Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Washoe Schools Superintendent draft evaluation

474 views

Published on

Washoe County School District Superintendent Traci Davis “met expectations” in her job performance over the past school year. She exceeded expectations in seven categories, met expectations in 10 areas, and partially met expectations in three areas. Her overall rating was 3.06, or meeting expectations. A score of 3.6 or higher would have meant that Davis exceeded expectations.

Published in: News & Politics
  • 1,DOWNLOAD THIS BOOKS INTO AVAILABLE FORMAT ......................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................... 1,DOWNLOAD PDF EBOOK here { https://tinyurl.com/y8nn3gmc } ......................................................................................................................... 1,DOWNLOAD EPUB Ebook here { https://tinyurl.com/y8nn3gmc } ......................................................................................................................... 1,DOWNLOAD doc Ebook here { https://tinyurl.com/y8nn3gmc } ......................................................................................................................... 1,DOWNLOAD PDF EBOOK here { https://tinyurl.com/y8nn3gmc } ......................................................................................................................... 1,DOWNLOAD EPUB Ebook here { https://tinyurl.com/y8nn3gmc } ......................................................................................................................... 1,DOWNLOAD doc Ebook here { https://tinyurl.com/y8nn3gmc } ......................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................... .............. Browse by Genre Available eBooks ......................................................................................................................... Art, Biography, Business, Chick Lit, Children's, Christian, Classics, Comics, Contemporary, Cookbooks, Crime, Ebooks, Fantasy, Fiction, Graphic Novels, Historical Fiction, History, Horror, Humor And Comedy, Manga, Memoir, Music, Mystery, Non Fiction, Paranormal, Philosophy, Poetry, Psychology, Religion, Romance, Science, Science Fiction, Self Help, Suspense, Spirituality, Sports, Thriller, Travel, Young Adult,
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

Washoe Schools Superintendent draft evaluation

  1. 1. 1 School Year 2017-18 Superintendent Evaluation Report DRAFT (pending acceptance) Submitted December 4, 2018 by OnStrategy & HRC Attachment B
  2. 2. Submitted on 12/4/2018 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The WCSD SY17/18 Superintendent Evaluation Report contains the evaluation of Superintendent Traci Davis on behalf of the Board of Trustees. The Washoe County School District Board of Trustees is the governing body of the Washoe County School District. As such, the Board serves as the steward and guardian of WCSD’s values, vision, mission, and resources. With clearly defined performance targets in mind, the Board monitors WCSD’s educational, financial, and administrative performance, which includes the performance of the Superintendent, as outlined in Administrative Regulation 2110.3, Board Policy 9080 and the Superintendent’s contract. The Evaluation contains three parts with an emphasis on objective results, which together comprise the full evaluation in a total of 29 quantitative evaluation items as follows:  Part One – District Performance to SY17/18 Performance Metrics (20 items): The Envision WCSD 2020 Strategic Plan is comprised of five goals and 63 performance metrics. Of the 63 performance metrics, the Board of Trustees selected 20 performance metrics to be included in the SY17/18 Superintendent Evaluation.  Part Two – Employee Perspective (2 items): The employee perspective is an important component of the Superintendent Evaluation, which is included via an annual survey conducted in the Fall. Results from the survey are provided to the Board of Trustees prior to completion of their evaluation.  Part Three – Trustee Evaluation (7 items): Individual surveys from each Board of Trustees member provide both positive and constructive feedback, and an evaluation rating for 7 Dimensions of Superintendent Leadership. EVALUATION SCORING Overall Evaluation Summary is based on the scoring scale below, adapted from the State of Nevada’s Administrators Scoring Scale. The Evaluation Rating is a simple average of goal attainment whereby: Dark Green = Exceeds target is 4 points; Green = Met Target is 3 points; Orange = Partially Met target is 2 points; Red = Did Not Meet target is 1 point. The average of the 29 items results in the final evaluation in the following ranges: Exceeds Met Partially Met Did Not Meet 3.6 > 3.59 – 2.8 2.79 – 1.91 > 1.91 SY17-18 EVALUATION RESULTS Superintendent Davis’ SY17-18 Evaluation Rating is MET EXPECTATIONS based on the results below. Exceeds Met Partially Met Did Not Meet Part #1: Performance to SY17-18 Goals SY17-18 District Performance Measures (20 items) 7 Goals 10 Goals 3 Goals 0 Goals Part #2: Employee Perspective Overall Perception of the District (Scale of 0-10) 4.08 Leadership Score (Scale of 1-5) 2.48 Part #3: Board of Trustees’ Perspective Strategic District Leadership 3.49 Instructional Leadership 3.44 Systemic Leadership 3.17 Collaborative Leadership 3.01 Professional Ethics 3.29 Organizational Leadership 3.24 Board Communications 3.77 Summary of Results Sub Total* 32 48 8 1 Total** 3.06 *Sub Total calculation is based on the number of items in the column multiplied by the column rating score where Dark Green = 4 points, i.e. 8 items times 4 points = 32. **Total calculation is the number of rating points from the Sub Total divided by 29 items.
  3. 3. Submitted on 12/4/2018 3 PART ONE: DISTRICT PERFORMANCE
  4. 4. Submitted on 12/4/2018 4 The Envision WCSD 2020 Strategic Plan is comprised of five goals and 63 performance metrics. Of the 63 performance metrics, the Board of Trustees selected 20 performance metrics to be included in the SY17/18 Superintendent Evaluation as evaluation items. Those included in the evaluation are noted with “Y” in the far left-hand column. Color status is in alignment with the scale in the Executive Summary. Blue indicates that this year is a baseline year. WCSD Strategic Performance Scorecard for SY17/18 - FINAL Reported on 10/15/18 Goal 1: Academic Growth Objective 1.1 - Rigorous & relevant curriculum, instruction, and assessment practice for all students. 