Abstract
The purpose of this section is to describe the current status of superintendent performance evaluation as reflected in the research literature and, in particular, to attempt to identify the most important issues and problems that need to be addressed in order to improve the evaluation of school district superintendents. Questions relating to the following issues are addressed in turn:
-
What is the extent and frequency of superintendent performance evaluation?
-
What are the purposes of superintendent performance evaluation?
-
What criteria are used to evaluate superintendents and who establishes these criteria?
-
What methods are used to evaluate superintendent performance?
-
Who conducts superintendent evaluations and how well qualified are they to perform this function?
-
What other stakeholder groups provide input into the evaluation process?
-
What is the importance of superintendent performance evaluation for the effectiveness of the superintendency and/or the school system?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
American Association of School Administrators. (1990). A sample contract. Arlington, VA: Author.
American Association of School Administrators & the National School Boards Association. (1980). Evaluating the superintendent. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
Anderson, R. E., & Lavid, J. S. (1988). Evaluation of new-to-site superintendents. ERS Spectrum, 6(1), 29–32.
Bippus, S. L. (1985). A full, fair, and formal evaluation will enable your superintendent to excel. The American School Board Journal, 172(4), 42–43.
Calzi, F., & Heller, R. W. (1989). Make evaluation the key to your superintendent’s success. The American School Board Journal, 176(4), 33–34.
Candoli, I. C. (1986, February). Superintendent’s evaluation process. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of School Administrators, San Francisco.
Carter, D. S. G., Estes, N., Loredo, J., & Harris, B. (1991). Evolving a diagnostic system for formative use by senior school system executives in the USA. School Organization, 11(1), pp. 53–63.
Carter, D. S. G., & Harris, B. M. (1991). Assessing executive performance for continuing professional growth. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 4(1), pp 7–19.
Crowson, R. L., & Morris, V. C. (1992). The superintendency and school effectiveness: An organizational hierarchy perspective. Journal of School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 3(1), 69–88.
Cunningham, L. L., & Hentges, J. T. (1982). The American school superintendency: A full report. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
Dickinson, D. P. (1980). Superintendent evaluation requires a sophisticated step-by-step approach like the one you’ll find right here. The American School Board Journal, 167(6), 37–38.
Dillon, R. R., & Halli well, J. W. (1991). Superintendents’ and school board presidents’ perceptions of the purposes, strengths and weaknesses of formal superintendent evaluations. Journal of School Leadership, 1, 328–337.
Edington, J. M., III, & Enger, J. M. (1992, November). An analysis of the evaluation processes used by Arkansas school boards to evaluate superintendents. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Knoxville, TN.
Foldesey, G. (1989, August). Developing policy on evaluation and assessment of school board and superintendent performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, Tuscaloosa, AL.
Glass, T. E. (1992). The study of the American school superintendency. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
Glass, G. V., & Martinez, B. A. (1993, June). Politics of teacher evaluation. Proceedings of the CREATE Cross-Cutting Evaluation Theory Planning Seminar. Kalamazoo, MI: Center for Research on Educational Accountability and Teacher Evaluation.
Hall, G. E., & Difford, G. A. (1992, April). State administrators association director’s perceptions of the exiting phenomenon. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Hord, S. M. (1992, April). Entering and exiting the superintendency: Preparation, promises, problems. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Hord, S. M., & Estes, N. (1993). Superintendent selection and success. Chapter 5 in Carter, D. S. G., Glass, T. E., & Hord, S. M., Preparing and developing the school district superintendent. Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1988). The personnel evaluation standards. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lindgren, J. (Compiler). (1985). Evaluating your superintendent. Sacramento, CA: California School Boards Association.
MacPhail-Wilcox, B., & Forbes, R. (1990). Administrator evaluation handbook. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.
Millman, J., & Sykes, G. (1992). The assessment of teaching based on evidence of student learning. (Research Monograph No. 2). National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.
New Jersey School Boards Association. (1987, May). Evaluating the chief school administrator: Fulfilling the board’s governance responsibility. Paper presented at the Action Lab of the New Jersey School Boards Association, West Windsor, NJ.
Redfern, G. (1980, January). Personnel evaluation: Promises, problems, and prospects. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, Miami Beach, FL.
Robinson, G. E., & Bickers, P. M. (1990). Evaluation of superintendents and school boards. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
Sanders, W. L., & Horn, S.P. (1994, October). The Tennessee value-added assessment system: Mixed methodology in educational assessment. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8(3), 299–312.
Scriven, M. (1993, June). Using the duties-based approach to teacher evaluation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Center for Research on Educational Accountability and Teacher Evaluation/Phi Delta Kappa National Evaluation Institute, Kalamazoo, MI.
Texas Education Agency, Division of Management Assistance and Personnel Development. (1990). Superintendent appraisal: System development-A training module. Austin, TX: Author.
Webster, W. J., & Edwards, M. E. (1993, April). An accountability system for school improvement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
Webster, W. J., Mendro, R. L., & Almaguer, T. O. (1993, April). Effectiveness indices: The major components of an equitable accountability system. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1997 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Candoli, I.C., Cullen, K., Stufflebeam, D.L. (1997). Literature Review Findings. In: Candoli, I.C., Cullen, K., Stufflebeam, D.L. (eds) Superintendent Performance Evaluation: Current Practice and Directions for Improvement. Evaluation in Education and Human Services, vol 45. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5356-0_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5356-0_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-6251-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-5356-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive