to goals.
A3 Information Does not provide the information Keeps only some members informed, Keeps all board members informed Has established mutually agreed
Professional the board needs to perform its making it difficult for the board to with appropriate information as upon protocols with the board
Standards for responsibilities. perform its responsibilities. needed so it may perform its regarding communication. Executes 3.5
Educational Leaders: responsibilities. those protocols consistently.
2, 7, 9
A4 Materials and Meeting materials aren’t readily Meeting materials are incomplete, Materials are provided. Background Meeting materials are
background available. Members arrive at and don’t include adequate and historical perspective are comprehensive with all adequate
Professional meetings without enough prior background information or historical included. Recommendations are background information and
4
Standards for information regarding agenda or perspective. included. previous action included.
Educational Leaders: background information. Recommendations are well thought
7, 9 out.
A5 Board questions Board questions aren't answered Most board questions are answered. Board questions are addressed with Has a system in place for receiving
Professional fully nor in a timely manner. All members aren’t apprised of all follow‐up to all board members. and responding to board member
Standards for relevant questions/answers. questions in a timely and thorough 4
Educational Leaders: manner.
2, 7, 9

A6 Board development Doesn’t promote and does not When prompted, provides members Provides all board members with Actively encourages board
Professional budget for board development. with information about board information regarding board development by seeking and
Standards for development. development opportunities when communicating opportunities. 3.5
Educational Leaders: they arise and budgets for board Ensures funding is aligned to board
6 development. development plan.

Category rating: 3.66666667

Artifacts that may serve as evidence of performance in this domain:

• Meeting agendas/minutes • Board packets • Board development materials • Memos/communications • Board policies/policy book
• Retreat agendas/minutes • Board development plan • Communication protocols • Policy review calendar
A. Governance & Board Relations – continued Weight: 20%

If a performance goal has been established related to one of the performance indicators above, write it below:
Performance Indicator: Goal:

Evidence:

Category rating should be reflected within the performance indicator.

Comments by Board of Education: Comments by the Superintendent:

Kudos for responding to Board questions. Materials are

appropriate and Board appreciates the responsiveness to
tailoring the information to requests. The Board request more
follow up and detail regarding staffing changes, budget and
finance plan or investigations as allowable. The Board will
provide direction.
B. Community Relations Nikki Nash 12.18.23 Weight: 15%
Ineffective (1 pt) Minimally Effective (2 pt) Effective (3 pt) Highly Effective (4 pt) Rating
B1 Parent feedback Doesn’t accept input from or engage Accepts suggestions and input from Readily accepts parent input and Actively seeks parental input, creates
Professional parents. parents but fails to seek it. Does not engages parents in district‐wide goal methods for parents to be actively
Standards for engage parents in decision‐making or setting and decision‐making. involved in decision‐making as well 3
Educational Leaders: district‐wide goal setting. as setting and supporting district‐
1, 8 wide goals.

B2 Communication Isn’t readily available for parents, Is available for parents, businesses, Actively seeks two‐way Develops and ensures
with community businesses, governmental and civic governmental and civic groups, communication with the community implementation of a community
Professional groups. Avoids direct communication providing them with information, but as appropriate. communication plan that fosters
Standards for unless absolutely necessary. doesn’t seek their input. Is not positive relations. 3.5
Educational Leaders: proactive.
1, 8

B3 Community feedback Doesn’t accept input or engage Accepts suggestions and input from Readily accepts community input Actively seeks community input,
Professional community. community but fails to seek it. Does and engages community in district‐ creates methods for community to
Standards for not engage community in decision‐ wide goal setting and decision‐ be actively involved in decision‐
Educational Leaders: making or district‐wide goal setting. making. making as well as setting and 3
1, 8 supporting district‐wide goals.

B4 Media relations Communicates with the media only Isn’t proactive, but is cooperative Promotes positive relations and Initiates and establishes a system for
Professional when requested. with the media when contacted. provides the media with district actively engaging the media to
Standards for event information. promote the district and provide 4
Educational Leaders: timely and effective information.
1, 8

B5 District image Is indifferent or negative about Doesn’t actively promote the district. Projects a positive image of the Projects a positive image at all times;
Professional the district. Does not speak well or Speaks adequately in public. district as expected. Well spoken. is a champion for the district.
Standards for represent the district well in front of Articulate, knowledgeable and well‐ 4
Educational Leaders: groups. spoken.
1, 8

B6 Approachability Is neither visible nor approachable Is not consistently visible at events or Is consistently visible at events and Is consistently visible at a variety of
Professional by members of the community. in the community. Is not approachable by members of the events and has developed methods
Standards for consistently approachable by community. of being approachable to members 4
Educational Leaders: members of the community. of the community.
1, 8

Category rating: 3.58333333

Artifacts that may serve as evidence of performance in this domain:

• Third party survey data • School accreditation survey data • Meeting invitations, agendas • Press releases • Community meeting agendas
• News clips/interviews • Community engagement calendar • Strategic planning agenda(s) • Communications • Service club membership(s)
B. Community Relations – continued Weight: 15%

If a performance goal has been established related to one of the performance indicators above, write it below:
Performance
Goal:
Indicator:

Evidence:

Category rating should be reflected within the performance indicator.

