Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Superintendent
Evaluation Report
DRAFT
(pending acceptance)
Produced on October 30, 2017 by
OnStrategy & HRC
1
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Overall Average
Dimensions (Scale of 1-4) 2016/2017 2015/2016
Overall Evaluation 3.17
Strategic District Leadership 2.8 3.4
Instructional Leadership 3.1 2.9
Systemic Leadership 2.4 3.2
Collaborative Leadership 2.9 3.4
Board Relationships and Personal and Professional Ethics 3.0 2.9
Organizational Leadership 2.2 3.3
Draft as of 10/30/17 2
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
Staff & Community Summary Feedback
The feedback from the staff statistically represents the perspective of all staff with 95 percent confidence, meaning if
everyone had responded to the survey the data would shift up 5 percent, plus or minus.
The Staff and Community Survey collected feedback from 1,191 respondents, reflecting a 16 percent response rate, up from
154 responses in 2016. Staff and community members responded via an electronic survey whereby the response categories
are on a scale of 1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree. The Overall Perception question is based upon a 0 to 10 scale.
The overall sentiment and the three dimensions that will have the largest impact are below:
Overall Perception: 31 percent would likely recommend WCSD as an exceptional District that fully meets the educational
needs of its students.
This question is used to develop a statistical model, developing a cause/effect relationship between this question
and all others in survey. See the overview section for more detail.
The question is based on Gallup best practices and is set on a ten-point response scale.
Top Priorities: Statistically, three of the following six dimensions will have the biggest positive impact on 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.
COLLABORATIVE LEADERSHIP: Consensus building, articulation of District direction or in responses to community.
Overall Staff Community
Dimensions
(Scale of 1-5 unless noted otherwise) Average % Agree % Agree
% Agree + Strongly Agree % Agree + Strongly Agree
Overall Perception: Advocacy of the District (scale of 1-10) 5.67 31.2% 35.4%
Strategic District Leadership 2.63 25.3% 29.8%
Instructional Leadership 2.63 23.9% 39.0%
Systemic Leadership 2.56 21.7% 34.4%
Collaborative Leadership 2.5 21.1% 35.2%
Board Relationships and Personal and Professional Ethics 2.72 23.3% 41.1%
Organizational Leadership 2.44 18.9% 29.9%
Draft as of 10/30/17 3
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
EVALUATION PROCESS
OVERVIEW
Draft as of 10/30/17 4
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
EVALUATION OVERVIEW
The Washoe County School District Board of Trustees (hereafter referred to as the BOT) is the governing body of the
Washoe County School District (WCSD). As such, the Board serves as the steward and guardian of WCSDs values, vision,
mission, and resources. With clearly defined performance targets in mind, the Board monitors WCSDs educational,
financial, and administrative performance, which includes the performance of the Superintendent, as outlined in
Administrative Regulation 2110.3, Board Policy 9080 and the Superintendents contract.
Evaluation Process
The Board contracted with OnStrategy & The Human Resource Connection (HRC) to help facilitate the evaluation process
as follows in the diagram below. The Evaluation Process began on June 27 and was completed on September 26, 2017.
Staff & Superintendent Board Evaluation Final
Community Self-Evaluation Evaluation Presentation Evaluation
Survey Superintendent Board Member 1:1 Summary Evaluation Board direction & goal
360 degree feedback interview completed & interviews. Rubric Report presented at setting at Board
solicited portfolio provided completion Board Meeting Meeting
Evaluation Framework
The Superintendent Evaluation consists of Six Dimensions (with Performance Indicators). Envision WCSD 2020 forms the
primary focus of the evaluation. These have been developed in relation to established District goals or other priorities
established by the BOT for the Superintendent. The evaluation framework was first developed for the 2015-16 Evaluation
and is unchanged for the 2016-17 Evaluation.
Dimension 1 Strategic District Leadership
Dimension 2 Instructional Leadership
Dimension 3 Systemic Leadership
Dimension 4 Collaborative Leadership
Dimension 5 Board Relationships and Personal and Professional Ethics
Dimension 6 Organizational Leadership
Draft as of 10/30/17 5
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
Evaluation Components
The Evaluation consists of the following components:
Staff & Community Survey: A stakeholder survey, sent to invitees identified by the Office of the Chief of Staff,
Communications, Superintendent, and the Board of Trustees, is outlined in more detail in the following section. The
survey asked four types of questions, aligned with the evaluation rubric, but on a different scale. The survey was
anonymous.
o Five Point Likert Scale Questions 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 Superintendents actions and performance.
o Open-ended Questions Participants were invited to provide additional commentary about their
responses, if they wished to do so.
o 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 Six Dimensions (cause)
and the sentiment of the Districts impact (effect).
o Stakeholder Category Participants were asked to self-identify their stakeholder group, as well as
their frequency of contact with the Superintendent.
