Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Superintendent Performance Evaluation

The annual Board review of the superintendent's performance is coming up. We're seeing signs of it, calendar items on the Board calendar, hagiographies in the Seattle Times, etc.

By what criteria should the superintendent's performance be judged and, by those criteria, how has she performed. We could look to Policy B61.00 for some clues. We could also look to any statement of the District's annual priorities.

Here's the tool used last year.

I think her performance should be measured in a number of ways including:

Overall satisfaction with the District as expressed on the District's student family surveys

Overall academic achievement by all students

Improvement in academic achievement by under-performing students

Graduation rates

Closing the Academic Achievement Gap

Effective management of the budget

Capital projects completed on time and on budget

Compliance with Board Policy

Progress on the Strategic Plan

Effective management of her staff

Labor relations

Compliance with State and Federal law

Community relations

What other criteria are appropriate?

18 comments:

ArchStanton said...

Did anyone catch that the CPPS survey on the superintendent got some airtime on KIRO FM?

Superintendent Goodloe-Johnson gets low grades from parents

Melissa Westbrook said...

I wish there was some way to rate her on being able to inspire/motivate people. Of course, there is no effective measure of that but it seems pretty clear she only leads at the headquarters and not in the classroom or playground.

You can't quantify it but you know when someone has gained the respect of the community or even moved the community versus someone who acts without the interest or support of the community.

John said...

Parent relations?

dan dempsey said...

Compliance with State Law RCW 28A 645.020

ZERO

HAS YET TO HAPPEN

following this law is too onerous a burden for her crew to follow ..... THE BOARD CAN OWN THIS ONE ALSO.

=======
By the Weekend it should be known as to whether the WA Supreme Court issues passes on this or if accountability is in order.
=======

This comes down to the board making any decision they like or needing to use evidence in making decisions.

Superintendent Goodloe-Johnson is all for excluding evidence.

Four Directors like the exclude evidence plan as well.

The exclusion of evidence is the focus of her appeal of the Spector Math decision. It has ZERO to do with "Separation of Powers"

spsmarketshare said...

For a longer-term metric, how about market share (aka participation rate) of Seattle Public Schools? That is, the percentage of Seattle school children that go to SPS versus private school?

It is an indirect measure of family satisfaction with Seattle Public Schools and of how competitive public schools are with the education provided by private schools. It also forces the district to look at why people are leaving public schools and address the issues that cause parents to leave.

Bird said...

The district should be required to survey families about their level of satisfaction with their school, the administration and superintendent.

In the absence of this, I agree, marketshare should be used.

Charlie Mas said...

There are annual student climate and teacher climate surveys. Most of the questions are school-specific, but some of them are about satisfaction with the District.

I thought there was also a student family survey, but I can't find it right now.

Seattle said...

Only when we understand the superintendent's perspective and also how she interacts with the board do we have the opportunity to have a more productive conversation with her and with the board around parent concerns which may or may not mesh with her own sense of priorities. In the spirit of better understanding here are her unedited words divided into three parts to allow for blog wordcount limits.

part 1
Overarching Accomplishments and District Priorities 2009-2010

New Student Assignment Plan
After extensive community engagement, we mapped boundaries for the New Student Assignment Plan (NSAP), and these were approved by the Board in November 2009. We also developed a transition plan and a capacity management policy, both of which were approved by the Board to address student population shifts, enrollment, facility needs and academic achievement on an annual basis. We established a cross functional team to analyze data and make recommended adjustments to the Board in the fall of each year. We established an integrated call center that cross-trained staff from three departments (enrollment, transportation and customer service) to aid in the transition of the NSAP, decrease district staff positions and provide more efficient service to families. We established “family connectors,” trained volunteers from each school who acted as ambassadors to families on the newly implemented plan. We created an online address look-up tool to allow families to get immediate and accurate information about school assignments based on their home address.

As the NSAP was implemented, we made academic assurances and program placement decisions to provide programmatic access and equity for all students. These changes include implementing Integrated Comprehensive Service (ICS) for special education students, successfully implementing six collaborative pilot schools for English Language Learner (ELL) students and adding elementary and high school music and accelerated learning programs from K-12.

We designated Cleveland High School an option school with a focus on Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). We incorporated the South East Initiative Schools into the performance management framework that supports our school improvement efforts. Three schools that perform in the lowest five percent (Cleveland High School, Hawthorne Elementary and West Seattle Elementary) received School Improvement Grants (SIG) from the state to aid in improvement efforts. In addition, in acknowledgement of our leadership in performance management, the state is using our performance management framework as a model for the state.

Seattle said...

part two

For the first time, letters were sent out to ALL students in February indicating the students’ assignments based on address. As a result of the new plan and boundaries, the number of open choice applications submitted decreased by nearly 60 percent; we believe this indicates a strong level of family satisfaction with the assignment process and the value of predictable assignments. We also believe that the recent increase in student enrollment is an indication of family and community satisfaction. These changes all support the strategic investment to advance the goals of “Excellence for All.”

Data and Assessments
We worked during 2009-2010 to launch the Academic Data Warehouse (ADW), which is a web portal that provides teachers and administrators with accessible and up-to-date information that can be used to determine the supports, interventions, and programs that best meet the unique needs of every child. The ADW provided “real time” attendance and enrollment reports for all schools this year and will soon include student academic data that can be used to make decisions for continuous school improvement. Data coaches will work with high schools, middle schools and K-8’s this spring, and with elementary school administrators in the fall as they navigate the new school reports.

We implemented the Measures of Academic Performance (MAP) assessments this year in 76 schools and will expand MAP to all schools next year. MAP is a district-wide formative assessment system, aligned to state standards, that provides teachers with more frequent reading and math data to inform instruction throughout the year.

College/Career Readiness and Curriculum Alignment
We successfully completed three curriculum adoptions this year: high school language arts, social studies for grades 4 and 8, and world languages for grades 6-12. Based on Board and community feedback, the adoptions – particularly language arts – engaged stakeholders in a much more intentional and comprehensive way than in previous efforts. Staff responded to stakeholder and board requests to increase engagement to more fully discuss the curriculum alignment and adoption process. This year we also developed a Systemic Curriculum Alignment Framework to illustrate the interconnectedness of assessment, materials adoption, differentiation, acceleration, and support to ELL students and students with special needs.

We are on track to complete benchmarking to college-readiness standards, revised course objectives, revised course descriptions, and curriculum maps for high school language arts, math, science, US history, world history, and world languages (grades 6-12) by June 2010 (except for world history curriculum maps, which are still underway). This effort has represented a significant undertaking for high school department chairs, curriculum alignment teams, and the Curriculum & Instruction Department.

Seattle said...

part three

Culture change/Evaluation/Leadership Development
With important shifts around employee expectations and opportunities (new evaluation tools and leadership development support), we are starting to significantly change our culture regarding expectations and outcomes for performance. This year all central office staff implemented the new evaluation system, and some implemented mid-year evaluations, which were not required this year. A staff position was repurposed to focus entirely on ensuring that evaluations are done in a timely fashion and are aligned with our strategic priorities. In addition, we included metrics in many departments’ scorecards to measure whether evaluations are occurring.

To sustain this culture shift and to increase student growth and achievement, we must support principal leadership and professional development. In response to principal requests to develop Professional Learning Communities (PLC) to support professional practice in improving student achievement, we enabled every principal to participate in PLCs this year. These PLCs were supported by the Center for Educational Leadership. Principals also played a critical role in designing the Summer Leadership Institute, at which PLCs were launched. In addition, we developed the Superintendent’s Initiative for Leadership Development (SILD), which was funded by the Stuart Foundation. SILD is a fifteen-month leadership development program, in which selected central office staff and principals develop skills in systems thinking and learn to become advocates for system change. The SILD curriculum includes cross functional groupings, individual coaching, professional learning groups, large group seminars, optional weekend retreats, reading and writing sessions and Superintendent feedback sessions. A high quality and job relevant curriculum has been developed by outside experts. SILD has a formal evaluation and participants provide regular feedback. Participants have given very high ratings to the program.

To better support schools and create more effectiveness within the central office, we recently redefined the Education Director positions, and aligned them to support our New Student Assignment Plan. The Education Directors will now have responsibility for supervising and supporting principals and facilitating school improvement. In addition to redefining key roles, we have also redefined key processes. We have implemented Business Process Redesign (BPR) to streamline and create efficient processes and procedures. Key processes have been evaluated, redesigned and measured, in order to create more effective outcomes that have positive impacts for schools. Processes such as probations and evaluations have been significantly improved. In addition to implementing BPR, we have established cross functional teams to support schools in Phase I and II of the school performance framework, redesign the Reduction in Force (RIF) process , implement the new call center (enrollment, transportation and customer service); and execute an enhanced central office budget reduction process.

Seattle said...

part four

Performance Management System
This year we have focused on strengthening the School Performance Framework and providing differentiated interventions and resources to schools based on their performance. We have developed departmental scorecards and internal quarterly reviews to track progress and hold ourselves accountable to performance measures, financial summaries, and areas of improvement. Staff is required to attend with a structured format for presentation, questions and collaboration across departments.

Budget
Although the budget development process proved to be challenging this year, we made mid-year corrections and are on track to approve a balanced budget. I am particularly proud that we were able develop a balanced budget in the midst of a significant budget gap while maintaining an adequate fund balance, and that we were able to make significant staff reductions with minimum impact to classrooms. By benchmarking best practices of other school districts from the Council of the Great City Schools, we created a central office staff reduction process that was efficient, fair, and respectful of our employees. The critical component that allowed us to achieve positive results with the reduction was our decision to engage small teams of mid-level employees from each department. Because these employees were the ones that best understood the work of their departments, they were able to make accurate assessments and recommendations to the executive management team on how to implement the reductions while minimizing operational impacts. We are following up on their work by restructuring central office departments so that they will better support schools.

