Superintendent Evaluation — Three Years of Governance Data
June 7, 2029
The first superintendent evaluation was based on one year of goals and limited data.
There was nothing wrong with that. It was Year One. The board had one goal set, one spring data review, and one budget cycle. You evaluated based on what you had.
The second evaluation had two years of data and one full-cycle baseline. The board could compare Year One to Year Two and see whether the trajectory was improving.
The third evaluation has three years of governance data. That changes the conversation entirely.
What Three Years of Data Makes Possible
The board can assess goal progress across three years for each goal. Where were we in Spring 2027? Where were we in Spring 2028? Where are we in Spring 2029? What is the trajectory?
The board can evaluate budget execution across two full budget cycles. Did the superintendent execute the board’s budget direction? Was expenditure aligned with adopted allocations? Did variance decrease from Year One to Year Two? Is the Year Three budget on track?
The board can assess partnership maturity. How has the board-superintendent communication protocol evolved? Is the superintendent initiating governance-supporting behaviors without board prompting? Is the superintendent bringing data to the board before the board asks for it?
These are the questions that become answerable only after three years of consistent governance practice.
The Year Three Evaluation Protocol
The protocol mirrors Spring 2028 — evaluation tied to adopted goals, specific evidence-based feedback connected to data, written outputs. But Year Three adds four dimensions.
Dimension One: Three-year trend analysis for each goal — not just annual performance. The board reviews each goal’s trajectory across three years. Goal 1 went from 42 to 44 to 46 percent. Goal 2 went from 38 to 38 to 37 percent. The board evaluates not just where the district is, but where it has been and where it is heading.
Dimension Two: Budget execution rating — based on two full cycles of expenditure data. The board can assess: Did the superintendent execute the board’s budget direction in Year One and Year Two? Did expenditure variance decrease? Did the quarterly reports arrive on time and with accurate data?
Dimension Three: Partnership maturity assessment — how has the working relationship evolved? The board asks: Is the board-superintendent communication protocol functioning at a higher level than in Year One? Is the superintendent anticipating board information needs? Is the board providing clear, timely direction?
Dimension Four: Comparative effectiveness — how does Year Three performance compare to Year One and Year Two baselines? The board can say with confidence: “The superintendent’s performance has improved in these specific areas, remained consistent in these areas, and needs attention in these areas.”
The Three Outputs
The Year Three evaluation produces three written outputs.
Output One: Performance assessment against goals. Specific evidence for each goal: met, partially met, or not met, with three-year trend context. Not “the superintendent is doing a good job” — but “Goal 1 met the annual target three years in a row, with consistent improvement. Goal 2 met the target in Year One and Year Two but is off pace in Year Three. The board assesses this as partially met and has redesigned the strategy.”
Output Two: Support commitments for the next cycle. What the board commits to doing differently. “The board commits to providing clearer budget direction earlier in the cycle. The board commits to scheduling data review dates before the cycle begins. The board commits to responding to superintendent recommendations within two board meetings.”
Output Three: Partnership framework update. Adjustments to the board-superintendent communication protocol based on three years of working together. “The board and superintendent agree to move from monthly check-ins to bi-weekly check-ins during budget season. The board and superintendent agree to add a mid-year partnership check-in to the governance calendar.”
The Common Pitfall in Year Three
The most common mistake is evaluating the same way despite having more data.
The board uses the same evaluation instrument from Year One with updated numbers. The same categories. The same rating scale. The same format.
The Year Three evaluation instrument should be different. It should include trend analysis, comparative effectiveness, and partnership maturity — none of which existed in the Year One instrument. If the board is using Year One’s instrument in Year Three, the instrument is constraining the conversation rather than enabling it.
The evaluation conversation should change as the data deepens. In Year One, the conversation was about establishing the practice. In Year Two, it was about refinement. In Year Three, it is about demonstrated impact and aligned priorities.
What You Have Built Together
By Year Three, you and your superintendent have built something together.
Three goal sets. Three years of data reviews. Two full budget cycle executions. A communication protocol that has been tested and refined. A partnership that has survived difficult conversations about data, budgets, and performance.
The evaluation is not a performance review — it is a governance action. It names what has been accomplished, what needs to be supported, and what the board commits to doing differently in the next cycle.
Three years of data makes that evaluation specific, fair, and actionable. Use what you have built together to make this the most productive evaluation conversation your board has ever had.
Your free CTA: Reply to this email with the keyword S29SuptEval and I will send you the Year Three Superintendent Evaluation Toolkit — the three-year trend analysis template, the budget execution assessment rubric, the partnership maturity assessment instrument, and the evaluation protocol timeline with board member preparation guide. Use it to conduct your Year Three superintendent evaluation with precision.
Your paid CTA: I offer a Superintendent Evaluation Coaching Package — two virtual sessions with the board president and governance committee to design the Year Three evaluation instrument, conduct the three-year trend analysis, and produce the written evaluation document with performance assessment, support commitments, and partnership framework update. Reply to this email for pricing and availability.
This piece is 11 of 12 in the Spring 2029 Governance Execution arc and 1 of 2 in the June sub-arc (Superintendent Evaluation + Year-End Closeout). It follows the Q2 Community Progress Report (Q2 Community Progress Report). Subscribe at effectiveschoolboards.com to continue the series.
Backlinks: This piece builds on the Fall 2028 superintendent partnership check-in (Superintendent Partnership Year Two) and the Spring 2028 superintendent evaluation process (Superintendent Evaluation Prep June 2028, Superintendent Evaluation Day June 2028). The evaluation protocol previewed in the Spring 2029 Governance Roadmap (Spring 2029 Governance Roadmap) is operationalized here with three-year data. Subscribe at effectiveschoolboards.com to continue the series.
Note to RedTeamer: Voice fidelity target: newsletter/TESBM register. Three years of data transforming the evaluation conversation. Verify CTA keyword uniqueness.