17/18 Sup't Goals 16-17 Actual 17-18 Target 17-18 Actual % of Goal Attained Measures for Achievement Y 1.1.1: Increase in graduation rates on annual basis. SY 2017-2018: 85%; 2019: 88%; 2020:90% 2021: 92% (ALT) 84% 85% 84.4% 99.3% Does Not Meet = <84.9; Partially Met = 85 to 96.9; Meets >97; Exceeds = > 100 1.1.2: Increase in percentage of students meeting standards as measured by SBAC rates in ELA and Mathematics. (ALT) Y a) ELA 48% 51% 48% 94.1% Does Not Meet = <84.9; Partially Met = 85 to 96.9; Meets >97; Exceeds = > 100 Y b) Smarter Balanced Math 39% 42% 41% 97.6% Does Not Meet = <84.9; Partially Met = 85 to 96.9; Meets >97; Exceeds = > 100 N c) Third-Grade Reading SBAC Rates 43% 46% 45% 97.8% Does Not Meet = <84.9; Partially Met = 85 to 96.9; Meets >97; Exceeds = > 100 Y 1.1.3: Increase in percentage of students meeting standard as measured by State Science Assessment (Establish baseline in November 2017). (ALT) 36% 40% 36% 90.0% Does Not Meet = <84.9; Partially Met = 85 to 96.9; Meets >97; Exceeds = > 100 Y 1.1.4: Develop indicators to measure student performance and credit attainment in high school. (ALT) 66% 69% 63% 91.3% Does Not Meet = <84.9; Partially Met = 85 to 96.9; Meets >97; Exceeds = > 100 Objective 1.2 - Close opportunity gaps through culturally competent practice, effective strategies, and Multi-Tiered System of Supports. 16-17 Actual 17-18 Target 17-18 Actual % of Goal Attained Measures for Achievement 1.2.1: Reduce achievement gaps: Specific three-year targets with annual milestones will be set for each student population to ensure gap-closing pace on the following measures. (ALT) Y a) Smarter Balanced "Meeting Standards" rates, overall math and ELA 68% More than 50% of sub- pops make growth = meets; 75% of sub pops make growth = exceeds 68% met Does Not Meet = <84.9; Partially Met = 85 to 96.9; Meets >97; Exceeds = > 100 Y b) Four-Year Cohort Graduation rates 84% 73% exceed Does Not Meet = <84.9; Partially Met = 85 to 96.9; Meets >97; Exceeds = > 100 Y c) AP/IB and/or Dual Credit Attainment rates 61% 66% met Does Not Meet = <84.9; Partially Met = 85 to 96.9; Meets >97; Exceeds = > 100 Y 1.2.2: Increase in English Learner exit rates by Grade 6, as measured by WIDA (academic language development and achievement). (ALT) 56% 58% 61% 105.2% Does Not Meet = <84.9; Partially Met = 85 to 96.9; Meets >97; Exceeds = > 100
  5. 5. Submitted on 12/4/2018 5 Y 1.2.3: Increase the graduation rate for students with disabilities on an annual basis until commensurate with the district graduation average. (ALT) 59% 64% 63% 98.4% Does Not Meet = <84.9; Partially Met = 85 to 96.9; Meets >97; Exceeds = > 100 Objective 1.3 - Strengthen teaching and learning through technology and 21st Century instructional strategies. 16-17 Actual 17-18 Target 17-18 Actual % of Goal Attained Measures for Achievement N 1.3.1: Increase number of teachers completing 21st Century Badge Classes by 10%. (Robert Sidford) N/A 120 144 120.0% N/A N 1.3.2: Increase implementation of 21st Century instructional practices for teachers by 10%. (Robert Sidford) N/A 25% 37% 148.0% N/A Objective 1.4 - Provide and continuously improve relevant education data that helps the District make decisions about academics. 16-17 Actual 17-18 Target 17-18 Actual % of Goal Attained Measures for Achievement N 1.4.1: Increase by 5%, annually, the number of regular users of the BIG Data Warehouse/Data Gallery. (Ben Hayes) 905 951 1,265 133.0% N/A N 1.4.2: Increase by 5%, annually, the average number of monthly reports run on BIG. (Ben Hayes) 7,312 7,678 10,049 130.9% N/A Objective 1.5 - Provide and continuously improve the pathway to college and career readiness through an aligned pre-K-16 system. 16-17 Actual 17-18 Target 17-18 Actual % of Goal Attained N 1.5.1: Reduce remediation rates for WCSD graduates - 1st year NSHE students by 3% annually. (ALT) 42% 39% TBA N/A N 1.5.2: Establish baseline data and three-year targets for Career Readiness and Career and College Diplomas (upon codification of diploma requirements in AB7). (Debra Biersdorff & Ben Hayes) N/A N/A N/A N/A Y 1.5.3 Increase the percentage of students enrolling in and completing a pathway of study in CTE programs by the end of their senior year. (Debra Biersdorff) 14% 15% 19% 126.7% Does Not Meet = <84.9; Partially Met = 85 to 96.9; Meets >97; Exceeds = > 100 N 1.5.4 Expand the number of integrated Early Childhood Education classrooms throughout the District commensurate with funding. (Byron Green) N/A N/A 18 N/A N 1.5.5 Develop an 8th grade “Ready for HS” metric (Defined by academic course passing & assessment results). (ALT) 57% 59% 58% 98% N/A Goal 2: Highly Effective Personnel Objective 2.1 - Attract, recruit, hire, and retain highly-effective personnel. 16-17 Actual 17-18 Target 17-18 Actual % of Goal Attained Measures for Achievement Y 2.1.1 Decrease number of unfilled certified positions on the first day of each school year by at least 2%. (Emily Ellison) 41 Meets = Decrease 2%; Exceeds > 2% 33 100% Does Not Meet = <84.9; Partially Met = 85 to 96.9; Meets >97; Exceeds = > 100 Y 2.1.2 Increase diversity of new hires among all employee groups. Includes diversity in race, ethnicity, gender, language and veteran status, as identified by employee. (Emily Ellison) 43.1% Greater than 0%- 1% meets; +1% exceeds 45.4% 108.5% Does Not Meet = <84.9; Partially Met = 85 to 96.9; Meets >97; Exceeds = > 100 Y 2.1.3 Increase the percentage of certified new hires who are hired from our Education Support Professional and Substitute teaching staff each year. (Emily Ellison) 30.8% Greater than 0%- 1% meets; +1% exceeds 56.3% 145.3% Does Not Meet = <84.9; Partially Met = 85 to 96.9; Meets >97; Exceeds = > 100
  6. 6. Submitted on 12/4/2018 6 N 2.1.4 Increase percentage of teachers successfully completing the WCSD Alternative Route to Licensure program by at least 2% per year. 17-18 Baseline year. (Emily Ellison) 80% 82% 67.1% 81.8% N/A Objective 2.2 - Provide and continuously improve meaningful, high-quality professional learning targeted to concrete learning objectives and desired performance outcomes. 16-17 Actual 17-18 Target 17-18 Actual % of Goal Attained Measures for Achievement N 2.2.1 Maintain the percentage of administrators engaged through Professional Growth System (My PGS) platform. (Mike Paul) N/A 90%-97% meets; +97% exceeds 99% N/A N 2.2.2 Maintain the percentage of teachers engaged through Professional Growth System (My PGS) platform on an annual. (Mike Paul) N/A 90%-97% meets; +97% exceeds 96% N/A N 2.2.3 Increase the percentage of staff completing implementation surveys about implementing practices gained from learning opportunities provided through the Professional Growth System (My PGS) platform on an annual basis by 5%. (ALT & Mike Paul) N/A Baseline year 15% N/A Objective 2.3 - Continuously increase retention and engagement of highly-effective personnel through programs, professional growth systems and other management practices for all employees. 16-17 Actual 17-18 Target 17-18 Actual % of Goal Attained Measures for Achievement Y 2.3.1 Increase teacher retention over the first five years of employment by 2%. (Emily Ellison) 65.6% 67.60% 73.0% 107.9% Does Not Meet = <84.9; Partially Met = 85 to 96.9; Meets >97; Exceeds = > 100 N 2.3.2 Maintain at least an 85% employee satisfaction rate as measured by satisfaction surveys. (Emily Ellison) N/A 85% 86.8% 102.1% N/A Goal 3: Family, Staff, Trustee and Community Engagement Objective 3.1 - Expand the scope and effectiveness of trustee, staff, and community communications. 16-17 Actual 17-18 Target 17-18 Actual % of Goal Attained Measures for Achievement N 3.1.1 Increase the employee view rate of superintendent communications by 2%. (Irene Payne) N/A N/A 18.5% N/A N 3.1.2 Maintain and optimize social media strategy, to include Facebook Live, to see a 3% increase in shared views. (Irene Payne) N/A N/A 12,829 N/A N 3.1.3 Increase video views by 3% across all media platforms. (Irene Payne) N/A N/A 22,538 N/A Y 3.1.4 Increase positive media coverage by 3%. (Irene Payne) N/A N/A 90 Does Not Meet = <84.9; Partially Met = 85 to 96.9; Meets >97; Exceeds = > 100 Objective 3.2 - Increase meaningful partnerships between the District and families focused on student success. 16-17 Actual 17-18 Target 17-18 Actual % of Goal Attained Measures for Achievement N 3.2.1 Maintain family satisfaction rates on the ability to access information and resources as well as to understand and support their child’s progress. (Byron Green) 88% Baseline year 88% N/A Y 3.2.2 Maintain customer satisfaction rates for Parent University classes. (Byron Green) 89% Maintain 89% 0% Does Not Meet = <84.9; Partially Met = 85 to 96.9; Meets >97; Exceeds = > 100