Superintendent Portfolio: A portfolio of artifacts with over 3,000 pages of documentation of the work of the
Superintendent was collected, compiled and tabulated by Vangie Russell, with support from the Superintendents
Leadership Team.
Trustee Evaluation: Individual interviews with each Board of Trustee member to provide both positive and
constructive feedback, and an evaluation rating, for each sub-dimension of previously agreed upon evaluation
rubric. The possible evaluation ratings for each sub-dimension are:
o Developing 1 point
o Emerging 2 points
o Accomplished 3 points
o Distinguished 4 points
Draft as of 10/30/17 6
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
EVALUATION
OVERVIEW
Draft as of 10/30/17 7
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
BOARD OF TRUSTEES EVALUATION RESULTS
Dimension Trustee 1 Trustee 2 Trustee 3 Trustee 4 Trustee 5 Trustee 6 Trustee 7 Average
Draft as of 10/30/17 8
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
STAFF & COMMUNITY
SURVEY OVERVIEW
Draft as of 10/30/17 9
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
SURVEY DISTRIBUTION
The 2016-2017 Superintendent Evaluation Survey was distributed to all WCSD staff, all individuals in the Community
Engagement Database as provided by the Office of Community and Community Engagement, Council on Family
Engagement, Equity & Diversity Task Force, GTAP, Parent Leaders by School, and Student Advisory Boards. The distribution
list was approved by the Board of Trustees on June 27. Data collection transpired from August 2 through August 13, 2017.
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.
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 dont 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 2015-2016 Evaluation:
o No Color: Not comparable. Several questions could not be compared as they are new this year.
Additionally, the Leadership Team and Educational Support Professional segments were not reported
separately in the analysis last year in which case there was no comparison available.
Draft as of 10/30/17 10
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
Response Rates & Statistical Representation
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 6%, 15% or 35%, etc.) represent the whole of the
population? In each of the stakeholder groups listed below (except the Community), the answer is affirmative. The
representativeness of the sample size is at the 95% confidence level, which means that, for example, among the Leadership
Team, an individual can be 95% confident within a 6.8% confidence interval that a reported score represents the whole
population. In other words, if the reported score is 3.8, then the true score would be between 3.5 to 4.1.
District Leadership:
Leadership Team 29 24 83% +/-6.8%
Administrators / Non-School Site 41
234 35% +/-7.0%
Pro-Tech Administrators 41
Site Leadership:
Admins / Site 184 124 67% +/-4.0%
Certified Staff:
Certified Staff - Teacher 612
4,000 15% +/-2.9%
Certified Staff - Non-Teacher 96
Educational Support Professionals:
Educational Support Professionals 2,700 164 6% +/-5.9%
Community Partners, Parents, Students:
Community Partner Organization 183 36 20% --
Community Leaders 11
111 19 17% --
Parent 140 29 21% --
Students 23 5 22% --
Total 7,604 1,191 16%
*Survey takers were free to select the stakeholder group that they felt best described their role.
Response rate comparison to 2015-2016 report: per last years report, the survey was sent to invitees identified by the
Office of the Chief of Staff, Communications, Superintendent, and the Board of Trustees. A total of 659 invitations were
sent to eight different segments versus 7,604. Contrast to the current year is that survey invitations were sent to all WCSD
personnel, not selected personnel. The Community Survey invitees were similar this year as individuals that potentially had
input for the evaluation process were included.
Draft as of 10/30/17 11
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
Effectiveness Model: Linking the Evaluation to District Effectiveness & 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 Six
Dimensions, it also prioritizes those dimensions based on strength of the relationship.
Statistical Background
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 Dimensions 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.
Draft as of 10/30/17 12
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
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.
