A STUDY OF PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING THE SUPERINTENDENT IN NEBRASKA CLASS II AND III SCHOOL DISTRICTS

The Purpose and Procedures. The primary purpose of this study was twofold: (1) to determine the present evaluation policies and practices used by Nebraska Class II and III school districts, and (2) to determine the current attitudes of superintendents and board members toward the formal evaluation of the superintendent\u27s performance. The literature dealing with the assessment of the superintendent\u27s performance was reviewed to ascertain the practices and procedures currently being used and recommended. A questionnaire was developed to obtain the information about current practices and prevailing attitudes toward formal evaluation of the superintendent\u27s performance in Nebraska Class II and III school districts. A random sample of 182 superintendents and 182 board chairpersons was surveyed. Major Findings of the Study. (1) Most Class II and III school districts in Nebraska do not formally evaluate the superintendent\u27s performance. (2) A combination of techniques and instruments were usually used to formally evaluate the superintendent\u27s performance. (3) The results of the formal evaluation were presented annually to the superintendent in executive session using a combination of oral and written reports. (4) Most school districts did not have a board policy governing the evaluation of the superintendent\u27s performance. (5) There was limited support for the involvement of persons other than board members in the evaluation of the superintendent\u27s performance. Conclusions. This study strongly indicated a growing interest in formally evaluating the superintendent\u27s performance. However, the actual practice was not keeping pace with the expressed interest. Both superintendents and board chairpersons desired more information about job descriptions, performance standards, and suitable evaluation instruments. The evaluation of the superintendent rests primarily with the board of education. However, the input of other individuals may be desirable. The complexity of the superintendent\u27s position strongly suggests that a detailed job description is essential to a successful evaluation program and the evaluation system should include an assessment of the superintendent\u27s performance in all areas of responsibility