← Back to all questions

Your board evaluates the superintendent on what she does, not on what changes for students. That is the problem. Replace activity-based criteria with measurable student achievement outcomes, and you will know whether your district is succeeding or failing.

The governance principle is simple: your board sets direction, the superintendent executes it, and the only measure that matters is whether students are learning. Activity criteria (site visits completed, policies reviewed, professional development hours logged) tell you nothing about student growth. They measure effort, not effect. When you evaluate a superintendent on effort, you incentivize busyness. When you evaluate on outcomes, you incentivize results.

The common mistake is building an evaluation rubric that looks complete but measures the wrong thing. A board might rate the superintendent on twelve criteria, nine of which are activities the superintendent performed. The three outcome criteria are vague. "Improved student achievement" with no definition of what that looks like. At contract renewal, the board cannot say whether students are better off. They can only say the superintendent was busy. That is not governance. That is a performance review of a project manager, not a leader of learning.

The right approach starts with your goals. Your board should identify what student outcomes you want to move in the next evaluation cycle. Pick two or three metrics that are specific, measurable, and within the superintendent's sphere of influence. State assessment proficiency in reading and math works for most districts. Graduation rates work for high schools. Chronic absenteeism works everywhere. The key is naming the exact metric, establishing a baseline from the prior year, and setting a target that is ambitious but realistic. Then build the evaluation around whether the superintendent met that target.

What this looks like in practice: your board adopts a goal that reading proficiency for third graders rises from 58% to 63% within the evaluation year. The superintendent's contract ties 40% of the evaluation to this metric. The remaining criteria address other outcome areas (math, attendance, school climate) each with a specific number attached. The board does not evaluate the superintendent on how many times she visited classrooms. The board evaluates on whether third-grade reading moved. If it did, the evaluation reflects success. If it did not, the evaluation reflects that, and the board has data for the next conversation about strategy, support, or consequences.

One honest complication must be addressed directly. Your board cannot control everything that affects student learning. Family poverty, student mobility, teacher turnover, these factors shape outcomes. The superintendent cannot be blamed for every external variable, but she can be held accountable for what the district controls: the quality of instruction, the consistency of interventions, the speed of support for struggling schools. Your evaluation should reflect this distinction. Tie the metrics to district-level factors the superintendent can actually move. If a metric is entirely outside her influence, it does not belong in the evaluation. The board's job is to be fair while being demanding. You hold the superintendent accountable for the district's ability to respond to challenges, not for the challenges themselves.

Here is what your board does next.

1. At your next board meeting, adopt a resolution that the superintendent evaluation will include specific student outcome metrics. Name the metrics: reading proficiency, math proficiency, and chronic absenteeism. Set the baseline using last year's data.
2. Work with the superintendent to set targets for each metric. Ask her: "What would moving the needle on third-grade reading require from the board?" Her answer reveals what support she needs and what she believes is achievable. Write the targets into the evaluation rubric before the school year begins.
3. Schedule a midyear data review in January. Do not wait for the end of the year to learn whether the targets are on track. If the data shows the district is falling behind, the board can discuss what additional resources or strategy changes are needed. This is not changing the goal. It is responding to reality.
4. At the end of the year, evaluate against the agreed targets. If the superintendent met or exceeded the goals, the evaluation says so. If she did not, the evaluation says that too. Connect the evaluation result to contract decisions, renewal, compensation adjustments, or performance expectations for the following year.
5. Carry this practice into the next cycle. Each year, review the targets, adjust for what the data revealed, and set new goals. This is not a one-time reform. It is how your board governs.

When your board evaluates on outcomes, everything shifts. The superintendent stops reporting on activities and starts reporting on results. The board stops approving effort and starts approving strategy. Parents start hearing specific numbers instead of vague promises. The conversation in your boardroom changes from "what did you do?" to "what changed for kids?" That is the difference between governance that performs and governance that delivers.