At the December Kentucky Board of Education (KBE) meeting, the board finalized my evaluation and agreed upon the goals that will be used for my 2014-15 evaluation. Viewers may read my evaluation summary and see the goals that KBE set for me for 2014-15. The Kentucky Board of Education has utilized this process during my tenure and on numerous occasions the board has strongly recommended that local superintendents and school boards utilize a similar process.
Over the past three years, the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) has worked with stakeholders to develop a superintendent professional growth and effectiveness system. Chief of Staff, Dr. Tommy Floyd, has led this work over the last 18 months and the advisory committee of stakeholders developed excellent resources that can be utilized by superintendents and school boards.
As with any initiative, there remain questions and concerns about the new Superintendent Professional Growth and Effectiveness System (SPGES). A visit to the webpage should provide readers with clarity on most issues. However, I did want to respond to one issue that surfaced in recent meetings with the Kentucky School Boards Association (KSBA) and the Kentucky Association of School Superintendents (KASS). There was some confusion on training and if districts could utilize a model other than the state-developed model.
As to the training, it has always been our intent that the Kentucky School Boards Association will take the lead on training. Also, the webpage for the SPGES has more than adequate materials for a local school board to become familiar with the new system.
The issue about using a model other than the state model is very simple. According to statute, KRS 156.557 (6)(a), a local school board must approve a superintendent evaluation model and submit that model to the KDE for approval. School boards must decide by the end of this month as to their local model for evaluation of the superintendent for 2015-16 and submit that model to KDE for approval. If the model chosen by the local board is the state developed model, then a local board is assured of approval. Should a local board submit a locally developed model, then that model will be reviewed against the key requirements established by the superintendent evaluation task force. The confusion across the state seems to come from KSBA wanting to submit a model for approval. To be clear, KSBA is not a school district. However, a local school board could submit the KSBA model for consideration by KDE.
For additional questions or concerns about the Superintendent Professional Growth and Effectiveness System, please contact Dr. Tommy Floyd, tommy.floyd@education.ky.gov or (502)564-3141.
Showing posts with label superintendent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label superintendent. Show all posts
Friday, December 12, 2014
Friday, April 26, 2013
Valuing superintendent input
This
week, we had a very lively Superintendent
Advisory Council meeting. I really value input from superintendents since
they are the primary point of contact between the Kentucky Department of
Education (KDE) and
implementation of Senate
Bill 1 (2009) and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waiver requirements.
During
the meeting this week, we spent most of our time discussing the next-generation
superintendent standards being developed by the Kentucky Association of School
Administrators (KASA). Also, we discussed
the expectations for annual summative documentation of local board evaluation
of the superintendent.
The
Superintendent Advisory Council serves in an advisory role and, during the
meeting, the group did offer several recommendations for implementation of new
superintendent standards and evaluation procedures. I will go over these
recommendations on Monday, April 29, during my monthly superintendent webinar.
There
has been a significant amount of confusion and misinformation about the
expectations for superintendent evaluation procedures. It is my intent to
clarify the procedures in a letter to board chairs and superintendents in late
May or June.
Our
Kentucky superintendents do a terrific job in spite of increasing budget
difficulties. It is my hope that we will be able to align the teacher,
principal and superintendent evaluation procedures to drive a model of
professional learning and professional growth. Working together, I know we can
do this in Kentucky.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Superintendent Challenges
This week I met with the executive board of the Kentucky
Association of School Superintendents (KASS)
and Executive Director Wilson Sears. The purpose of the meeting was to hear about
the frustration that superintendents are feeling about recent actions and the
negative impact this has had on the morale of superintendents across Kentucky.
I can hardly criticize our superintendents for their
concerns. Over the last few years, we have seen significant reductions in
funding for schools. As a
superintendent, it is extremely difficult to propose a budget to a school board
that reduces staff and services to students.
The continued decline of state funds for education and
the impending impact of federal sequestration are very real issues. Coupled
with declining resources and increased demands from Senate Bill 1 (2009) and the No
Child Left Behind waiver, you have conditions that most certainly will impact
morale.
Another issue that has certainly impacted superintendents
has been the actions of a few bad actors. Most of our Kentucky superintendents
are doing a terrific job for the students in their communities, in spite of
budget reductions and many challenges of declining enrollments and increasing
numbers of children in poverty. However, recent audits in districts like Mason, Breathitt and Dayton Independent have cast a cloud over superintendents and
school boards in Kentucky.