Comments by Board of Education: Comments by the Superintendent:

Communication is more timely. Board appreciates heads-up

and advanced notice. Athletic updates, promotions, bussing
etc. noticeably better. Board is concerned that Nikki takes
negative social media too much to heart.
C. Staff Relations Nikki Nash 12.18.23 Weight: 15%
Ineffective (1 pt) Minimally Effective (2 pt) Effective (3 pt) Highly Effective (4 pt) Rating
C1 Staff feedback Doesn’t accept input or engage Accepts suggestions and input from Readily accepts staff input and Actively seeks staff input and creates
(Teacher feedback is teachers and staff in decision‐ staff but does not seek it. Does not engages staff in district‐wide goal methods for staff to be actively
a required making or goal setting. engage staff in district‐wide goal setting and/or decision‐making. involved in decision‐making as well
component.) setting or decision‐making. as developing and supporting district‐
Professional wide goals.
3.5
Standards for
Educational Leaders:
6, 7
C2 Staff Doesn’t inform staff of matters that Is inconsistent in keeping staff Consistently keeps staff informed of Develops and ensures
communications may be of concern. informed of important matters. important matters. implementation of a staff
Professional communication plan that fosters
Standards for positive relations and keeps staff 3.5
Educational Leaders: informed of important matters.
2, 7, 9

C3 Personnel matters Personnel matters are not handled Many personnel matters are Personnel matters are handled with A system is in place for handling
Professional in a consistent manner. Some handled, but not always in a consistency, fairness, discretion, and personnel matters that is proactive,
Standards for situations may be handled with bias. consistent manner. impartiality. consistent, fair, discrete, and
Educational Leaders: impartial. Personnel procedures are
9 regularly reviewed, communicated
3.5
to staff, and updated as needed.

C4 Delegation of duties Doesn’t delegate duties. Maintains Delegates duties as staff members Delegates responsibility to staff Delegates responsibility to staff that
Professional too much personal control over all request additional responsibilities. within their abilities and then will foster professional growth,
Standards for district operations. provides support to ensure their leadership and decision‐making 3
Educational Leaders: success. skills.
9, 10
C5 Recruitment There is no formal or informal An informal recruitment and hiring A formal recruitment and hiring A formal recruitment and hiring
Professional recruitment process and/or hiring is process is in place, but is not used process is followed for hiring process is followed for each hiring
Standards for considered in an arbitrary manner. consistently. opportunities. opportunity. Actively recruits the
3.5
Educational Leaders: best staff available and encourages
6 their application to the district.

C6 Labor relations Is unable to work with union Is inconsistent in working with union Consistently strives to work with Proactively works with union
(Bargaining) leadership, doesn’t work to improve leadership in regard to bargaining union leadership. Shares appropriate leadership to build relationships with
Professional relations. and labor relations. information and effectively manages staff groups and establishes trust
Standards for the dynamics of the relationship. and effective sharing of information 3
Educational Leaders: in the bargaining process as
9 appropriate.
C. Staff Relations – continued Weight: 15%
Ineffective (1 pt) Minimally Effective (2 pt) Effective (3 pt) Highly Effective (4 pt) Rating
C7 Visibility in district Seldom visits buildings. Is occasionally present at building Consistently visits Conducts regular and purposeful
Professional programs and special activities. buildings/classrooms and special visits to buildings and classrooms.
Standards for activities. Consistently attends special 4
Educational Leaders: activities.
3, 4, 5, 6

Category rating: 3.42857143

Artifacts that may serve as evidence of performance in this domain:

• Third‐party survey data • School accreditation survey data • Hiring process documentation • Personnel policies and procedures • Recruitment calendar
• Staff leadership development plan • Negotiations documentation • School visit calendar • Communications • Staff meeting agendas/minutes

If a performance goal has been established related to one of the performance indicators above, write it below:
Performance
Goal:
Indicator:

Evidence:

Category rating should be reflected within the performance indicator.

Comments by Board of Education: Comments by the Superintendent:

Would like to see more evidence regarding input from teachers

and decisions made. More structured delegation is requested
in order to help staff grow and be empowered. Would like to
see a Board Member invited to negotiation table. Personnel
matters are being handled consistently and feedback from staff
is that Nikki is consistent and fair.
D. Business & Finance Nikki Nash 12.18.23 Weight: 20%
Ineffective (1 pt) Minimally Effective (2 pt) Effective (3 pt) Highly Effective (4 pt) Rating
D1 Budget development Budget knowledge is limited. The Works to develop and manage the Budget actions are proactive andBudget actions are proactive and
and management budget is developed and managed budget to meet the immediate fiscal consider the most current consider both current and long‐
Professional without taking into consideration issues. Decisions are primarily range information and data. A
information and data. A balance is
Standards for current needs of the district. reactive to current needs of the sought to meet the needs of balance is sought to meet the 3
Educational Leaders: district. students and remain fiscally current and future needs of students
1, 2, 9 responsible to the community. and remain fiscally responsible to
the community.
D2 Budget reports Doesn’t report financial information Reports the status of financial Reports to the board concerning the Has a system in place for the
Professional to the board except with the annual accounts as requested by the board. budget and financial status on a monitoring and reporting of all
Standards for audit. regular basis (monthly, quarterly, budgetary and financial information
Educational Leaders: etc., as agreed upon by governance to the board. Information provided 2.5
1, 2, 9 team). is adequate and timely, and outlines
potential ramifications of any
changes.
D3 Financial controls Annual audit has revealed areas that Annual audit is used to reveal any Is up‐to‐date with GAAP and state Promotes appropriate financial
Professional are in need of improvement. discrepancies. Internal controls are accounting procedures. Maintains controls, including third‐party audits
Standards for Financial accounts aren’t in order. inconsistent. internal controls. and reconciliation of accounts. Is 3
Educational Leaders: proactive.
2, 9

D4 Facility management A facilities management plan is not Facilities needs are discussed A facilities management plan is in Facilities management plan in place
Professional created. Maintenance is only internally, but a plan is not created. place that includes the current includes current status of buildings
Standards for performed when absolutely needed. Issues are addressed on an as‐ status of the buildings and the need and the need to improve facilities in
Educational Leaders: needed basis. to improve any facilities in the the future, with a projected plan to 3.5
5, 9 future. secure funding.