Relative to community and board engagement, we followed the same process and procedure we used last year, though we did encounter some bumps in the road, as staff believed they had agreement in moving forward. We also decided as a leadership team to prioritize a smooth internal RIF process, so fewer resources were available for engagement on budget. The central RIF process and the delayed state budget contributed to a difficult community engagement on the 2010-2011 budget. In preparation for next year, staff and Board members have agreed to identify the guiding principles, process, data sets, and engagement process early. We will also hold an additional workshop to examine other districts’ format for presenting budget information, and will discuss the context to frame our budget decisions and engagement process. We will create a parallel internal process for central office staff and building leaders so they are better informed and can be effective advocates during the very difficult budget year ahead of us.

State and Federal Opportunities
We are continuing to track the re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and will be providing feedback to our congressional delegation. Seattle Public Schools participates in discussions organized by the Department of Education. The Board has signed a resolution supporting Race to the Top (RTTT) and we are working with the Seattle Education Association (SEA) and the Principals’ Association of Seattle Schools (PASS) to sign Memorandums of Understanding regarding bargaining for an upcoming RTTT grant. We are partnering with the city, two school districts, and the New School Foundation to duplicate our successful Pre-K-3 model for an i3 grant.

Our legislative lunch was the best attended in years and resulted in a productive conversation around funding and improvement. Our advocacy resulted in the restoration of $5.2 million in K-4 Enhancement funds to our local budget. In addition, our focus on education reform and the alignment with our strategic priorities and community advocacy supported the approval of SB6696.

Seattle said...

part five --- the end

Risks and Challenges

Capacity and prioritization: We are leading an ongoing effort to simultaneously address operational and infrastructure needs while also addressing the pressing needs of the district’s schools (particularly in the wake of the New Student Assignment Plan) so that we avoid straining district resources.

Funding Climate: Budget constraints continue to challenge the district and force trade-offs and difficult prioritizations (shifting timelines and balancing investment in children and operational efficiency).

artemis said...

As stated above GJ said...

"So Relative to community and board engagement, we followed the same process and procedure we used last year, though we did encounter some bumps in the road, as staff believed they had agreement in moving forward. We also decided as a leadership team to prioritize a smooth internal RIF process, so fewer resources were available for engagement on budget. The central RIF process and the delayed state budget contributed to a difficult community engagement on the 2010-2011 budget."

yes, and my dog ate my homework and I couldn't do it anyway because I had pizza for lunch one day last week. And I didn't have a pencil. Well I did have a pencil but it wasn't sharp and I don't have an electric sharpener and my hand was tired. I do have my homework though kind of. I didn't do the problems but I still have the worksheet that you gave me, teacher. So I have my homework. It's just a little crumpled.

Central Mom said...

I find it interesting that there are only 2 items under risks and challenges and one of them is posed as "not a problem that we created" eg the budget.

Here is my short list of risks and challenges.

Internal processes that are far from smooth on both the project management and technology integration fronts. (See today's state audit item and the missed Native American funding. See also the inability to track and produce public testimony as requested by various judges in pending litigation.)

Standardization of curriculum that makes no allowance of variances to suit individual communities, which is causing unrest at individual school sites.

Glaring achievement gap stats that have not improved and for which we do not have a published Plan B.

A city council and Mayor's office that distrusts the District.

An increasingly loud group of parents who have not bought off on the superintendent's priorities.

No plan to support and replicate Choice/Option/Alt schools.

New schools who are not meeting enrollment projections, but are costing the district $45 million right now.

Lack of a coherent public engagement plan and lack of correctly resourced staff to carry out such a plan.

Potential pending litigation around the Special Ed program.

Current litigation around school closures and curriculum adoption.

Successful implementation of any of the items on the rollout list from 2009-2010.

And the list could go on...

dan dempsey said...

Lily Tomlin for SPS superintendent...

well qualified as

the irascible, prune-faced telephone operator Ernestine = We Don't Care We Don't have to.

Seattle-Ed2010 said...

Nina Shapiro at the Weekly has now weighed in on both the CPPS and the other survey: "Schools Chief Maria Goodloe-Johnson Heads into Board Evaluation on the Heels of Scathing Surveys"

Note the SPS/Alliance/Times talking point of the CPPS survey being "nonscientific" because it wasn't conducted by a marketing firm -- unlike, I suppose, the politically motivated push poll conducted by Strategies 360/DMA Marketing for the Alliance for Education and its contrived "Our Schools Coalition" with illicitly obtained private phone numbers of SPS students.

Also of note: The superintendent's evaluation and possible pay raise and contract extension will be announced June 16.

--sp.

Charlie Mas said...

Ah! Now we have the State Auditor's report to add to the criteria that should be part of the Superintendent's evaluation.

Charlie Mas said...

The superintendent's self-evaluation - if that's what Seattle posted - was full of deceit and largely off-topic.

Weird.