These issues are not isolated to superintendents. All of
our educators are beginning to feel very frustrated with the increasing gap
between expectations and resources. This
week in The New York Times, I read an interesting editorial, The
Kids Are (Not) All Right, by Charles Blow that further describes the
challenges our educators are facing.
As commissioner, I made a commitment to our
superintendents to provide many more opportunities for them to speak to me
directly about their concerns and challenges. Also, I made a commitment to find
ways to highlight the many positive things that are happening in our schools
under the leadership of many dedicated leaders.
I have to applaud our educators in Kentucky. Even with
all of the challenges they are facing and the frequent criticism they receive
from many sources, I always find they are dedicated to children and helping all
children achieve college- and career-readiness.
Certainly, times are tough but I know we have many
leaders at all levels that will rise to the challenge. My job as commissioner
is to be a constant advocate for what they need to do their job and to also be
a constant advocate for the improvements that need to be made to help more
children be successful. Balancing these two sometimes competing interests is a
challenge. Some days I get it right and many days I fail but my resolve is to
work for more balance.
Friday, March 1, 2013
Clear direction for improvement
Last Saturday, I
gave a short speech at the Kentucky School Boards Association winter conference. A
portion of my speech was to recognize the tremendous work of school boards and
educators across Kentucky as evidenced by recent rankings by Education Week that put Kentucky in the
top 10 states for education policy and results. It is undeniable that Kentucky
has made progress in lowering dropout rates, improving student learning
outcomes, improving graduation rates and improving college-and career-readiness
rates. The vision for our improvements was provided by the Kentucky Education
Reform Act in 1990 and more recently by Senate Bill 1 of 2009.
During my speech I also provided clear direction as to improvements that will be made in school board training and superintendent evaluations. I want to provide readers with some insight into the reasons behind these improvements.
1. While most of our local school boards and superintendents are doing a terrific job, there has been evidence recently of inappropriate behaviors and poor fiscal management among some. Given the challenging times that we are in with state and federal budgets, it is extremely important that local school boards and superintendents exercise excellent management of ethics and fiscal responsibility. That is why we will be addressing specific changes in local board training requirements to emphasize ethical and fiscal management training for all board members.
2. With the No Child Left Behind waiver, Kentucky is required to develop new effectiveness and evaluation tools for teachers and principals. It only makes sense that superintendents also share the responsibility of improved effectiveness and evaluation systems.
3. With the passage of Senate Bill 1 in 2009, the subsequent development of the Kentucky Board of Education Unbridled Learning strategic plan and accountability model, and the implementation of the No Child Left Behind waiver, clear delivery targets have been established at the school and district levels for graduation rate, college/career ready rate, student proficiency rate, and student gap group proficiency rates. Eventually, we will add teacher/principal effectiveness rates and program review results. It is very appropriate to expect every school board to include as part of the annual superintendent evaluation process a review of the progress toward the delivery targets.
We are expecting districts to submit plans for teacher and principal evaluation systems by December 2013 with full implementation in 2014-15. Most districts will use the model developed by the state, however, local districts may submit alternative plans. However, the alternative plans must meet the requirements of the NCLB waiver. By adding the requirement that local boards submit the superintendent evaluation process by December 2013, we are ensuring alignment of all evaluation processes in the district to Senate Bill 1 and the NCLB waiver. Local boards may certainly go beyond the minimum expectations of the delivery targets.
In coming weeks, we will provide clarity on the forms that local boards must use in submitting their superintendent evaluation process. Additional requirements in the process will include fiscal management goals and a requirement that the summary statement of the superintendent evaluation be placed in the minutes of the board meeting where the summative evaluation is provided to the superintendent. I would also suggest that any changes in the superintendent contract or salary/benefits be clearly recorded in the board meeting minutes where such action was taken. Several of the recent audits by the state auditor have revealed gaps in the documentation of changes to salary and benefits.
Over the next year, the Kentucky Association of School Administrators will be sharing the excellent work they are doing to develop standards for superintendents. Hopefully, school boards will utilize these standards in the selection, support and evaluation processes for their superintendent.
All of these things working together will ensure Kentucky children are reaching higher levels of achievement. Also, through clear goals and transparency, we will ensure we do not lose the trust of the citizens that we serve.