Priority #1 Priority #2 Priority #3
(Most Impact) (Second Most Impact) (Third Most Impact)
COLLABORATIVE LEADERSHIP:
ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP: INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP: Overall, the Superintendent has
Overall, the Superintendent Overall, the Superintendent exhibits displayed strong collaborative leadership
All demonstrates an effective understanding comprehensive knowledge of throughout the last year, which has been
Respondents of all people in the District. instructional management. exhibited in consensus building,
articulation of District direction or in
(20% agree this is being demonstrated) (25% agree this is being demonstrated) responses to community.
(22% agree this is being demonstrated)
COLLABORATIVE LEADERSHIP:
Overall, the Superintendent has SYSTEMIC LEADERSHIP:
ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP:
displayed strong collaborative leadership Overall, the Superintendent exhibits a
Overall, the Superintendent
throughout the last year, which has been deep understanding of the School District
demonstrates an effective understanding
Site Staff of all people in the District.
exhibited in consensus building, as a system by defining a process that
articulation of District direction or in utilizes data for decision-making.
responses to community.
(17% agree this is being demonstrated)
(20% agree this is being demonstrated)
(20% agree this is being demonstrated)
Draft as of 10/30/17 13
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
Overall Perception: Effectiveness of the District
Providing a summary or overall perception question is a survey best-practice because it allows respondents the opportunity
to provide their sentiment about the survey topic overall. For purposes of this evaluation, the summary perception
question is based on the idea that all of the Evaluation Dimensions result in an exceptional District, one that you would
recommend to a friend or relative. Stated as follows:
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.
This question and response scale are based upon best practices and help to elicit a respondents 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 5 and 7);
Critics are the low respondents and could work to undermine the situation (Bottom Third, scores between 0 and 4).
If there was ONE thing the Superintendent could do that would help improve the District, it would be...
(180 answered in Middle Third. The following are those that provided comments.)
Support, listen to, engage with teachers 67 responses
Unity/cohesion throughout the District 38 responses
More interaction/involvement with schools 33 responses
Increased student engagement/interaction 21 responses
Community engagement and interaction 19 responses
Improve budget/funding (fair resource distribution, less loss of teachers, smaller class sizes) 19 responses
Draft as of 10/30/17 14
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
If there was ONE thing the Superintendent could do that would help improve the District, it would be
(610 answered Bottom Third. The following are those that provided comments.)
Support, listen to, engage with teachers 197 responses
More focus on student success, not just graduation rates 120 responses
Schools (have support, fair/adequate resources) 105 responses
Improve District morale / public perception 91 responses
Better budget planning and communication of shortfalls in advance 87 responses
Supporting teaching staff 65 responses
Hire effective teachers / increase teacher salaries 32 responses
Draft as of 10/30/17 15
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
DIMENSION-BY-
DIMENSION RESULTS
Draft as of 10/30/17 16
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
BOARD OF TRUSTEES RESPONSES
Draft as of 10/30/17 17
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
STAFF AND COMMUNITY RESPONSES
Has clearly and broadly Agreement 59% 71% 49% 41% 42% 52%
articulated the Districts
strategic plan. Dont know 2% 0% 11% 6% 10% 8%
Bases actions, including new Agreement 52% 51% 39% 30% 35% 45%
and current initiatives, on the
Districts strategic plan.
Dont know 4% 4% 2% 12% 14% 14%
Ensures all stakeholders have Agreement 50% 67% 47% 28% 35% 38%
access to needed data.
Dont know 9% 0% 4% 12% 17% 12%
Communicates the progress Agreement 52% 50% 41% 34% 37% 47%
of initiatives using data.
Dont know 4% 0% 2% 9% 13% 7%
Draft as of 10/30/17 18
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
Themes from Open-Ended Comments:
Please provide ONE example of strategic leadership that provided direction for stakeholders.
(195 responded Strongly Agree to Agree to the Overall question. The following are those that provided comments.)
Graduation rate initiative/goals (90 by 20) 33 responses
Holding and attending community meetings / town halls 27 responses
Regular communication with internal and external stakeholders 13 responses
Regular email (internal) 10 responses
What strategic leadership is not provided?
(445 responded Strongly Disagree to Neutral to the Overall question. The following are those that provided comments.)