  7. 7. Submitted on 12/4/2018 7 Objective 3.3 - Strengthen strategic community partnerships including other government agencies and constituent services. 16-17 Actual 17-18 Target 17-18 Actual % of Goal Attained Measures for Achievement N 3.3.1 Consistent attendance at Regular Meetings of the Board of Trustees (90% attendance by each Trustee). (David Lasic) N/A 90% 92% 102.2% N/A N 3.3.2 Ensure all schools are visited at least once per year by Trustees. (David Lasic) N/A 100% 100% 100.0% N/A N 3.3.3 Ensure constituent concerns, questions, and/or complaints are tracked and responded to within 48 hours. (David Lasic) N/A 100% 91% 91.0% N/A N 3.3.4 Develop a measurement system for tracking traditional and social media coverage of the Board of Trustees. (David Lasic) N/A N/A N/A N/A N 3.3.5 Ensure the District is represented at government and community meetings as appropriate. (David Lasic) N/A N/A 93% 93% N/A Objective 3.4 - Strengthen the assistance of Volunteer Services to schools and departments with a focus on supporting student success and school performance. 16-17 Actual 17-18 Target 17-18 Actual % of Goal Attained Measures for Achievement N 3.4.1 Maintain the FY17-18 number of volunteer hours in our school district. (Irene Payne) 16,264 Baseline year 11,705 N/A Goal 4: Provide and continuously improve operational systems Objective 4.1 - Ensure that operational systems, central services, and finances are integrated and sustainably aligned to best support the needs of students, teachers, staff, schools, and departments. 16-17 Actual 17-18 Target 17-18 Actual % of Goal Attained Measures for Achievement N 4.1.1 Implement the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA’s) newly developed best practices for school district budgeting. (Mark Mathers) Received Award Receive Award PENDING GFOA N/A Y 4.1.2 Propose balanced budgets which eliminate the structural deficit within 3 years by 33% each year. (Mark Mathers) FY18/19 = $27 M, FY19/20 = $13.5 M, FY20/21 = $0 $40.5 million $27 million $7.5 million 360% Does Not Meet = <84.9; Partially Met = 85 to 96.9; Meets >97; Exceeds = > 100 N 4.1.3 Transportation: Identify and develop metrics regarding on-time delivery of students, safety, and cost per mile. (Pete Etchart) N - On time student delivery 94.50% 94.50% N/A N - Safety (accidents per 100,000 miles) 1.89 1.89 N/A N - Cost per mile $4.69 $4.69 N/A N 4.1.4 Facilities: Identify metrics regarding decreasing critical repair needs in the Facility Condition Information System, decreasing overcrowded schools, and providing clean schools. (Pete Etchart) N - Critical Repair N/A 0.17 0.17 N/A N - School Overcrowding N/A 88% 88% N/A N - Clean Schools N/A 97% 97% N/A
  8. 8. Submitted on 12/4/2018 8 Objective 4.2 - Provide and continuously improve online access to information about educational, operational, and financial data to support District-wide decision making and accountability. 16-17 Actual 17-18 Target 17-18 Actual % of Goal Attained Measures for Achievement N 4.2.1 Increase annually, the number of regular users of the data warehouse. (Mark Mathers, Ben Hayes, Pete Etchart, Robert Sidford) N/A Baseline year TBD N/A Goal 5: Ensure our schools are safe, secure, supportive, and welcoming environments where students and staff are able to succeed Objective 5.1 – Provide and continuously improve a climate of belongingness and self-worth amongst students, families, staff, and the community that is centered around an inclusive, collaborative, and engaging learning environment by providing equitable practices, strategies, and materials. 16-17 Actual 17-18 Target 17-18 Actual % of Goal Attained Measures for Achievement N 5.1.1 Decrease chronic absenteeism rates by 2% annually. Formula changed (N/A) Formula changed (N/A) 19% N/A Y 5.1.2 Disproportionality: Establish 3-year targets ensuring significant reduction for suspensions, GATE, ELL identification, Special Education identification/programming, and extracurricular participation. (ALT) Measures established Does Not Meet = <84.9; Partially Met = 85 to 96.9; Meets >97; Exceeds = > 100 N - Suspensions - reduction in N/A N/A See Attached N/A N Increase in accessibility in minority populations, advanced placement, IB, CTE and dual credit attainment N/A N/A See Attached N/A 5.1.3 Increase in proportion (change to the positive perception) of students and families reporting (ALT) N - Engagement with school Students 61% Family 88% TBD Students 58% Family 88% N/A N - Positive relationships with school community Students 76% Family 87% TBD Students 74% Family 88% N/A N - Feeling safe (or feeling their children are safe) at school Students 86% Family 91% TBD Students 82% Family 89% N/A N - Social and emotional health TBD TBD TBD N/A Objective 5.2 - Provide and continuously implement a District-wide comprehensive plan for school safety and crisis response including training, facilities improvements, and the engagement of the community, schools, families, and students. 16-17 Actual 17-18 Target 17-18 Actual % of Goal Attained Measures for Achievement N 5.2.1 Establish indicators for employee school safety training. (Jason Trevino) N/A N/A N/A N/A N 5.2.2 Sites will access school safety training annually. (Jason Trevino) N/A N/A N/A N/A Y 5.2.3 Implement 100% of the comprehensive emergency operations plan annually N/A 100% 100% 100% N/A
  9. 9. Submitted on 12/4/2018 9 PART TWO: EMPLOYEE PERSPECTIVE