During my speech I also provided clear direction as to improvements that will be made in school board training and superintendent evaluations. I want to provide readers with some insight into the reasons behind these improvements.
1. While most of our local school boards and superintendents are doing a terrific job, there has been evidence recently of inappropriate behaviors and poor fiscal management among some. Given the challenging times that we are in with state and federal budgets, it is extremely important that local school boards and superintendents exercise excellent management of ethics and fiscal responsibility. That is why we will be addressing specific changes in local board training requirements to emphasize ethical and fiscal management training for all board members.
2. With the No Child Left Behind waiver, Kentucky is required to develop new effectiveness and evaluation tools for teachers and principals. It only makes sense that superintendents also share the responsibility of improved effectiveness and evaluation systems.
3. With the passage of Senate Bill 1 in 2009, the subsequent development of the Kentucky Board of Education Unbridled Learning strategic plan and accountability model, and the implementation of the No Child Left Behind waiver, clear delivery targets have been established at the school and district levels for graduation rate, college/career ready rate, student proficiency rate, and student gap group proficiency rates. Eventually, we will add teacher/principal effectiveness rates and program review results. It is very appropriate to expect every school board to include as part of the annual superintendent evaluation process a review of the progress toward the delivery targets.
We are expecting districts to submit plans for teacher and principal evaluation systems by December 2013 with full implementation in 2014-15. Most districts will use the model developed by the state, however, local districts may submit alternative plans. However, the alternative plans must meet the requirements of the NCLB waiver. By adding the requirement that local boards submit the superintendent evaluation process by December 2013, we are ensuring alignment of all evaluation processes in the district to Senate Bill 1 and the NCLB waiver. Local boards may certainly go beyond the minimum expectations of the delivery targets.
In coming weeks, we will provide clarity on the forms that local boards must use in submitting their superintendent evaluation process. Additional requirements in the process will include fiscal management goals and a requirement that the summary statement of the superintendent evaluation be placed in the minutes of the board meeting where the summative evaluation is provided to the superintendent. I would also suggest that any changes in the superintendent contract or salary/benefits be clearly recorded in the board meeting minutes where such action was taken. Several of the recent audits by the state auditor have revealed gaps in the documentation of changes to salary and benefits.
Over the next year, the Kentucky Association of School Administrators will be sharing the excellent work they are doing to develop standards for superintendents. Hopefully, school boards will utilize these standards in the selection, support and evaluation processes for their superintendent.
All of these things working together will ensure Kentucky children are reaching higher levels of achievement. Also, through clear goals and transparency, we will ensure we do not lose the trust of the citizens that we serve.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Staff Evaluations: Performance and Process
Having been a teacher, principal, superintendent and commissioner, I have experienced the evaluation process at every level. My two key principles for evaluation are that all instruments should be aligned and that all instruments should be growth instruments.
I realize that employment decisions must eventually be made; however, I have always adhered to W. Edwards Deming’s principle that up to 95 percent of an organization’s performance is related to the processes in the organization, and most people want to do a great job. I always push for continuous improvement and growth of individuals while also working to improve processes in the organization.
The alignment principle takes some work. In Kentucky, we have 174 different versions of principal, teacher and superintendent evaluations. As I travel the state, most administrators tell me that we need to address this broken process. We are addressing this through two state committees that I have written about in numerous blogs. The Kentucky Department of Education’s (KDE’s) teacher and principal effectiveness committee work can be found at http://kyprofessionalgrowth.webs.com/.
The superintendent and school board evaluation process is work that properly resides with the Kentucky Association of School Administrators and the Kentucky School Boards Association. To ensure alignment, I hope that these groups will include the following components:
Learning Conditions/Environment – We expect every teacher to create positive conditions for learning in every classroom. We measure that by observation, discipline records, student input, parent input and many other evidences. We also should expect principals, superintendents and school boards to create a positive learning environment in the school or district. One possible measure for learning conditions is the TELL Kentucky survey that we initiated this year. Of course, the evaluation process should include the data from the survey only as a starting place to set priorities for improvement. The actual evaluation should be focused on setting goals and then working to improve processes such as facilities, empowerment, budgeting, resources and more.