D5 Resource allocation Resources are allocated Resources are allocated to meet Resources are distributed Resources are distributed
Professional inconsistently and without immediate needs. consistently based upon district consistently based upon district
Standards for consideration of district needs. goals/needs and seek to meet goals/needs and seek to meet both
Educational Leaders: immediate objectives. immediate and long‐range 3
1, 9 objectives.

Category rating: 3

Artifacts that may serve as evidence of performance in this domain:

• Strategic plan • Auditor’s report • District budget • Budget‐related communications
• Election results that impact funding or facilities • Evidence of budgetary alignment to district‐wide goals • Grants received/applied for
• Policies/procedures related to fund management • Long‐term financial forecast data • Facilities maintenance plan • Facilities management plan
D. Business & Finance – continued Weight: 20%

If a performance goal has been established related to one of the performance indicators above, write it below:
Performance
Goal:
Indicator:
Evidence:

Category rating should be reflected within the performance indicator.

Comments by Board of Education: Comments by the Superintendent:

The Board notes improvement from one year ago. Would like
to see long range projections. Continue to build financial
controls. More communication to the Board regarding the
finance department, and more regular updates such as budget
to actuals are requested.
E. Instructional Leadership Nikki Nash 12.18.23 Weight: 30%
Ineffective (1 pt) Minimally Effective (2 pt) Effective (3 pt) Highly Effective (4 pt) Rating
E1 Performance evaluation No performance evaluation Most performance evaluations All required performance Performance evaluation system has been
system system is in place and/or not all are completed in a timely evaluations are completed in a established that is in compliance with state
Professional Standards evaluations have been manner and are in compliance timely manner and are in law, provides opportunities for growth to
for Educational Leaders: completed as required. with state law. compliance with state law. instructional staff, and is applied 3.5
6, 9, 10 Individual Development Plans are consistently across the district with
provided to staff rated as less than consistent results.
effective.
E2 Building-Level Leadership No effort is made to foster Little effort is made to foster Efforts are made to foster autonomy Principals are provided defined autonomy
Professional Standards autonomy at school buildings. autonomy at school buildings. at all school buildings but may not be consistently with accountability. Clear, non‐
for Educational Leaders: Expectations regarding learning Expectations regarding learning consistent or aligned to district negotiable goals for learning and instruction
4, 6, 7 and instruction have not been and instruction are vague or objectives. Goals for learning and have been established that provide school 3.5
instruction are not prioritized. leadership teams with the responsibility and
identified. unclear.
authority for determining how to meet those
goals.
E3 Staff development Staff development isn’t Staff development programs are Staff development programs are Staff development programs are
Professional Standards consistently provided. Staff offered based upon available offered based upon available individualized, targeted toward district‐
for Educational Leaders: members are responsible for opportunities. opportunities that are targeted specific goals and are sustained to increase 3.5
6, 10 their own improvement. toward staff growth and increasing student achievement.
student achievement.
E4 School Improvement School improvement efforts are School improvement plans are in School improvement plans are in School improvement plans are in place at all
Professional Standards limited. There is no place at the building level but place at all buildings and align to buildings and align to the district‐wide
for Educational Leaders: comprehensive plan in place. lack district‐wide coordination. the district‐wide goals. goals. Systems are in place for
6, 9, 10 implementation of improvement efforts
3.5
and monitoring of progress.

E5 Curriculum Curriculum isn’t a priority in the Teachers are allowed to define A curriculum is in place that seeks Curriculum is in place, aligned across grade
Professional Standards district and/or is inconsistent their own curriculum. There is to meet the state standards. levels and in compliance with state
for Educational Leaders: across grade levels. little coordination. standards. 3.5
4, 7

E6 Instruction There is little to no focus on Teachers are encouraged to Effort is made to accommodate Instructional practices in place that are
Professional Standards instruction. Technology is not enhance their instructional skills diverse learning styles, needs and differentiated and personalized to student
for Educational Leaders: utilized in classroom instruction. and embrace technology, but no levels of readiness. Some effort is needs. Technology is used to enhance 4
4, 6, 7 comprehensive program(s) is in made to incorporate technology teaching and learning.
place. into learning.
E7 Student feedback Doesn’t accept input or seek Accepts suggestions and input Readily accepts student input and Actively seeks student input, creates
Professional Standards student feedback. from students but does not seek engages students in district‐wide methods for students to be actively
for Educational Leaders: it. goal development and/or decision‐ involved in development of district‐wide 3
3, 5 making. goals as well as decision‐making.
E. Instructional Leadership - continued Weight: 30%
Ineffective (1 pt) Minimally Effective (2 pt) Effective (3 pt) Highly Effective (4 pt) Rating
E8 Student attendance Attendance isn’t addressed as a Attendance isn’t an area of Attendance is an area of focus. Attendance is an area of focus. Individual
Professional Standards policy issue. Attendance rates focus; and therefore, student There are plans and interventions student attendance problems are
for Educational Leaders: 5 are decreasing. attendance is a matter left to in place to address chronic addressed early and supports are put into
3.5
itself. Attendance rates fluctuate attendance problems. Attendance place. Attendance rates are being
at will. rates are improving or at a high maintained at a high level.
level.
E9 Support for Students Academic supports are in place, Academic supports are in place Programs and activities are Coherent systems of academic and social
Professional Standards but are inconsistent. but social supports to meet the available for students. Coordination supports are in place to meet the needs of
for Educational Leaders: needs of students are lacking. and alignment can be improved. all students. Maintains a safe, caring and
3, 5 healthy learning environment.
4

