Individual Professional Development Goals
Jim Patera / Superintendent
Iowa Standards for School Leaders (ISSL)
STANDARD #1: A superintendent is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school community. (Shared Vision)
STANDARD #2: An educational leader promotes the success of all students by advocating, nurturing and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional development. (Culture of Learning)
STANDARD #3: An educational leader promotes the success of all students by ensuring management of the organization, operations and resources for a safe, efficient and effective learning environment. (Management)
STANDARD #4: An educational leader promotes the success of all students by collaborating with families and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs and mobilizing community resources. (Family and Community)
STANDARD #5: An educational leader promotes the success of all students by acting with integrity, fairness and in an ethical manner. (Ethics)
STANDARD #6: An educational leader promotes the success of all students by understanding the profile of the community and responding to and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal and cultural context. (Societal Context)
EVALUATION PROCESS FOR SCHOOL LEADERS / SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS
The process of evaluating a superintendent is a very important tool in the entire improvement efforts of a school district. It defines expectations, enhances communication, prioritizes district goals and supports the board of education to focus its attention on holding the superintendent accountable for improving the achievement of all students.
Superintendent evaluation should reflect a systems approach. Such an approach should be guided by a set of ethics, values, and beliefs that undergird the work so both the superintendent and members of the board can operate in an integrity-filled manner.
The following system of evaluation is tool for such a purpose. Senate File 277, enacted by the 2007 Iowa Legislature, requires that superintendents be evaluated annually based on the six Iowa Standards for School Leaders (ISSL). The minimum requirement of Iowa law is that persons new to administration have a comprehensive evaluation during their initial year of employment. Best practice is for administrators who assume a new administrative position to have a summative evaluation during their first year in the new position. After the initial summative evaluation the law requires an annual formative assessment around the superintendent’s Individual Professional Development Plan (IPDP). The three-year summative evaluation requires documentation of competence on the six ISSL standards, meeting of district expectations drawn from the district’s CSIP, Individual Professional Development Plan attainment, and other supporting documentation.
Operating Principles
A comprehensive Superintendent evaluation process must:
1. Link to academic, social and emotional growth for all students in the system.
Rationale: Multiple measurers of all types of student learning must be included in the definition of accountability.
2. Recognize the importance of a superintendent’s work in the moral dimensions of leadership to facilitate a better quality of life for all groups, both inside the school community and in the greater community.
Rationale: The larger work of the superintendent is about shaping the future of the community and having a positive effect on people’s lives.
3. Align with the six Iowa Standards for School Leaders (ISSL).
Rationale: Senate File 277, enacted by the 2007 Iowa Legislature, requires that superintendents be evaluated annually based on the six Iowa Standards for School Leaders (ISSL).
4. Have research-based criteria about effective Superintendent behaviors which are substantiated by measurable data from multiple sources and are legal, feasible, accurate and useful.
Rationale: Standards of any kind are only effective if they meet propriety, utility, feasibility and accuracy measurers, (Examples of multiple data sources are a superintendent self-assessment; a portfolio compiled by the superintendent; the school improvement plan; artifacts that address previous goals, school board meeting agendas, etc.)
5. Provide opportunities for personal and professional growth.
Rationale: Evaluation processes must address the whole person and be oriented toward continuous improvement.
6. Be ongoing and connected to school improvement goals.
Rationale: An evaluation is a process, not a once a year conversation, and must be connected to Comprehensive School Improvement Plans,
7. Connect the district’s goals with its publics’ vision for their schools.
Rationale: Goals cannot be developed in isolation; district goals must reflect the community’s highest hopes for its public schools.
8. Be intended to improve performance not prove incompetence.
Rationale: An effective evaluation process is predicated on a spirit of providing feedback for growth, not on finding evidence of shortcomings. If a board is considering evaluation for the purposes of termination, other processes should be employed.