Student Learning Results – Most teachers I talk with agree that student learning results are important; however, proficiency on standardized tests is not always the best way to measure teacher impact. A more valid and reliable method is growth. Most teachers agree that evaluations should include student growth from multiple measures (formative and summative). Also, most teachers agree that evaluations should include what teachers do to improve the instructional processes in the classroom, and again, there are multiple evidences of this improvement. Superintendents and principals also should be evaluated on student growth in learning. These evaluations should come from agreed-upon goals and evidences that are directly linked to the district’s strategic plan or school improvement plan.
Finally, as commissioner, I believe my evaluation process is a good model for local superintendents. The Kentucky Board of Education and I agree upon yearly goals that include student learning and improvement of key processes such as communications and support processes (e.g., budgeting, personnel, working conditions). The evaluation process happens mid-year and end-of-year and is done in public.
The ultimate goal that I want to be measured by is the college and career readiness of graduates from Kentucky public schools. The goal is a 50 percent increase in the number of graduates who are college- and career-ready. There are yearly goals that measure the progress and yearly goals for the processes that support the college and career readiness goal.
It is my hope that every board will work with their superintendents to include this key goal in the evaluation process, and then every superintendent will work with their principals to include measures that predict our success toward this goal. Finally, every teacher should know how their work is aligned to this goal of college and career readiness.
Evaluation systems should be driven by the student learning goals and learning conditions at each level. We have a lot of work to do in Kentucky, and I know our boards, superintendents, principals and teachers are all committed to this work that so directly impacts our children’s future.
I realize that employment decisions must eventually be made; however, I have always adhered to W. Edwards Deming’s principle that up to 95 percent of an organization’s performance is related to the processes in the organization, and most people want to do a great job. I always push for continuous improvement and growth of individuals while also working to improve processes in the organization.
The alignment principle takes some work. In Kentucky, we have 174 different versions of principal, teacher and superintendent evaluations. As I travel the state, most administrators tell me that we need to address this broken process. We are addressing this through two state committees that I have written about in numerous blogs. The Kentucky Department of Education’s (KDE’s) teacher and principal effectiveness committee work can be found at http://kyprofessionalgrowth.webs.com/.
The superintendent and school board evaluation process is work that properly resides with the Kentucky Association of School Administrators and the Kentucky School Boards Association. To ensure alignment, I hope that these groups will include the following components:
Learning Conditions/Environment – We expect every teacher to create positive conditions for learning in every classroom. We measure that by observation, discipline records, student input, parent input and many other evidences. We also should expect principals, superintendents and school boards to create a positive learning environment in the school or district. One possible measure for learning conditions is the TELL Kentucky survey that we initiated this year. Of course, the evaluation process should include the data from the survey only as a starting place to set priorities for improvement. The actual evaluation should be focused on setting goals and then working to improve processes such as facilities, empowerment, budgeting, resources and more.
Student Learning Results – Most teachers I talk with agree that student learning results are important; however, proficiency on standardized tests is not always the best way to measure teacher impact. A more valid and reliable method is growth. Most teachers agree that evaluations should include student growth from multiple measures (formative and summative). Also, most teachers agree that evaluations should include what teachers do to improve the instructional processes in the classroom, and again, there are multiple evidences of this improvement. Superintendents and principals also should be evaluated on student growth in learning. These evaluations should come from agreed-upon goals and evidences that are directly linked to the district’s strategic plan or school improvement plan.
Finally, as commissioner, I believe my evaluation process is a good model for local superintendents. The Kentucky Board of Education and I agree upon yearly goals that include student learning and improvement of key processes such as communications and support processes (e.g., budgeting, personnel, working conditions). The evaluation process happens mid-year and end-of-year and is done in public.
The ultimate goal that I want to be measured by is the college and career readiness of graduates from Kentucky public schools. The goal is a 50 percent increase in the number of graduates who are college- and career-ready. There are yearly goals that measure the progress and yearly goals for the processes that support the college and career readiness goal.
It is my hope that every board will work with their superintendents to include this key goal in the evaluation process, and then every superintendent will work with their principals to include measures that predict our success toward this goal. Finally, every teacher should know how their work is aligned to this goal of college and career readiness.