E10 Professional Is uninvolved in current Is somewhat knowledgeable of Demonstrates knowledge of Demonstrates knowledge of and comfort
knowledge instructional programs. Is current instructional programs. current instructional programs, and explaining current instructional programs.
Professional Standards unaware of current instructional Relies on others for is able to discuss them. Seeks to Participates actively in professional groups
for Educational Leaders: issues. Does not hold information/data. Does not hold learn and improve upon personal and organizations for the benefit of the
1, 4, 6 appropriate superintendent appropriate superintendent and professional abilities. Holds district and personal, professional growth. 4
certification and is not enrolled certification but is currently and maintains appropriate Holds and maintains appropriate
in appropriate certification enrolled in appropriate superintendent certification. superintendent certification.
program. certification program.

Category rating: 3.6

Artifacts that may serve as evidence of performance in this domain:
• Staff evaluation calendar • District performance evaluation system • Superintendent professional growth plan • Curriculum • RtI/MTSS
• Superintendent professional development • Teacher analysis of student achievement data • Curriculum audit • Strategic plan/district‐wide goals
• Staff development plan • Professional development calendar • Instructional model(s) • Curriculum team agendas • Instructional audit
• Coaching documentation • Observational data from staff • Documentation of instructional rounds • Positive behavior supports/character programs

If a performance goal has been established related to one of the performance indicators above, write it below:
Performance Indicator: Goal:

Evidence:
Category rating should be reflected within the performance indicator.

Comments by Board of Education: Comments by the Superintendent:

The Board would like to see opportunities for growth

connected to evaluations. Student surveys and increasing
the ask for student voice is deeeply appreciated.
F. Determining the Professional Practice Rating
Superintendent name: Nikki Nash School Year: 1.1.23‐12.18.23

Weight Category Score Category

Item
of Category (%) Weighted Score
3.666666667
A. Governance & Board Relations 20% (.2)
x 20% = 0.733333333
3.583333333
B. Community Relations 15% (.15)
x 15% = 0.5375
3.428571429
C. Staff Relations 15% (.15)
x 15% = 0.514285714
3
D. Business & Finance 20% (.2)
x 20% = 0.6
3.6
E. Instructional Leadership 30% (.3)
x 30% = 1.08
Total Possible 100% Score: 3.465119048

Adjusted (Score / 4) = 87%

G. Other Required Components of Evaluation
Superintendent name: Nikki Nash School Year: School year:
1.1.23‐12.18.23

Student Growth Weight: 40%

Student growth and assessment data used for superintendent evaluation must be the combined student growth and assessment data used in annual evaluation for the entire
district. Districts should establish a student growth model to be used for teacher and administrator evaluations that incorporates the most recent three consecutive years of
student growth data. NOTE: Beginning in 2018‐19 and moving forward, 50% of student growth must be based on state assessment data (from subject areas and grades
administered).

Ineffective (1pt) Minimally Effective (2 pt) Effective (3 pt) Highly Effective (4 pt) Rating

Fewer than 60% of students met 60‐74% of students met growth 75‐89% of students met growth 90% or more students met growth
growth targets targets targets targets
3

Growth:

Evidence: District Growth Model

Component score: 3
* For superintendents who are regularly involved in instruction, 25% of the annual evaluation must be based on student growth and assessment data.

1 Measuring student growth: A guide to informed decision making, Center for Public Education.

Progress Toward District-Wide Goals Nikki Nash 12.18.23 Weight: 10%

Progress made by the school district in meeting the goals set forth in the school district’s school improvement plans is a required component for superintendent evaluation.

Ineffective (1pt) Minimally Effective (2 pt) Effective (3 pt) Highly Effective (4 pt) Rating

Progress was made on fewer than Progress was made on Progress was made on Progress was made on
60% of goals 60‐74% of goals 75‐89% of goals 90% or more of goals
4

Progress:

Evidence: As indicated in District‐Wide Improvement Plan

Component score: 4
H. Compiling the Summative Evaluation Score Nikki Nash (12.18.23)

Weight Component Score Component

Component
of Component (%) Weighted Score
3.465119048
Professional Practice (Adjusted score, p. 14)
50% (.50) x 50% = 1.732559524
3
Student Growth (Component score, p. 15)
40% (.40) x 40% = 1.2
4
Progress Toward District-Wide Goals (Component score, p. 15)
10% (.10) x 10% = 0.4
Total Possible
100% Total Score: 3.332559524

Total Score / 4 = 83%

Evaluation rating as follows: 90% ‐ 100% = Highly Effective; 75% ‐ 89% = Effective; 60% ‐ 74% = Minimally Effective; Less than 60% = Ineffective

Comments by Board of Education: Comments by the Superintendent:

The Board acknowledges the hard work of the Superintendent and is well-pleased
with Nikki's performance. The Board wants to be supportive and invites open
communication and wants to provide the tools to be successful.

Board President’s Signature: __________________________ Date: ________ Superintendent's Signature: __________________________ Date: ________

(Superintendent’s signature indicates that he or she has seen and discussed the evaluation; it does not necessarily denote agreement with the evaluation.)
Appendix A – Research Base
National Policy Board for Educational Administration (2015). Professional Standards for Educational Leaders 2015. Reston, VA: Author.
The 2015 Standards are the result of an extensive process that took an in‐depth look at the new education leadership landscape. It involved a thorough review of
empirical research (see the Bibliography for a selection of supporting sources) and sought the input of researchers and more than 1,000 school and district leaders
through surveys and focus groups to identify gaps among the 2008 Standards, the day‐to‐day work of education leaders and leadership demands of the future. The
National Association of Elementary School Principals, National Association of Secondary School Principals and American Association of School Administrators were
instrumental to this work. The public was also invited to comment on two drafts of the Standards, which contributed to the final product. The National Policy Board for
Education Administration, a consortium of professional organizations committed to advancing school leadership (including those named above), has assumed leadership
of the 2015 Standards in recognition of their significance to the profession and will be their steward going forward.