Teachers/Staff perceived they did not have support, had no communication with or did not provide their input on
strategic initiatives/goals 115 responses
Leadership (negative, not a strategic leader) 91 responses
Communication (negative) 84 responses
o Better, more effective, less reactionary 55 responses
o Lack of clear/concise messaging/information 30 responses
Strategy (lack of communication, disconnect from goals/actions) 77 responses
Budget (deficit, crisis, increasing class size, cutting teaching staff, lack of trimming to administrator pay or benefits)
52 responses
Academics - Goals/steps to support students (achievement and graduation) 49 responses
Lack of clear vision 41 responses
Draft as of 10/30/17 19
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
BOARD OF TRUSTEES RESPONSES
Draft as of 10/30/17 20
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
STAFF AND COMMUNITY RESPONSES
Provides targeted support to Agreement 43% 50% 29% 23% 35% 42%
increase and reward student
achievement. Dont know 17% 4% 2% 11% 0% 11%
Ensures the District is able to Agreement 31% 46% 18% 16% 25% 26%
recruit highly effective
personnel. Dont know 7% 4% 4% 8% 12% 15%
Ensures the District is able to Agreement 29% 33% 15% 12% 24% 26%
retain highly effective
personnel. Dont know 7% 4% 3% 6% 8% 12%
Draft as of 10/30/17 22
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
BOARD OF TRUSTEES RESPONSES
Draft as of 10/30/17 23
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
STAFF AND COMMUNITY RESPONSES
Is transparent about the Agreement 40% 46% 24% 19% 24% 40%
distribution of resources.
Dont know 5% 0% 2% 8% 15% 6%
Ensures adequate
distribution of resources to Agreement 30% 38% 18% 15% 25% 31%
improve student
achievement results. Dont know 10% 4% 2% 8% 12% 12%
Please explain ONE gap in the Superintendents understanding of the School District as a system.
(508 responded Strongly Disagree to Neutral to the Overall question. The following are those that provided comments.)
Teachers/Staff are frustrated with low recruitment/retaining 161 responses
Schools (not provided equal resources, not supported for initiatives) 120 responses
Students (treated as numbers test scores and graduation rates) 102 responses
Budget (deficit, crisis, increasing class size, cutting teaching staff, lack of trimming to administrator pay or benefits)
71 responses
Initiatives (overwhelming to teachers staff, achieve little/nothing) 47 responses
Resources (limited, not evenly distributed among schools/grades) 46 responses
Does not know the District, students, or community 34 responses
Communication (lack of, ineffective) 34 responses
Draft as of 10/30/17 25
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
BOARD OF TRUSTEES RESPONSES
Draft as of 10/30/17 26
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
STAFF AND COMMUNITY RESPONSES
Engages family and Agreement 53% 50% 53% 39% 45% 46%
community members to
communicate District plans. Dont know 9% 13% 3% 11% 8% 5%
Has support from the Agreement 43% 50% 23% 20% 29% 34%
community for District
initiatives and goals. Dont know 7% 8% 3% 10% 14% 5%
Draft as of 10/30/17 27
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
Themes from Open-Ended Comments:
Please provide an example of the Superintendents leadership through consensus building, articulation of District
direction or responding to community input.
(124 responded Strongly Agree to Agree to the Overall question. The following are those that provided comments.)
Holding community meetings/forums 42 responses
Communication with teachers/staff (emails, meetings) 29 responses
Updates on District direction shared 20 responses
Communication through emails, town hall meetings, and community forums 20 responses
Attending/participating in meetings (staff, town halls, board meetings) 18 responses
Visiting schools 14 responses
Please explain where a gap might exist in the Superintendents collaborative leadership.
(531 responded Strongly Disagree to Neutral to the Overall question. The following are those that provided comments.)
Teachers/Staff are not included in providing input plus information not shared with 161 responses
Communication (little, ineffective, not direct) 84 responses
Lack of visibility/involvement in the schools 75 responses
Does not listen to/involve other leaders in decision-making 64 responses
Budget (how she handled deficit/budget crisis) 45 responses
Parents (lack of communication and asking for input) 43 responses
Does not include feedback from teachers/staff/parents in decision-making 32 responses
Meetings (does not attend or at times that others cannot attend) 28 response
Draft as of 10/30/17 28
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
BOARD OF TRUSTEES RESPONSES
Draft as of 10/30/17 29
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
STAFF AND COMMUNITY RESPONSES
Models professionalism and Agreement 43% 42% 26% 30% 39% 44%
acts in an ethical manner in
all situations. Dont know 4% 0% 7% 10% 9% 8%
Fosters a culture of respect Agreement 54% 54% 47% 39% 42% 49%
that honors equity and
diversity. Dont know 5% 4% 2% 7% 9% 8%
Draft as of 10/30/17 30
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
Themes from Open-Ended Comments:
Please provide ONE example where such leadership was displayed.