  10. 10. Submitted on 12/4/2018 10 OVERVIEW The employee perspective is an important component of the Superintendent Evaluation, which is included via an annual survey conducted in the Fall. Results from the survey are provided to the Board of Trustees prior to completion of their evaluation. Additionally, results are included as two evaluation items. The survey asked four types of questions, aligned with the Board of Trustees’ survey. The survey was anonymous.  Six Dimensions of Leadership– Participants could choose from Strongly Disagree (1), Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Agree, or Strongly Agree (5) or Not Enough Information in response to statements provided about the Superintendent’s actions and performance.  Open-ended Questions – Participants were invited to provide additional commentary about their responses, if they wished to do so.  Effectiveness Question – Each respondent was asked a summary question regarding the likelihood to recommend WCSD as an exceptional District that fully meets the educational needs of its students. The purpose of this question is to develop a cause-effect correlation between the 7 Dimensions (cause) and the sentiment of the District’s impact (effect).  Employee Engagement – Each respondent was asked a series of questions aligned with Gallup’s Q12 ®, employee engagement survey. For the current period, the results are to establish a benchmark. SY17-18 EVALUATION RESULTS The following two metrics are included in the Superintendent Evaluation from the Employee Survey. Below is the summary of results based on the goals established for SY17-18. Metrics Overall Average 16/17 17/18 Overall Perception: Advocacy of the District (scale of 0-10) Goal: 8% improvement over SY16/17  Does Not Meet = <4.90  Partially Met = 4.9 to 6.12  Met = 6.13 to 7.26  Exceeds = > 7.27 5.67 4.08 Leadership Composite Score (scale of 1-5) Goal: 8% improvement over SY16/17  Does Not Meet = <2.20  Partially Met = 2.21 to 2.75  Met = 2.75 to 3.34  Exceeds = > 3.35 2.52 2.48
  11. 11. Submitted on 12/4/2018 11 SUMMARY OF EMPLOYEE PERSPECTIVE The feedback from the staff statistically represents the perspective of all staff with 95% confidence, meaning if everyone had responded to the survey the could shift up 1.6%, plus or minus. The Staff and Community Survey collected feedback from 1,791 respondents, reflecting a 24% response rate, up from a 16%response rate in SY16/17. Staff responded via an electronic survey whereby the response categories are on a scale of 1 – strongly disagree to 5 – strongly agree. The Overall Perception and Satisfaction questions are based upon a 0 to 10 scale. The Overall Perception and Leadership Dimensions Scores are listed below: Dimensions Overall Average % Agree & Strongly Agree 16/17 17/18 16/17 17/18 Overall Perception: Advocacy of the District (scale of 0-10) 5.67 4.08 31% 13% Leadership Composite Score (scale of 1-5) 2.52 2.48 22% 22% Strategic District Leadership 2.63 2.52 25% 22% Instructional Leadership 2.63 2.49 24% 22% Systemic Leadership 2.56 2.52 22% 22% Collaborative Leadership 2.50 2.41 21% 20% Professional Ethics 2.72 2.64 23% 26% Organizational Leadership 2.44 2.30 19% 18% Overall Perception: 13% would likely recommend WCSD as an exceptional District that fully meets the educational needs of its students. Top Priorities: Statistically, three of the following 7 Dimensions will have the biggest positive impact on the District. Meaning more effort in these areas will yield the greatest return on the overall organization and therefore are good candidates for goals and action plans.  ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP: Effective understanding of all people in the District.  INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP: Comprehensive knowledge of instructional management.  SYSTEMIC LEADERSHIP: Deep understanding of the School District as a system by defining a process that utilizes data for decision-making. Key Trends by Employee Group: Overall, the District Leadership and Site Leadership perception of the Superintendent’s leadership has improved from SY16/17 to SY17/18 – across almost all questions and dimensions. On the other hand, Certified Staff’s perception has decreased, whereas for Educational Support Professionals, the net of improvement and decline results in little change in perception. Common Themes from Text Analysis:  It appeared that no matter if a teacher was satisfied, indifferent or dissatisfied – her/his response could be summarized as “I like teaching but….”  Special Education is a topic that was voiced across many dimensions with both positive and negative sentiments. General themes – not enough funding, resources or teachers; resources are diverted from non-Special Education purposes; leadership in this specialty is missing or not good.  Teachers are not feeling “empowered” to do their job.
  12. 12. Submitted on 12/4/2018 12 SURVEY RESPONSE RATES & STATISTICAL REPRESENTATION The 2017-2018 Superintendent Evaluation Survey was distributed to all WCSD staff. Data collection occurred from October 10 through November 1, 2018. An invitation to participate in the evaluation process was sent to ALL Washoe County School District employees via email with a generic link to ensure anonymity. All employees were included to offer a voice in the process to every internal stakeholder, providing as much opportunity for comprehensive feedback as possible. An often-asked question is “Do the sample sizes (e.g., completion rates of 12%, 29% or 58%, etc.) represent the whole of the population?” In each of the stakeholder groups listed below the answer is affirmative. The representativeness of the sample size is at the 95% confidence level, which means that, for example, among the Pro-Tech Administrators, an individual can be 95% confident within a 5.7% confidence interval that a reported score represents the whole population. In other words, if the reported score is “3.8,” then the “true score” if everyone answered would be between 3.6 to 4.0. Thus, is it practical to make a managerial decision knowing the Pro-Tech Administrators score would be within a range between 3.6 to 4.0? Most likely yes. SY17/18 Groups* Surveys Sent Surveys Completed Completion Rate Statistical Representation District Leadership: Leadership Team 23 23 100% +/-0.0% Administrators / Non-School Site 74 52 70% +/-6.0% Pro-Tech Administrators 154 85 55% +/-5.7% Site Leadership: Admins / Site 228 132 58% +/-4.4% Certified Staff: Certified Staff - Teacher 3,579 1,029 29% +/-2.1% Certified Staff - Non-Teacher 465 134 29% +/-5.7% Educational Support Professionals: Educational Support Professionals 2,867 336 12% +/-5.7%% Total SY17/18 Employee Responses 7,390 1,791 24% +/-1.6% Total SY16/17 Employee Responses 7,147 1,102 15% +/-2.2% Total SY15/16 Employee Responses 516 118 23% *Survey takers were free to select the stakeholder group that they felt best described their role.
  13. 13. Submitted on 12/4/2018 13 HOW TO INTERPRET THE RESULTS The data are provided in the following manner by stakeholder groups listed above:  Overall Rating: Each Dimension has one question about the overall perception of performance in the area. The overall rating is displayed as a mean, with the specific responses in the data table.  Sub-Dimensions: The specific questions in each Dimension are listed in the left-hand column of the data grid. For each question and stakeholder segment, the results for those that responded agree or strongly agree are displayed. The response category “don’t know” is provided for context to reflect how many respondents did not answer the question.  Color Coding: Each segment response is color coded as follows based on the change from the 2016-2017 Evaluation: o Green: 10% or greater improvement from the previous evaluation o Blue: No significant change from the previous evaluation o Red: 10% or larger decline from the previous evaluation  Themes from Comments: For each Dimension, the respondent was able to provide a comment about why he/she selected the Overall rating. The themes from the open-ended comments are provided with the volume of responses in each theme.