Mid‐continent Research for Education and Learning (2006). School District Leadership that Works: The Effect of Superintendent Leadership on Student
Achievement. Denver, CO: Author.
To determine the influence of district superintendents on student achievement and the characteristics of effective superintendents, McREL, a Denver‐based education
research organization, conducted a meta‐analysis of research—a sophisticated research technique that combines data from separate studies into a single sample of
research—on the influence of school district leaders on student performance. This study is the latest in a series of meta‐analyses that McREL has conducted over the past
several years to determine the characteristics of effective schools, leaders and teachers. This most recent meta‐analysis examines findings from 27 studies conducted
since 1970 that used rigorous, quantitative methods to study the influence of school district leaders on student achievement. Altogether, these studies involved 2,817
districts and the achievement scores of 3.4 million students, resulting in what McREL researchers believe to be the largest‐ever quantitative examination of research on
superintendents.
Appendix B – Process for Completing Year-End Evaluation for Superintendent
Planning: At the beginning of the year in which the evaluation is to occur, the Board of Education and superintendent convene a meeting in public and agree
upon the following items:
• Evaluation instrument
• Evaluation timeline and key dates
• Performance goals (if necessary beyond performance indicators outlined in rubric, district‐wide improvement goals and student growth model)
• Appropriate benchmarks and checkpoints (formal and informal) throughout year
• Artifacts to be used to evidence superintendent performance
• Process for compiling the year‐end evaluation
• Process and individual(s) responsible for conducting the evaluation conference with the superintendent
• Process and individual(s) responsible for establishing a performance improvement plan for the superintendent, if needed
• Process and individual(s) responsible for sharing the evaluation results with the community

Checkpoints: The Board of Education and superintendent meet at key points in the evaluation year as follows:
• Three months in – Informal update – Superintendent provides written update to the board. Board president shares with the superintendent any specific
concerns/questions from the board.
• Six months in – Formal update – Superintendent provides update on progress along with available evidence prior to convening a meeting in public. Board president
collects questions from the board and provides to superintendent prior to meeting. Board and superintendent discuss progress and make adjustments to course or goals,
if needed.
• Nine months in – Informal update – Superintendent provides written update to the board. Board president shares with the superintendent any specific
concerns/questions from the board.
• 11-12 months in – Formal evaluation – Superintendent conducts self‐evaluation; presents portfolio with evidence to Board of Education (made available prior to
meeting). Board members review portfolio prior to evaluation meeting; seek clarification as needed. Board president (or consultant) facilitates evaluation. Formal
evaluation is adopted by Board of Education.
Appendix C – Conducting the Formal Evaluation & Conference
Prior to meeting:
1) Superintendent prepares self‐evaluation, compiles evidence and provides to Board of Education.
2) Board members seek clarity, as needed, regarding self‐evaluation or evidence provided.
3) Board of Education members receive blank evaluation instrument and make individual notes about their observations.

During meeting:

4) Superintendent presents self‐evaluation and evidence. Superintendent remains present throughout the meeting.
5) Board president reviews with Board of Education superintendent’s self‐evaluation and evidence provided for each domain and facilitates conversation about
performance.
6) Score is assigned for each performance indicator via consensus of the Board of Education.
7) Upon completion of all performance indicators within all domains, board president calculates overall professional practice score and identifies the correlating rating.
8) Board president reviews with Board of Education evidence provided related to progress toward district‐wide goals.
9) Score is assigned for progress toward district‐wide goals via consensus of Board of Education.
10) Board president reviews with Board of Education evidence provided related to district’s student growth model.
11) Score is assigned for student growth via consensus of Board of Education.
12) Board president calculates overall evaluation score based on professional practice, progress toward district‐wide improvement goals and student growth ratings.
13) Board president makes note of themes/trends identified by the Board of Education during the evaluation.
14) Board president calls for vote to adopt completed year‐end evaluation for superintendent.
15) Superintendent notes his/her comments on evaluation.
16) Board president and superintendent sign completed evaluation form.
Appendix D – Considerations Related to the Closed Meeting
Exception
Boards of Education may go into closed session for certain aspects of the superintendent’s evaluation but ONLY at the request of the superintendent. A superintendent who has
requested a closed session may rescind the request at any time. The following table identifies which aspects of the process need to be in open and closed session:

OPEN PHASE
Scheduling the evaluation CLOSED PHASE ***only if requested by employee***
Choosing and modifying the evaluation instrument Discuss & deliberate about the evaluation
Establishing performance goals or expectations
Determining process for the evaluation OPEN PHASE
Voting to go into closed session Adoption of the evaluation
Related board actions and discussions

