Superintendent Evaluation Day — Process, Rubric, Written Findings, and Board Vote
June 14, 2028
Last week I showed you the preparation sequence — framework review, timeline confirmation, rubric alignment, and evidence file compilation. That is the work the board does before the evaluation.
This week I am showing you what the evaluation looks like when it is done well.
Here is what I have learned about evaluation day from watching hundreds of boards conduct superintendent evaluations.
Most boards meet in closed session, go around the table asking each member to share their rating, someone writes the average on a whiteboard, and the board president composes a summary statement that says “the board appreciates your work” and “we look forward to continued progress.” The superintendent receives the statement, thanks the board, and every person in the room leaves knowing the evaluation did not change anything.
That is not an evaluation. That is a performance review designed to avoid discomfort. It avoids discomfort by avoiding substance.
A substantive superintendent evaluation follows a structured four-phase process. Let me walk you through each phase.
Phase one: Individual written findings (completed before the meeting)
The individual written findings are the foundation of the entire evaluation. If every board member submits a complete, evidence-supported written finding before the deliberation begins, the evaluation has a high probability of producing a meaningful result. If board members arrive without written findings or with findings that are a paragraph long, the evaluation will default to the strongest voice in the room.
Here is what each board member’s written finding should include.
For each adopted goal, the member names the year-end data point, states whether it meets, exceeds, or falls short of the target, and provides the specific evidence supporting that assessment. “The third-grade reading proficiency rate is 67 percent, which is two points below the 69 percent target. Spring diagnostic data shows growth from fall baseline but at a rate that, if maintained, will reach the target by October of the next academic year.” That is a specific finding supported by evidence.
Then the member names one or two overall patterns they observed across the full year. “The superintendent’s quarterly written reports consistently included the data the board requested, and the action items tied to each data point were clear.” Or: “The superintendent’s community engagement communications decreased noticeably after the December break, and the March town hall attendance reflected that gap.”
Then the member names one growth area for the superintendent’s next year. “The board would benefit from the superintendent bringing a recommended course correction to the board when a goal trajectory is off track, rather than waiting for the board to ask for it.”
The board president collects all written findings, compiles them into a single summary document, and distributes the summary to board members and the superintendent before the deliberation meeting. The summary preserves anonymity of individual ratings if the board has agreed to do so.
Phase two: The deliberation conversation
The deliberation is a closed session. The board president facilitates. Every board member participates. The superintendent is present unless the board president determines that a portion of the conversation is more productive without the superintendent present (the board should check legal requirements for executive session attendance in their state).
Here is the deliberation structure I recommend.
Goal-by-goal review (60 minutes). The board reviews each adopted goal in order. The president reads the summary finding for the goal. Board members who rated the goal significantly higher or lower than the consensus share their reasoning. The board discusses whether the gap in assessment is a difference in evidence interpretation or a difference in evidence availability.
If a board member says “I rated this goal as partially met because the spring data showed improvement but the target was not reached,” and another board member says “I rated this goal as fully met because the trajectory is on track to reach the target by October,” the board discusses whether the evaluation is about the year-end data point alone or about the trajectory toward the target. The board decides together, records the decision, and applies it consistently to every goal.
Overall patterns review (15 minutes). The board reviews the patterns that emerged from individual written findings. If three or more board members independently observed the same pattern — positive or negative — the pattern is significant and belongs in the board’s written finding. If one board member observed a pattern that no other member saw, the board discusses whether the evidence supports it or whether it was an anecdotally observed exception.
Growth areas review (15 minutes). The board reviews the growth areas each member named and identifies the one or two that appear most frequently. The board decides whether to communicate the growth areas as recommendations for the coming year or as requirements that must be addressed to maintain an effective working relationship. This distinction matters. A recommendation is coaching language. A requirement is governance language. Both have a place in an evaluation. The board should know which one it is using.
Consensus finding composition (remaining time). The board president or a designated writer drafts the consensus finding language for the overall rating, the goal-by-goal assessment, the commendations, and the growth areas. The board reviews the language, confirms it reflects the deliberation accurately, and approves it.