  14. 14. Submitted on 12/4/2018 14 OVERALL PERCEPTION: EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DISTRICT For purposes of this evaluation, the summary perception question is based on the idea that all the Evaluation Dimensions result in an exceptional District, one that you would recommend to a friend or relative. This question and response scale are based upon best practices and help to elicit a respondent’s emotional connection to the thought posed.  “True Supporters” are those that are strong advocates of the District (Top Third, scores between 8 and 10);  “Fence Sitters” are those that provide a mid-range answer and can be swayed either way (Mid Third, scores between 5 and 7);  “Critics” are the low respondents and could work to undermine the situation (Bottom Third, scores between 0 and 4). Why this question? Providing an overall perception is a survey best-practice because it allows respondents the opportunity to provide their sentiment about the survey topic overall. This question is used to develop a statistical model, developing a cause/effect relationship between this question and all others in survey. Best practices from Bain & Company/Reichheld is leveraged and therefore set on an eleven-point response scale. SY16/17 SY17/18 If I had a friend or relative in the educational profession, I would likely recommend WCSD as an exceptional District that fully meets the educational needs of its students. Mean Mean Dimension Rating – Average on a scale of 0-10 5.67 4.08 District Leadership* 6.5 5.78 Leadership Team 7.14 7.87 Administrators/Site Leadership 6.73 4.95 Certified Staff 5.34 3.69 Educational Support Professionals 5.63 4.25 % Agree & Strongly Agree Overall 31% 13% * Includes Leadership Team Response scale: Not at all likely (0) to Neutral (5) to Extremely likely (10) Themes from Open-Ended Comments: Note: One item/subject that was voiced throughout under a variety of names and acronyms was Special Education. Teachers, whatever category, wanted better special education - but believed it was underfunded or needed a lot of reform to be more useful. If there was ONE thing the Superintendent could do that would help improve the District, it would be… (202 answered in Top Third and 135 could be text analyzed.) The following are those that provided comments.  Occupation (144) o Make it easier for teachers to teach/increase support/decrease red tape  Academics (123) o Need more time to teach o Ensure all students are at grade level before moving up  Schools (101) 10% or greater than 16/17 No significant change from 16/17 10% or lower than 16/17 No color = Not comparable
  15. 15. Submitted on 12/4/2018 15 o We need more money for smaller classes/more schools/more resources o Eliminate red tape If there was ONE thing the Superintendent could do that would help improve the District, it would be... (528 answered in Middle Third. However, there was no consistency in a sufficient number of responses to demonstrate a synthetization of thought.) If there was ONE thing the Superintendent could do that would help improve the District, it would be… (851 answered Bottom Third and 744 could be text analyzed) The following are those that provided comments.  Occupation (219) o Hire more teachers and support resources o Reduced management at the district level o Increase pay o Reduce red tape  Schools (105) o Students are being moved through the system by lowering standards o Principals and leadership should spend more time in schools
  16. 16. Submitted on 12/4/2018 16 DIMENSION 1: STRATEGIC DISTRICT LEADERSHIP SY15/16 SY16/17 SY17/18 Overall, the Superintendent demonstrates critical strategic leadership by providing direction for all stakeholders. Dimension Rating – Average on a scale of 1-5 N/A 2.52 2.63 % Agree & Strongly Agree Overall 25% 22% District Leadership* 43% 51% Leadership Team 52% 96% (9% don’t know) Administrators/Site Leadership 28% 41% Certified Staff 22% 15% (12% don’t know) Educational Support Professionals 28% 24% (21% don’t know) * Includes Leadership Team Response scale: Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5) Themes from Open-Ended Comments: Please provide ONE example of strategic leadership that provided direction for stakeholders. (344 responded Strongly Agree to Agree and 302 could be text analyzed.) The following are those that provided comments: o Very good at leading the process for new construction (29) o Improvement of the graduation rates in the district (22) o Regular appearances and communications (11) What strategic leadership is not provided? (1,195 responded Strongly Disagree to Neutral and 1,104 could be text analyzed.) The following are those that provided comments: o People question how she can lead when she is does not live here and spends so much time in Las Vegas and her children attend Clark County schools. (127) o People view the top management as isolated from the day to day operations of the district creating an us vs. them system. (123) o Too much attention on graduation rates by lowering standards rather than building students. The graduation rate number is almost perceived as the only thing that matters. (84) 10% or greater than 16/17 No significant change from 16/17 10% or lower than 16/17 No color = Not comparable
  17. 17. Submitted on 12/4/2018 17 DIMENSION 2: INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP SY15/16 SY16/17 SY17/18 Overall, the Superintendent exhibits comprehensive knowledge of instructional management. Dimension Rating – Average on a scale of 1-5 N/A 2.63 2.49 % Agree & Strongly Agree Overall 24% 22% District Leadership* 40% 55% (12% don’t know) Leadership Team 46% 91% (9% don’t know) Administrators/Site Leadership 26% 33% Certified Staff 20% 14% (12% don’t know) Educational Support Professionals 30% 27% (22% don’t know) Has been effective in developing a culture and a climate that provide a safe learning environment for all students. District Leadership* 68% 48% 65% (6% don’t know) Leadership Team N/A 50% 73% Administrators/Site Leadership 43% 37% 42% Certified Staff 30% 32% 28% (7% don’t know) Educational Support Professionals N/A 43% 44% (10% don’t know) Has been effective in ensuring that the District personnel are committed to a positive school climate. District Leadership* N/A 41% 58% (7% don’t know) Leadership Team 50% 90% (13% don’t know) Administrators/Site Leadership 27% 35% Certified Staff 26% 23% Educational Support Professionals 36% 34% (10% don’t know) Ensures the District is able to recruit highly effective personnel. District Leadership* 58% 31% 42% (9% don’t know) Leadership Team N/A 65% 46% Administrators/Site Leadership 19% 18% 25% (7% don’t know) Certified Staff 7% 16% 13% (10% don’t know) Educational Support Professionals N/A 25% 22% (14% don’t know) Ensures the District is able to retain highly effective personnel. District Leadership* 58% 29% 37% (8% don’t know) Leadership Team N/A 33% 65% Administrators/Site Leadership 15% 15% 14% Certified Staff 7% 9% 12% (6% don’t know) Educational Support Professionals N/A 24% 19% (11% don’t know) Ensures the District is able to provide professional development opportunities for all personnel.
  18. 18. Submitted on 12/4/2018 18 District Leadership* 79% 53% 65% Leadership Team N/A 58% 91% Administrators/Site Leadership 61% 51% 54% Certified Staff 37% 41% 43% Educational Support Professionals N/A 47% 48% (7% don’t know) * Includes Leadership Team Response scale: Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5) Themes from Open-Ended Comments: What is the primary reason you believe the Superintendent exhibits solid instructional leadership? (329 responded Strongly Agree to Agree and 302 could be text analyzed.) The following are those that provided comments: o Has the best interest of student and staff at heart (36) o As a former educator, she understands what teachers need (26) o Visible at schools, events and in the media (12) Please provide an objective example of how the Superintendent is not exhibiting instructional leadership. (1,199 responded Strongly Disagree to Neutral and 1,141 could be text analyzed.) The following are those that provided comments: o Effective teachers are not recruited or encouraged to stay (205) o Teachers are told what to do, more is added to their plate and no one listens (122) o Most people have never met her, seen her or otherwise interacted with her (82) o There is not enough back up personnel to such as special education, substitutes and classroom aids (51) 10% or greater than 16/17 No significant change from 16/17 10% or lower than 16/17 No color = Not comparable
  19. 19. Submitted on 12/4/2018 19 DIMENSION 3: SYSTEMIC LEADERSHIP SY15/16 SY16/17 SY17/18 Overall, the Superintendent exhibits a deep understanding of the School District as a system by defining processes that utilize data for decision-making. Dimension Rating – Average on a scale of 1-5 N/A 2.65 2.52 % Agree & Strongly Agree Overall 22% 22% District Leadership* 40% 56% (8% don’t know) Leadership Team 42% 91% Administrators/Site Leadership 25% 33% Certified Staff 18% 16% (13% don’t know) Educational Support Professionals 23% 25% (22% don’t know) When implementing a new initiative, the Superintendent effectively communicates the need for change. District Leadership* 74% 44% 55% Leadership Team N/A 54% 91% Administrators/Site Leadership 39% 36% 38% (7% don’t know) Certified Staff 30% 29% 23% Educational Support Professionals N/A 34% 33% (13% don’t know) Is transparent about the distribution of resources. District Leadership* 74% 46% 43% (7% don’t know) Leadership Team N/A 46% 83% Administrators/Site Leadership 33% 24% 28% Certified Staff 15% 19% 18% (10% don’t know) Educational Support Professionals N/A 24% 27% (14% don’t know) Ensures adequate distribution of resources to improve student achievement results. District Leadership* 58% 38% 45% (10% don’t know) Leadership Team N/A 38% 80% (13% don’t know) Administrators/Site Leadership 20% 18% 24% Certified Staff 11% 15% 13% (9% don’t know) Educational Support Professionals N/A 25% 26% (15% don’t know) * Includes Leadership Team Response scale: Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5) 10% or greater than 16/17 No significant change from 16/17 10% or lower than 16/17 No color = Not comparable