Evaluation systems should be driven by the student learning goals and learning conditions at each level. We have a lot of work to do in Kentucky, and I know our boards, superintendents, principals and teachers are all committed to this work that so directly impacts our children’s future.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Superintendent Evaluations – Transparency vs. Effectiveness
Early in my tenure in Kentucky, I was informed about an Attorney General’s opinion (08 OMD 165) that superintendent evaluations were required to be conducted in public. I asked –“You mean they are required to report the outcome of the evaluation in public?” I was told – “No, the actual evaluation must be conducted in public.”
I can tell you that this was a new one on me. Having been in education for 37 years, I certainly know that evaluations are very important and that privacy and confidentiality are crucial in the process of evaluation. Having served as a superintendent in two districts for more than 12 years, I have spent many mid-year and end-of-year evaluations having excellent discussions with school board members about personnel matters and other components of superintendent evaluation. The key to the evaluation was always a unified summative report that listed the positive elements of the evaluation and the areas for improvement.
While I am very supportive of transparency in conducting the public’s business, I believe that neither a school board nor a superintendent could possibly engage in a full and informative discussion of the components of an evaluation system during an open meeting. The system that I have seen work best includes specific goals and performance targets for the superintendent heavily focused on student learning results, financial management and other key business processes in the school district. Also, each board member provides feedback on key performance expectations to the chair of the board, who then compiles the results for a one-on-one preview with the superintendent.
Then, the board meets with the superintendent in closed session to review the results of the feedback and clarify any questions or concerns. The board prioritizes improvement areas for the superintendent and then both agree on performance targets for the coming year. At the end of the meeting, the board develops a summative statement of the evaluation to include strengths and areas for improvement, along with performance targets for the coming year.
The Kentucky School Boards Association and the Kentucky Association of School Superintendents have excellent models and tools for superintendent evaluation, and Kentucky’s Race to the Top application made a commitment to ensure that all 174 superintendents and school boards would utilize high-quality superintendent and school board evaluations.
While the public certainly has a right to know the results of the superintendent evaluation, the process described above will lead to a richer and more productive evaluation than attempting to conduct the full evaluation in public. Certainly, no one would expect a teacher’s evaluation or a principal’s evaluation to be conducted in public, and I find it very difficult to have a different standard for the superintendent.
The Senate Education Committee took a very important step this week in this matter, and Senate Bill 178, sponsored by Sen. David Givens, gained unanimous and bipartisan support. I hope the full Senate and the House will act to correct this situation prior to the end-of-year evaluations of superintendents.
I can tell you that this was a new one on me. Having been in education for 37 years, I certainly know that evaluations are very important and that privacy and confidentiality are crucial in the process of evaluation. Having served as a superintendent in two districts for more than 12 years, I have spent many mid-year and end-of-year evaluations having excellent discussions with school board members about personnel matters and other components of superintendent evaluation. The key to the evaluation was always a unified summative report that listed the positive elements of the evaluation and the areas for improvement.
While I am very supportive of transparency in conducting the public’s business, I believe that neither a school board nor a superintendent could possibly engage in a full and informative discussion of the components of an evaluation system during an open meeting. The system that I have seen work best includes specific goals and performance targets for the superintendent heavily focused on student learning results, financial management and other key business processes in the school district. Also, each board member provides feedback on key performance expectations to the chair of the board, who then compiles the results for a one-on-one preview with the superintendent.
Then, the board meets with the superintendent in closed session to review the results of the feedback and clarify any questions or concerns. The board prioritizes improvement areas for the superintendent and then both agree on performance targets for the coming year. At the end of the meeting, the board develops a summative statement of the evaluation to include strengths and areas for improvement, along with performance targets for the coming year.
The Kentucky School Boards Association and the Kentucky Association of School Superintendents have excellent models and tools for superintendent evaluation, and Kentucky’s Race to the Top application made a commitment to ensure that all 174 superintendents and school boards would utilize high-quality superintendent and school board evaluations.
While the public certainly has a right to know the results of the superintendent evaluation, the process described above will lead to a richer and more productive evaluation than attempting to conduct the full evaluation in public. Certainly, no one would expect a teacher’s evaluation or a principal’s evaluation to be conducted in public, and I find it very difficult to have a different standard for the superintendent.
The Senate Education Committee took a very important step this week in this matter, and Senate Bill 178, sponsored by Sen. David Givens, gained unanimous and bipartisan support. I hope the full Senate and the House will act to correct this situation prior to the end-of-year evaluations of superintendents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)