Phase three: The board vote
The board votes on the evaluation finding in open session. The vote is a public record. Every board member’s vote appears in the minutes.
Here is what I tell every board I coach about the vote.
The vote is not a referendum on the superintendent as a person. It is a verdict on whether the superintendent produced the outcomes the board identified as most important during the governance year that just closed. A “no” vote from a board member who participated in setting the goals, approved the budget that funded them, and reviewed data three times during the year is not a vote against the superintendent. It is a vote indicating that the board’s own governance framework did not produce the intended result — and the board has work to do in the coming year to understand why.
I have watched boards in Lawrence (KS) conduct a unanimous vote for the superintendent evaluation after a difficult year of data. The board did not vote unanimously because the results were strong. The board voted unanimously because the evidence was clear, the deliberation was thorough, and every board member could explain why the rating was what it was — even the members who wished the results had been better. A unanimous vote on a clear, evidence-based finding is more valuable than a unanimous vote based on a finding designed to avoid conflict.
Phase four: The superintendent’s response
The superintendent receives the written finding and provides a response. The response is included in the board’s official evaluation record.
Here is what a productive superintendent response sounds like.
The superintendent acknowledges the finding, identifies the areas where she agrees with the assessment, names the areas where she sees the situation differently, and states what she plans to do differently in the coming year based on the evaluation. The superintendent may also name resources, support, or policy changes from the board that would enable better outcomes.
I tell superintendents: the board’s evaluation is one data point in your professional growth. Take it seriously. Respond to it directly. Do not dismiss it. Do not defend against it. Treat it the same way you want the board to treat the student outcome data you present at every board meeting — as information that, when received honestly, makes everyone better.
I tell boards: your evaluation is only as good as the superintendent’s ability to act on it. If the evaluation contains a growth area without naming what success looks like, the superintendent cannot act on it. If the evaluation contains a commendation without naming the specific evidence that produced it, the superintendent does not know what to continue doing. A finding that is specific in both directions — where the superintendent exceeded and where the superintendent fell short — is a finding the superintendent can use to improve.
What the board does the day after evaluation day
The evaluation is complete. The vote is recorded. The superintendent’s response is included in the record.
Now the board has one more governance action in the spring cycle: the board self-evaluation.
The superintendent evaluation asked whether the superintendent produced the outcomes the board identified. The board self-evaluation asks whether the board’s governance produced better decisions with the framework than it would have made without it.
That question is the subject of next week’s piece.
Subscribe at effectiveschoolboards.com to continue the series.
Your free CTA: Reply to this email with the keyword EvalDay and I will send you the Superintendent Evaluation Day Facilitation Guide — the individual written finding template with goal-by-goal evidence prompts, the deliberation structure with time allocations for each phase, the consensus finding composition template for the board president, and the superintendent response preparation guide. Use it to conduct an evaluation that produces findings the superintendent and the board can both act on.
Your paid CTA: I offer a Superintendent Evaluation Day Facilitation — a single closed-session facilitation with your full board to lead the deliberation conversation, compose the consensus finding, and produce the written evaluation record. Reply to this email for pricing and availability.
This is piece 2 of 4 in the Superintendent Evaluation & Year-End Closeout arc (part of the Governance Execution Cycle: Spring Accountability arc running March through June 2028). It builds on last week’s superintendent evaluation preparation (view the June 7 piece). Next week’s piece covers the board self-evaluation (view the June 21 preview). The evaluation day protocol described here assumes the board completed the preparation sequence from piece one — the evidence package, rubric crosswalk, conversation structure alignment, and superintendent preview. Subscribe at effectiveschoolboards.com to continue the series.
Backlinks: This post is part of the Spring 2028 Governance Execution Cycle. It connects to the evaluation focus memo produced in the Mid-Spring Governance Check (May 17), the Progress Monitoring findings (May 3), and the Budget Outcome Review (May 10). The superintendent evaluation process described here feeds into the Board Self-Evaluation (June 21) and Year-End Closeout (June 28). The evaluation day protocol builds on the January 2028 Launch Arc and February 2028 Budget Adoption arc. Subscribe at effectiveschoolboards.com to continue the series.