  20. 20. Submitted on 12/4/2018 20 Themes from Open-Ended Comments: Please explain why you are supportive of the Superintendent’s ability to utilize data for decision-making. (344 responded Strongly Agree to Agree and 314 could be text analyzed.) The following are those that provided comments: o She uses data to drive decision making and references it while communicating (37) o Office of Accountability is well received and viewed as valuable resource (10) o Data doesn’t always translate into action (i.e. data says class size is too large, but no action taken) (8) Please explain ONE gap in the Superintendent’s understanding of the School District as a system. (1,792 responded Strongly Disagree to Neutral and 1,709 could be text analyzed.) The following are those that provided comments: o Large discrepancies between schools with new schools getting more funding (75) o General belief that decisions are not driven by data or that there is no data or data is hidden from teachers (73) o She only cares about the numbers and not the actual students/teachers behind them (66) DIMENSION 4: COLLABORATIVE LEADERSHIP SY15/16 SY16/17 SY17/18 Overall, the Superintendent has displayed strong collaborative leadership throughout the last year, which might have been exhibited in consensus building, articulation of District direction or in responses to community input. Dimension Rating – Average on a scale of 1-5 N/A 2.50 2.41 % Agree & Strongly Agree Overall 21% 20% District Leadership* 37% 47% (10% don’t know) Leadership Team 42% 77% Administrators/Site Leadership 21% 26% Certified Staff 18% 14% (11% don’t know) Educational Support Professionals 25% 25% (22% don’t know) Has an effective communications program with internal stakeholders. District Leadership* 79% 42% 52% (6% don’t know) Leadership Team N/A 46% 83% Administrators/Site Leadership 44% 22% 32% Certified Staff 44% 25% 20% (7% don’t know) Educational Support Professionals N/A 27% 23% (14% don’t know) * Includes Leadership Team Response scale: Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5) 10% or greater than 16/17 No significant change from 16/17 10% or lower than 16/17 No color = Not comparable
  21. 21. Submitted on 12/4/2018 21 Themes from Open-Ended Comments: Please provide an example of the Superintendent’s leadership through consensus building, articulation of District direction or responding to community input. (308 responded Strongly Agree to Agree and 290 could be text analyzed.) The following are those that provided comments: o Visits schools regularly and meets with partners (35) o Personable (15) o “Friday Minutes” are generally well received (15) Please explain where a gap might exist in the Superintendent’s collaborative leadership. (1,243 responded Strongly Disagree to Neutral and 1,115 could be text analyzed.) The following are those that provided comments: o When she visits schools, they are just photo ops (171) o Communications don’t invite feedback, only “tell” information (112) o Does not collaborate with teachers or support staff (88) DIMENSION 5: PROFESSIONAL ETHICS SY15/16 SY16/17 SY17/18 Overall, there is no doubt the Superintendent models an uncompromising ethical system with moral leadership. Dimension Rating – Average on a scale of 1-5 N/A 2.72 2.64 % Agree & Strongly Agree Overall 23% 26% District Leadership* 39% 53% (10% don’t know) Leadership Team 33% 95% (9% don’t know) Administrators/Site Leadership 21% 29% (7% don’t know) Certified Staff 25% 21% (16% don’t know) Educational Support Professionals 41% 29% (21% don’t know) * Includes Leadership Team Response scale: Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5) Themes from Open-Ended Comments: Please provide ONE example where such leadership was displayed. (386 responded Strongly Agree to Agree and 342 could be text analyzed.) The following are those that provided comments: o Puts students first (27) o Does what’s right versus just continuing along with status quo (9) o She is fair in dealing with all matters (12) Why do you believe the Superintendent did not display the appropriate professionalism? (1,104 responded Strongly Disagree to Neutral and 956 could be text analyzed.) 10% or greater than 16/17 No significant change from 16/17 10% or lower than 16/17 No color = Not comparable
  22. 22. Submitted on 12/4/2018 22 The following are those that provided comments: o Bullying, harassment and other negative environments are not dealt with (120) o Teachers are generally not respected (49) o Not living in district or having her kids attend school in district (45) o People believe that she has too many conflicts of interest from hiring friends, renting an apartment, having a direct financial reason for making decisions or taking a car allowance while teachers pay for supplies out of pocket DIMENSION 6: ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP SY15/16 SY16/17 SY17/18 Overall, the Superintendent demonstrates an effective understanding of all people in the District. Dimension Rating – Average on a scale of 1-5 N/A 2.44 2.30 % Agree & Strongly Agree Overall 19% 18% District Leadership* 38% 46% (8% don’t know) Leadership Team 38% 76% (9% don’t know) Administrators/Site Leadership 21% 26% Certified Staff 15% 12% (8% don’t know) Educational Support Professionals 21% 22% (16% don’t know) Empowers District leaders to effectively improve student learning. District Leadership* 68% 48% 61% (9% don’t know) Leadership Team N/A 58% 96% Administrators/Site Leadership 37% 42% 42% Certified Staff 37% 24% 25% (10% don’t know) Educational Support Professionals N/A 31% 35% (16% don’t know) Effectively communicates shortcomings and successes of District initiatives. District Leadership* 79% 41% 60% (8% don’t know) Leadership Team N/A 42% 95% Administrators/Site Leadership 50% 30% 48% Certified Staff 33% 27% 26% (8% don’t know) Educational Support Professionals N/A 33% 34% (14% don’t know) Acknowledges the contributions of others in pursuit of District strategic goals. District Leadership* 74% 53% 61% Leadership Team N/A 54% 96% Administrators/Site Leadership 28% 46% 46% Certified Staff 7% 33% 31% (11% don’t know)
  23. 23. Submitted on 12/4/2018 23 Educational Support Professionals N/A 33% 33% (14% don’t know) Creates conditions that motivate and empower others in the District to take ownership of the District's strategic goals. District Leadership* 63% 46% 52% (7% don’t know) Leadership Team N/A 50% 86% Administrators/Site Leadership 31% 27% 25% Certified Staff 15% 20% 16% (11% don’t know) Educational Support Professionals N/A 21% 24% (17% don’t know) * Includes Leadership Team Response scale: Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5) Themes from Open-Ended Comments: Please provide a significant example of the Superintendent’s people-leading ability. (293 responded Strongly Agree to Agree and 278 could be text analyzed.) The following are those that provided comments: o Inspires people to be better and step out of comfort zone (23) o Visits schools and meets with people (18) o She is “Real” and honest with people (6) How could the Superintendent’s understanding and leadership of people be improved? (1,326 responded Strongly Disagree to Neutral and 1,226 could be text analyzed.) The following are those that provided comments: o Teachers don’t feel empowered but burdened with too many students, programs, reporting, etc. (172) o Needs to spend more time meeting teachers and students in schools (120) o Doesn’t listen when meeting with people and only tells people things (53) 10% or greater than 16/17 No significant change from 16/17 10% or lower than 16/17 No color = Not comparable
  24. 24. Submitted on 12/4/2018 24 WCSD EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT Employee Engagement questions were added to this year’s survey for the first time, per the direction of the Board of Trustees. This group of 11 questions plus the following Satisfaction question** are aligned with the Q12® from Gallup’s Employee Engagement Survey. Gallup defines engaged employees as those who are involved in, enthusiastic about and committed to their work and workplace. Gallup categorizes workers, with a proprietary process, as "engaged" based on their responses to these key workplace elements as it has found they predict important organizational performance outcomes. % Agree & Strongly Agree District Leadership* Leadership Team Admins/ Site Certified Staff Educational Support Prof I truly understand the District’s mission (what we are trying to accomplish). 79% 100% 78% 62% 63% My direct supervisor creates a work environment that helps me do my job. 77% 91% 81% 71% 74% My opinion is valued. 68% 87% 48% 45% 50% My direct supervisor is very good at providing praise for a job well done. 72% 87% 77% 67% 70% I know how to measure and assess the quality of my work. 91% 95% 85% 90% 84% I can use this information to make changes that will enhance my job performance. 81% 95% 80% 82% 73% I believe my department/school provides top quality service to the parents/families of Washoe County. 79% 100% 85% 74% 74% The Superintendent ensures the District is able to provide professional development opportunities for all personnel. 65% 91% 54% 43% 48% My principal/supervisor encourages me to develop my job skills, so I can advance in my career. 76% 91% 73% 70% 67% The Washoe County School District values me as an employee. 59% 83% 36% 23% 39% I have everything that is needed to be effective in my position. 49% 65% 37% 26% 52% **The 11-point Overall Satisfaction format was used as a quantitative basis to be able to determine which of the engagement behaviors are most important in driving employee satisfaction.