Consensus That Involves a Closed Session

1. Superintendent requests a Closed Session for the purpose of his/her evaluation.
2. Board of Education votes to go into closed session.
3. Board of Education moves into closed session: the superintendent remains present throughout the session unless he/she chooses to excuse him/herself.
4. Board president reviews with the Board of Education the superintendent’s self‐evaluation and evidence provided for each domain and facilitates a conversation about
performance. A consensus of the Board of Education is identified for each domain score.
5. Board president reviews with Board of Education evidence provided related to progress towards district‐wide goals. A consensus of the Board of Education is identified
for progress towards district‐wide goals via consensus of Board of Education.
6. Board president reviews with Board of Education evidence provided related to district’s student growth model. A consensus of the Board of Education is identified for
student growth.
7. Upon completion of all areas, the board president calculates the overall score and identifies the correlating rating.
8. Board president makes a note of themes that were identified by the Board of Education during the evaluation.
9. Board of Education comes out of Closed Session and returns to an Open Meeting.
10. Board president reads aloud:
• The consensus score/rating identified for each performance indicator and the calculated domain scores
• The score/rating for progress towards district‐wide goals
• The score/rating for student growth
• And then the overall rating earned by the superintendent. (This may occur at a subsequent meeting.)
11. Board president calls for a vote to adopt the completed year‐end evaluation for the superintendent.
12. Superintendent notes his/her comments on the evaluation.
13. Board president and superintendent sign the completed evaluation form.
14. Board president works with the superintendent to coordinate public statement about the superintendent’s performance.

The completed evaluation form reflects the Board of Education’s assessment of the superintendent’s performance and is subject to FOIA.
The forms used by individual board members for notes are not subject to FOIA providing they are not calculated into an average score.
Appendix E – Possible Timelines for Evaluation of the Superintendent
Key dates and deliverables for superintendent evaluation should be mutually agreed upon by the Board of Education and the superintendent at the beginning of the
evaluation cycle. Timeline scenarios and key benchmark descriptions are provided below.

Jan. - Dec. July - June April - March

Activity Month Activity Month Activity Month

Tool, process, timeline and goals Tool, process, timeline and goals mutually Tool, process, timeline and goals
January July May
mutually established established mutually established

Informal update April Informal update October Informal update August

Formal discussion and check‐in on Formal discussion and check‐in on Formal discussion and check‐in on
June December October
progress towards goals progress towards goals progress towards goals

Informal update August Informal update February Informal update December

Annual evaluation November Annual evaluation May Annual evaluation March

Advantage: Aligns with election cycle. Board Advantage: Aligns with the school year. Is compatible with Advantage: Aligns with contract renewal cycle in many
members who establish goals are likely the same natural flow of the school year as well as hiring cycle for cases. Boards of Education must provide superintendents
board members evaluating performance. most superintendents. 90 days’ notice in the event of nonrenewal of contract.
Beginning of cycle: Informal update: Mid-cycle formal update: Annual evaluation:
Board of Education and superintendent • Board president shares • Board president provides • Superintendent performs
mutually agree upon: any specific questions/concerns from questions from the board self‐evaluation; presents
• System (tool) to be used board members prior to meeting portfolio with evidence to Board of
• Timeline and key dates • Superintendent provides • Superintendent provides Education
• Goals, benchmarks and evidence a written update to the board on goals, update on progress with • Board members review
• How evaluation will be compiled expectations and indicators of success available evidence portfolio prior to evaluation,
• How evaluation will be shared with • Board offers input on status/progress • Board seeks clarification if needed seek clarification as needed
superintendent to‐date • Discussion on progress and growth • Board president or consultant
• How evaluation will be shared with the • Adjustments to course or goals are facilitate evaluation
community discussed • Formal evaluation is presented to
and adopted by Board of Education
• Board president and superintendent
coordinate public statement regarding
superintendent performance
Appendix F – Establishing Performance Goals for the Superintendent
The MASB Amended Spring 2019 Superintendent Evaluation instrument provides a framework for evaluating the superintendent in critical areas of professional practice as
well as the state‐required components of student growth and progress towards district‐wide goals. Additional performance goals should be established in exceptional
circumstances to clarify the board’s expectations and give priority to the work being done. For this reason, performance goals should be limited in number, aligned to district
goals and assist in clarifying accountability.

Superintendent performance goals may be developed from: When establishing performance goals, the following guidelines should be considered:
• A specific district goal • Involve all board members and superintendent
• A job performance indicator within an evaluation instrument • Decide on desired results
• Student performance data • Develop performance indicators
• Identify supporting documentation (evidence)
• Review and approve final performance goals, indicators and evidence
• Monitor progress at scheduled checkpoints

Performance Goal Fundamentals

Performance goals should be S‐M‐A‐R‐T:

Specific – Goals should be simplistically written and clearly define what is expected.
Measurable – Goals should be measurable and their attainment evidenced in some tangible way.
Achievable – Goals should be achievable given the circumstances and resources at hand.
Results‐focused – Goals should measure outcomes not activities.
Time‐related – Goals should be linked to a specific timeframe.

Process for Goal Development

1. Identify the district goal/priority/indicator/student performance data the superintendent’s goal is intended to support
2. Ask the superintendent:
a. What will we see next year toward the accomplishment of this that we don’t see now?
b. What measure will we use to know that the difference represents meaningful progress?
3. Allow superintendent time to craft a response
4. Once agreed upon, board and superintendent develop SMART goal statements
Appendix G – Evidence
Validity, reliability and efficacy of the MASB Amended Fall 2019 Superintendent Evaluation instrument relies upon board members using evidence to score superintendent
performance.
• Artifacts to serve as evidence of superintendent performance should be identified at the beginning of the evaluation cycle and mutually agreed upon by the Board of
Education and the superintendent.
• Artifacts should be limited to only what is needed to inform scoring superintendent performance. Excessive artifacts cloud the evaluation process and waste precious
time and resources.
• Boards of Education and superintendents should establish when artifacts are to be provided, i.e., as they originate, at designated checkpoints, during self‐evaluation,
etc.

