| Evaluation is essential in assuring quality in education (Candoli, Nicholls, & Stufflebeam, 1995; Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, 1988). The majority of studies of human resource evaluation in K-12 education have concentrated on teachers and principals (Candoli, Cullen, & Stufflebeam, 1994); however, there are few studies that concentrate on the evaluation of superintendents. Even though there is a renewed interest in superintendent duties and evaluation (DiPaola & Stronge, 2001), not enough has been done to sufficiently understand the state and local expectations for superintendents. Additionally, there is a need to develop a more useful and specific evaluation process for school superintendents, more specifically, Texas school superintendents.;Currently, there is a gap in the literature, as very little is known about the local evaluation practices of school superintendents in Texas. This study sought to fill that gap by describing the superintendent evaluation procedures of Texas districts, pertaining to public school superintendent evaluation. The main thrust of the study was to understand and critically assess current Texas school district practices related to the evaluation of superintendents. In particular, using a representative sample of districts from across the state (n=164), the researcher used a content analysis of relevant district materials and interviews with school board members (n=3) to 1) describe the local evaluation practices of districts across the state, 2) assess how closely aligned the formats for superintendent evaluation instruments in local school districts were with those suggested by Texas Association of School Boards (TASB), and 3) determine the extent to which there were distinct, recurring, and unifying evaluation processes across the state of Texas.;The study found that local superintendent evaluation instruments vary greatly from district to district. The domain of community relations was found in most superintendent evaluation instruments (91.5%). Most evaluation instruments included local performance goals. District use of letters and numbers to rate domains was found to be used fairly evenly across the districts. 31.7% of schools districts used the TASB format. Finally, the study found that district school board members lack training in evaluating their superintendents.;The findings of this study will help school boards and policymakers in the state of Texas to understand the current state of superintendent evaluation and make modifications to superintendent performance and evaluation instruments. |