  25. 25. Submitted on 12/4/2018 25 Overall Satisfaction Overall employee satisfaction is rated on a scale from 0 to 10 in alignment with best practices creating quantitative dispersion among responses to better capture perception of participants. Through leveraging the research work of Bain & Company/Reichheld, a “net satisfaction score” can be determined by subtracting the % Dissatisfied from % of Satisfied. This allows for cross segment comparison, plus provides a perspective on the state of employee satisfaction, which impacts employee engagement. The responses are grouped as follows:  “Satisfieds” are those that are strong advocates of the District (Top Third, scores between 8 and 10);  “Indifferent” are those that provide a mid-range answer and can be swayed either way (Mid Third, scores between 5 and 7);  “Dissatisfieds” are the low respondents and could work to undermine the situation (Bottom Third, scores between 0 and 4). I am very satisfied with Washoe County School District as a place to work. Dimension Rating – Average on a scale of 0-10 4.95 – Indifferent category District Leadership* 6.33 – Indifferent category Leadership Team 8.09 – Satisfied category Administrators/Site Leadership 5.23 – Indifferent category Certified Staff 4.40 – Indifferent category Educational Support Professionals 6.08 – Satisfied category % Satisfied % Indifferent % Dissatisfied Net Satisfaction District Leadership* 50% 24% 26% 24% Leadership Team 74% 22% 4% 70% Administrators/Site Leadership 26% 36% 38% -12% Certified Staff 17% 33% 50% -33% Educational Support Professionals 37% 38% 25% 12% * Includes Leadership Team Response scale: Not at all likely (0) to Neutral (5) to Extremely likely (10) Explanation: In situations where the Net Satisfaction is positive, there are more advocates of the District in that work arena than employees who are basically displeased or disconnected with the workplace. A negative Net Satisfaction score is the exact opposite work environment. In addition, note the % Indifferent or sometimes labeled “fence sitters” as those employees can be influenced in either a positive or negative direction. Themes from Open-Ended Comments: Could you please tell us why you gave that rating? (274 answered in Top Third with 232 comments that could be text analyzed.) The following are those that provided comments:  Occupation (103) o Teachers are committed and helpful (57) o Admin at school level are doing a good job (39)  Teachers happy with their school, generally (43)  Committed to student achievement (<43)
  26. 26. Submitted on 12/4/2018 26 Could you please tell us why you gave that rating? (401 answered in Middle Third with 375 comments that could be text analyzed.) The following are those that provided comments.  Occupation (106) o Lack of support from staff and administration  Teachers are frustrated with work load, turnover and lack of time (90)  Academics (90) o Suffer because of perceived need to meet data points o Lack of time with students Could you please tell us why you gave that rating? (627 answered Bottom Third with 596 comments that could be text analyzed.) The following are those that provided comments:  Teachers are not respected for their job (167)  Student needs are not met due to lack of time, staff and resources (134)  Career (96) o Not enough career advancement opportunities o Not feeling valued
  27. 27. Submitted on 12/4/2018 27 PRIORITY SETTING The strength of the data enabled the development of an Effectiveness Model, which links the Superintendent Evaluation Dimensions to the overall effectiveness of the District – a cause and effect relationship. The output of the Effectiveness Model is statistical insights into what stakeholders perceive as the most impactful dimensions of leadership to improve the Washoe County School District. Not only does the model statistically prove the predictive relationship between the 7 Dimensions, it also prioritizes those dimensions based on strength of the relationship. Effectiveness Model Explanation The diagram below illustrates the model as well as the order of ranking or impact each leadership dimension has on District Effectiveness. The multiple regression process results in a predictive model (predictive) where the Dimensions are the drivers (independent variables) of District Effectiveness, the outcome (dependent variable). Priority Setting To further illustrate the priorities, the model is applied to All Respondents and segments of District Staff and Site Staff. The top three priorities by segment are listed below. With the Dimensions ranking, the Agreement percentages are provided to determine how much effort or attention is needed to “move the needle” so to speak. For Dimensions with low agreement percentages, initiatives can be undertaken to improve the Dimension. Conversely, high agreement percentages indicated that steps should be taken to continue to support or enhance the Dimension. Further investigation can be made to determine which Sub-dimension(s) are most important within the Dimension whether there is high or low agreement. Thus, resources can be specifically applied to support improvement at the area of most need. Priority #1 (Most Impact) Priority #2 (Second Most Impact) Priority #3 (Third Most Impact) All Respondents ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP: Overall, the Superintendent demonstrates an effective understanding of all people in the District. (18% agree this is being demonstrated) INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP: Overall, the Superintendent exhibits comprehensive knowledge of instructional management. (22% agree this is being demonstrated) SYSTEMIC LEADERSHIP: Overall, the Superintendent exhibits a deep understanding of the School District as a system by defining a process that utilizes data for decision-making. (22% agree this is being demonstrated) District Level (Leadership Team, Admin. Non-School Site, Pro-Tech Admin) SYSTEMIC LEADERSHIP: Overall, the Superintendent exhibits a deep understanding of the School District as a system by defining a process that utilizes data for decision-making. (53% agree this is being demonstrated) STRATEGIC DISTRICT LEADERSHIP: Overall, the Superintendent demonstrates critical strategic leadership by providing direction for all stakeholders. (51% agree this is being demonstrated) PROFESSIONAL ETHICS: Overall, there is no doubt the Superintendent models an uncompromising ethical system with moral leadership. (56% agree this is being demonstrated) Organizational Leadership (1) Instructional Leadership (2) Systemic Leadership (3) Strategic District Leadership (4) Collaborative Leadership (5) Professional Ethics (N/A) Perception of District Effectiveness
  28. 28. Submitted on 12/4/2018 28 Onsite Level (Site Leadership, Certified Staff, Educational Support Professionals) ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP: Overall, the Superintendent demonstrates an effective understanding of all people in the District. (15% agree this is being demonstrated) INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP: Overall, the Superintendent exhibits comprehensive knowledge of instructional management. (18% agree this is being demonstrated) COLLABORATIVE LEADERSHIP: Overall, the Superintendent has displayed strong collaborative leadership throughout the last year, which has been exhibited in consensus building, articulation of District direction or in responses to community. (17% agree this is being demonstrated)
  29. 29. Submitted on 12/4/2018 29 PART THREE: BOARD OF TRUSTEES PERSPECTIVE