A list of possible artifacts that may be used as evidence is provided at the end of each professional practice domain rubric. See the appendixes of this document for additional
artifacts that may serve as evidence of performance.
Appendix H – Possible Evidence of Performance
Evidence helps to demonstrate performance of the superintendent and remove guess work and subjectivity from evaluation. The following artifacts may be used as
evidence of performance. The list is not comprehensive.

1 Administrative “calendar” – critical dates calendar 20 Community survey 39 Enrollment plans

(RE: due dates, etc.) and board presentation 21 Comprehensive School Improvement Plan 40 Equity district‐wide program results
cycle/annual reports 22 Customer satisfaction indices 41 Evidence of annual review of district’s mission
2 Administrative team book study (agendas and 23 Curriculum team meeting agendas statement and alignment to practice
minutes) 24 Curriculum and instructional audit 42 Evidence of implementation of formal project
3 Administrative team meeting agendas 25 Data on outreach programs management techniques
4 Affirmative action plan 26 Department of Education site visit summative 43 Evidence of relationship building (notes, cards,
5 Agendas and/or minutes from community report emails, etc.)
planning meetings, including key communicators 27 Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills 44 Evidence of teachers examining student
meetings (DIBELS) Data achievement data
6 Auditor’s report 28 Development of wikis, blogs, etc., to collect 45 Feedback from a wide variety of stakeholders
7 Background checks verification feedback on specific issues in the district about performance as the superintendent
8 Board and administrative goals 29 District Budget 46 Formal and informal community partnership
9 Board meeting agendas 30 District‐wide School Improvement Plan agreements and plans
10 Board policy and administrative policy 31 Distribution of research to administrative team 47 Formative assessments to inform instruction
enforcement that’s reflective of a “new” vision with and teachers 48 Grants received/applied for – alignment to goals
supporting materials 32 Diversity training/awareness plan of the district; sustainability
11 Bullying/harassment programs 33 Documentation of coaching for instruction, 49 Growth goals for administrators
12 Character education program data curriculum or assessment 50 Hiring process (guidelines, procedures,
13 Civic group presentations 34 Documentation of coaching and evaluation of schedules)
14 Collaboration/sharing incentives/opportunities principals 51 House calls – contact with parents and partners
for efficiency/effective learning (documentation) 35 Economic vision (participation with community (documentation)
15 Collaborative partners (documentation) development groups) 52 Induction plan of board members for
16 Collaborative sharing of programs, etc. (agendas 36 Election results that impact tax levies understanding of school finance (confidence of
and minutes) 37 Emergency/Crisis Plans board members’ understanding)
17 Common teacher instructional planning time 38 Employee handbooks 53 Involvement with “school safety” organizations
18 Communication “vehicles” that make the school (documentation)
vision visible to stakeholders including using 54 Instructional model
technology 55 Instruction‐related professional
19 Communications with parents development/growth plans
56 iPod audible book study
57 Job‐embedded PD on instruction
58 Leadership library (documentation) 74 Number of visits to Web site 91 Record of solicitation of feedback
59 Level of volunteerism (documentation) 75 Observational data from board, staff, etc. 92 Reports and celebrations of student achievement
60 Linkage of Professional Development Model to 76 Open houses (documentation) to board and other audiences
student achievement goals (documentation) 77 Opening day PowerPoint‐type presentation 93 School comparisons charts from CEPI
61 Log of school visits and conversations with staff 78 Parenting classes ‐ numbers 94 Special Education delivery plan
(includes emails) 79 Parent‐teacher conference numbers 95 Staff handbook
62 Log of school visits and presentations 80 Participation in social/fraternal organizations 96 School Improvement Plans
63 Meaningful interpretive reports of student (documentation) 97 Staff recruitment plan
achievement data delivered in lay language 81 Participation in youth‐oriented organizations 98 Student achievement data
64 Media – Newsletter/paper articles/Web site (documentation) 99 Surveys of staff/community
65 Meeting logs of times with administrative 82 Participation on state, regional, national 100 Symbolic “pins,” other symbols – celebrations,
staff/support staff initiatives (documentation) etc.
66 Membership and service to service clubs 83 PBS – Positive Behavior Supports – 101 Teacher mentor program
(documentation) control/theory/SAFE/Olweus/CHAMPS 102 Trends in Career Development Plan growth
67 Michigan Student Test of Educational Progress implementation plans goals for teachers
Data 84 Podcasts/video communicating district vision 103 Work with city council on city/school initiatives
68 Michigan Top‐to‐Bottom School Rankings and accomplishments (documentation)
69 Minutes of the School Improvement Advisory 85 Policies/procedures for management of funds 104 Work with School Improvement Advisory
Committee meetings 86 Preschool – community partnership plans Committee (SIAC) (documentation)
70 Monthly calendars 87 Presentations to groups, including teachers 105 Written communications
71 National Assessment of Educational Progress (shareholders/stakeholders) 106 Written proposals for innovative practices
Data 88 Professional Development Plan 107 Written recommendations on difficult issues
72 Needs assessments/satisfaction surveys/focus 89 Program evaluation and process result
groups 90 Reflective journals
73 Notes from state officials
Appendix I – Contingencies
If a superintendent receives a rating of minimally effective or ineffective, the Board of Education must develop and require the superintendent to implement an improvement
plan to correct the deficiencies. The improvement plan must recommend professional development opportunities and other actions designed to improve the rating of the
superintendent on his/her next annual evaluation. See the appendixes of this document for more information on developing an Individual Development Plan for the
superintendent.