  30. 30. Submitted on 12/4/2018 30 The Board’s evaluation of the Superintendent consists of 7 Dimensions of Superintendent Leadership. The evaluation framework was first developed for the 2015-16 Evaluation and is unchanged for the 2017-18 Evaluation other than adding the Dimension regarding Board Communication. Trustees completed their evaluation using a survey tool that covers each dimension below. The scoring of each Trustee’s survey of 41 quantitative questions utilizing a four-point response scale: 1 = Did Not Meet; 2 = Partially Met; 3 = Met; 4 = Exceeds Expectations; Null = Not Enough Information. This scale is aligned with the State of Nevada’s Administrators Scoring Scale.  Dimension 1: Strategic District Leadership: Demonstrates leadership by developing a collective District vision; shapes school culture and climate; provides purpose and direction for individuals and groups. The survey questions cover 1) Vision, Mission and Strategic Plan; and 2) Data-Driven Planning and Decision-Making.  Dimension 2: Instructional Leadership: Exhibits knowledge of instructional management by implementing a system that includes research findings on learning and instructional strategies, instructional time, advanced electronic technologies, and resources to maximize student outcomes. The survey questions cover 1) Student Achievement Results and 2) Highly Effective Personnel.  Dimension 3: Systemic Leadership: Exhibits an understanding of the School District as a system by defining processes for gathering, analyzing, and using data for decision-making; manages the data flow; frames and solves problems; and frames, develops priorities, and formulates solutions. The survey questions cover 1) Systems for Managing Change and 2) Fiscal Management  Dimension 4: Collaborative Leadership: Articulates District purpose and priorities to the community and mass media; requests and responds to community feedback; and demonstrates consensus building and conflict mediation. The survey questions cover 1) Parent and Community Outreach and 2) Communications.  Dimension 5: Professional Ethics: Understands and models appropriate value systems, ethics, and moral leadership; and develops procedures for working with the Board that define mutual expectations, working relationships and strategies for formulating District policy for external and internal programs.  Dimension 6: Organizational Leadership: Understands and acts on the important role that organizational culture has in the exemplary performance of all schools and departments. The survey questions cover 1) Distributive Leadership; 2) Acknowledges Failures, Celebrates Accomplishments and Rewards and 3) Efficacy and Empowerment  Dimension 7: Board Communications: Understands and acts on the important role that communication with the governing body has on effective leadership. RESULTS FROM THE BOT EVALUATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT Dimension Trustee Holland Trustee Mayer Trustee Feemster Trustee Frenkel Trustee Raymond Trustee Kelley Trustee Taylor BOT Average Dimension 1: Strategic District Leadership Average 3.2 4.0 4.0 2.8 3.2 3.6 3.6 3.49 Dimension 2: Instructional Leadership Average 3.11 4.0 3.89 2.78 3.22 3.44 3.67 3.44 Dimension 3: Systemic Leadership Average 2.86 4.0 4.0 2.67 2.57 3.43 2.67 3.17 Dimension 4: Collaborative Leadership Average 2.5 4.0 3.5 2.25 2.83 3.17 2.83 3.01 Dimension 5: Professional Ethics Average 2.79 4.0 3.79 2.42 2.79 4.0 3.21 3.29 Dimension 6: Organizational Leadership Average 2.73 4.0 3.85 2.37 3.15 3.58 3.0 3.24 Dimension 7: Board Communications Average* 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.77 *Dimension Average is the arithmetic mean of ALL questions for the Dimension question set.
  31. 31. Submitted on 12/4/2018 31 APPENDIX STATISTICAL DETAIL – EVALUATION MODEL The model is a “cause and effect” model (predictive) where the Dimensions are the drivers (independent variables) of perception of district effectiveness as the outcome (dependent variable). The quantitative analysis is done via an OLS multiple regression process. The first step is utilizing each Dimension’s Overall question as a driver to determine ranking of the Dimensions. The ranking is based upon the Standardized Coefficient output generated by the model. A post-evaluation step would be to conduct a cause and effect analysis within a Dimension to likewise determine which activities/questions are priorities in driving that Overall Dimension. Based upon the initial test of the model, the Organizational Leadership Dimension is statistically the most impactful Dimension followed by Instructional Leadership on District Effectiveness for ALL RESPONDENTS. This was determined from the Standardized Coefficients’ output of the independent variables. (Please see Appendix for detail.) The Strategic District Leadership Dimension did not yield a standardized coefficient that was not statistically significant, which means that results are more random versus deliberate not that this dimension is unimportant.  All standardized coefficients are statistically significant at .05 or better.  Wherever “--“ is listed, the standardized coefficient was not statistically significant, which means that results are more random versus deliberate. The “lower” the significance factor, the less chance of random results and greater chance of deliberately delivered results.  Model fit (Adj. R2 ) describes the statistical explanatory ability of the framework/model. The closer the number is to 1.0 the potentially more complete an explanation of the model is of the relationship. In social science research greater than .500 or .600 is a strong Adj.R2 . Since this project was exploratory, the Adj. R2 results are solid and can improve in subsequent periods. Overall of Dimension (independent variables/ drivers) ALL RESPONDENTS (1,791) DISTRICT LEVEL (160) ONSITE LEVEL (1,631) Result of Delivering on Dimension Priority Priority Priority SECTION 1: STRATEGIC DISTRICT LEADERSHIP: Overall, the Superintendent demonstrates critical strategic leadership by providing direction for all stakeholders. 4 2 4 If I had a friend or relative in the educational profession, I would likely recommend WCSD as an exceptional District that fully meets the educational needs of its students. (Dependent Variable) .116 .278 .098 SECTION 2: INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP: Overall, the Superintendent exhibits comprehensive knowledge of instructional management. 2 -- 2 .132 .125 SECTION 3: SYSTEMIC LEADERSHIP: Overall, the Superintendent exhibits a deep understanding of the School District as a system by defining processes that utilize data for decision-making. 3 1 5 .125 .373 .097 SECTION 4: COLLABORATIVE LEADERSHIP: Overall, the Superintendent has displayed strong collaborative leadership throughout the last year, which has been exhibited in consensus building, articulation of District direction or in responses to community input. 5 -- 3 .099 .112 SECTION 5: PROFESSIONAL ETHICS: Overall, there is no doubt the Superintendent models an uncompromising ethical system with moral leadership. -- 3 -- .256 SECTION 6: ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP: Overall, the Superintendent demonstrates an effective understanding of all people in the District. 1 -- 1 .271 .268 Model fit (Adj. R2) .461 .698 .400
  32. 32. Submitted on 12/4/2018 32 Text Analytics and Natural Language Processing Wherever possible a text analytics process was utilized that employs “natural language processing.” The computer program “reads” the comments in search of common themes and builds a “dictionary” of the respective comments including voice and sentiment. The net result is taking subjective comments and providing a type of objectivity and categorization. For each Overall question, a branching was presented to the respondent. For those that answered in the negative (strongly disagree to neutral), a question was posed to elicit a response based upon the negative perspective. Conversely for those that answered in the affirmative (agree and strongly agree), another type of question was posed to elicit an explanatory comment. Therefore, it is necessary when reviewing the text analysis categorization that the question driving comments is included in the thought process, which provides enhanced context to understand comments.

×