If a superintendent receives a rating of highly effective on three consecutive annual evaluations, the Board of Education may choose to conduct an evaluation biennially instead
of annually. However, if a superintendent is not rated as highly effective on one of these biennial evaluations, the superintendent must again be evaluated annually.
Appendix J – Student Growth
For all superintendents, the evaluation system has to take into account multiple measures of student growth and assessment data. For superintendents who are regularly
involved in instructional matters—and this includes all but the most exceptional situations—the following specific expectations must be met with regards to student growth:
• 25% of the annual evaluation shall be based on student growth and assessment data for years 2015‐2016, 2016‐2017 and 2017‐2018
• 40% of the annual evaluation shall be based on student growth and assessment data amended Fall 2019
Student growth and assessment data used for superintendent evaluation must be the combined student growth and assessment data used in teacher annual year‐end
evaluations for the entire district.
Student Growth Versus Student Achievement
Student growth and student achievement are not the same measurement. Student achievement is a single measurement of student performance while student growth
measures the amount of students' academic progress between two points in time. 1
Student Achievement Example: A student could score 350 on a math assessment.
Student Growth Example: A student could show a 50‐point growth by improving his/her math score from 300 last year in the fourth grade to 350 on this year's fifth
grade exam.
It’s important to note that, in order to measure student growth, the data considered must be from a single group of students, i.e., this year’s fourth graders and next year’s
fifth graders.

What is a Student Growth Model?

School districts should establish a student growth model to be used in educator and administrator evaluations. A growth model is a collection of definitions, calculations or
rules that summarizes student performance over two or more time points and supports interpretations about students, their classrooms, their educators or their schools. 2

Michigan law requires that multiple research‐based growth measures be used in student growth models that are used for evaluation purposes. This may include state
assessments, alternative assessments, student learning objectives, nationally normed or locally adopted assessments that are aligned to state standards or based on
individualized program goals. (Note: Beginning in 2018-2019, in grades and subjects in which state assessments are administered, 50% of student growth in core areas must
be based on state assessments.)
Michigan law also requires that the most recent three consecutive years of student growth data be used for evaluation. If three years of data are not available, available data
should be used.

1 Measuring student growth: A guide to informed decision making, Center for Public Education
2 A Practitioner’s Guide to Growth Models, Council of Chief State School Officers
Appendix K – Developing an Individual Development Plan for the Superintendent
Individual Development Plans are an excellent way of helping employees develop their skills. Boards of education should encourage superintendents to develop an IDP in
order to foster professional development.

In the event that a superintendent receives a rating that is less than effective, the law requires the creation of an IDP. The following process is a framework for creating and
implementing an IDP for the superintendent:

• During the evaluation conference, the Board of Education provides clear feedback to the superintendent in the domain(s) in which he/she received a less than
effective rating.
• A committee of the Board of Education is established to support and monitor the superintendent’s development.
• The superintendent drafts an IDP and presents it to the committee for feedback and approval. The IDP outlines clear growth objectives, as well as the training and
development activities in which the superintendent will engage to accomplish objectives. The committee reviews, provides feedback and approves the IDP.
• The committee meets quarterly with the superintendent to monitor and discuss progress.
• The superintendent reports progress on his/her IDP with his/her self‐evaluation prior to the formal annual evaluation.
Appendix L – Training
MASB provides training on its Amended Spring 2019 Superintendent Evaluation instrument to board members and superintendents via a cadre of certified trainers. Training is as follows:

Fundamentals of Evaluation: This training covers the fundamentals of evaluation including legal requirements, essential elements of a performance evaluation system and
processes for establishing superintendent performance goals and expectations. This session may not be necessary for participants who have attended Board Member
Certification Courses (CBAs) 300 and 301, or who have documented participation in in‐district workshops focused on superintendent evaluation conducted by MASB trainers.
It is offered at various locations on an individual registration basis or as requested in cooperation with intermediate school districts.

Instrument-Specific Training: This training covers the use of the MASB Rev. Fall 2018 Superintendent Evaluation instrument including the cycle and processes of evaluation,
rating superintendent performance on the rubric, as well as the use of evidence to evaluate superintendent performance. This training fulfills the requirement of evaluator
training for board members as well as evaluatee training for superintendents whose districts are evaluating their superintendent with the MASB Rev. Fall 2018 Superintendent
Evaluation instrument. It is conducted on‐location in districts with board members and superintendent present.
 Authors
The Michigan Association of School Boards has served boards of education since its inception in 1949. In the decades since, MASB has worked hands‐on with tens of
thousands of school board members and superintendents throughout the state. Evaluation of the superintendent has been a key aspect of that work – MASB developed
superintendent evaluation instruments and trained board members in their use nearly half a century before the requirements.

MASB staff and faculty involved in creating the MASB 2016/ Rev. Fall 2019 Superintendent Evaluation instrument Include:

• Rodney Green, Ph.D., Superintendent of Schools (retired), East China School District
• Olga Holden, Ph.D., Director of Leadership Services (retired), MASB
• Donna Oser, CAE, Former Director of Executive Search and Leadership Development, MASB
• Debbie Stair, MNML, former school board member, Assistant Director of Leadership Development, MASB

New York Council of School Superintendents staff and leadership involved in creating the Council’s Superintendent Model Evaluation (which significantly influenced MASB’s
instrument):
• Jacinda H. Conboy, Esq., New York State Council of School Superintendents
• Sharon L. Contreras, Ph.D., Superintendent of Schools, Syracuse City SD
• Chad C. Groff, Superintendent of Schools
• Robert J. Reidy, Executive Director, New York State Council of School Superintendents
• Maria C. Rice, Superintendent of Schools, New Paltz CSD
• Dawn A. Santiago‐Marullo, Ed.D., Superintendent of Schools, Victor CSD
• Randall W. Squier, CAS, Superintendent of Schools, Coxsackie‐Athens CSD
• Kathryn Wegman, Superintendent of Schools (retired), Marion CSD