(147 responded Strongly Agree to Agree to the Overall question. The following are those that provided comments.)
Behavior at meetings (open, supportive, professional) 18 responses
Current budget process/crisis (open and honest) 9 responses
Transparency in decisions and actions 9 responses
Why do you believe the Superintendent did not display the appropriate professionalism?
(462 responded Strongly Disagree to Neutral to the Overall question. The following are those that provided comments.)
Does not support, stand up for or greet at meetings teachers/staff 117 responses
Does not put the District and its needs first (top priority) 63 responses
Creating negative culture (fear of retribution, lack of trust, disrespect, bullying by top leadership) 55 responses
Budget crisis (tone of messaging to the public, cutting teachers, increasing class sizes) 53 responses
Visiting schools (more for media, less interaction with teachers/students) 49 responses
Meetings attended (disengaged, leaving early, not dressed professionally) 47 responses
Students (does not make a priority, does not engage with them) 35 responses
Draft as of 10/30/17 31
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
BOARD OF TRUSTEES RESPONSES
Draft as of 10/30/17 32
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
STAFF AND COMMUNITY RESPONSES
Has developed a strong Agreement 48% 54% 36% 20% 25% 42%
leadership team. Dont know 3% 0% 1% 12% 18% 11%
Empowers District leaders to Agreement 48% 58% 42% 24% 31% 37%
effectively improve student
learning. Dont know 9% 4% 2% 12% 14% 16%
Acknowledges the
contributions of others in Agreement 53% 54% 46% 33% 33% 46%
pursuit of District strategic
Dont know 6% 4% 2% 12% 15% 8%
goals.
Creates conditions that
motivate and empower Agreement 46% 50% 27% 20% 21% 30%
others in the District to take
ownership of the District's
Dont know 7% 4% 1% 13% 17% 20%
strategic goals.
Creates conditions that
motivate and empower Agreement 34% 33% 22% 17% 20% 35%
others in the community to
take ownership of the
Dont know 15% 13% 8% 17% 19% 13%
District's strategic goals.
Draft as of 10/30/17 33
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
Draft as of 10/30/17 34
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
Themes from Open-Ended Comments:
Please provide a significant example of the Superintendents people-leading ability.
(101 responded Strongly Agree to Agree to the Overall question. The following are those that provided comments.)
Speaking with teachers about their achievements 15 responses
Increase in community involvement and engagement 14 responses
Sharing of District initiative/goal achievements through internal /external communication 14 responses
Building and challenging members of her Leadership Team 11 responses
Regular school visits 11 responses
Focused on student achievement and success 10 responses
Draft as of 10/30/17 35
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
APPENDIX
STATISTICAL DETAIL EVALUATION MODEL
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.
2
Model fit (Adj. R ) 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
2 2
than .500 or .600 is a strong Adj.R . Since this project was exploratory, the Adj. R results are solid and can improve in
subsequent periods.
ALL DISTRICT ONSITE
Result of
Overall of Dimension (independent variables/ RESPONDENTS LEVEL LEVEL
Delivering on
drivers) (1191) (106) (966)
Dimension
Priority* Priority Priority
SECTION 1: STRATEGIC DISTRICT LEADERSHIP: Overall,
the Superintendent demonstrates critical strategic -- -- --
leadership by providing direction for all stakeholders
SECTION 2: INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP: Overall, the
2 1 4
Superintendent exhibits comprehensive knowledge of
instructional management. .166 .499 .122
SECTION 3: SYSTEMIC LEADERSHIP: Overall, the If I had a friend or
Superintendent exhibits a deep understanding of the 4 3 relative in the
School District as a system by defining processes that -- educational
utilize data for decision-making. .108 .124 profession, I
SECTION 4: COLLABORATIVE LEADERSHIP: Overall, the would likely
recommend
Superintendent has displayed strong collaborative 3 2
WCSD as an
leadership throughout the last year, which has been --
exhibited in consensus building, articulation of District exceptional
direction or in responses to community. .129 .144 District that fully
meets the
SECTION 5: BOARD RELATIONSHIPS AND
5 educational
PROFESSIONAL ETHICS: Overall, there is no doubt the
Superintendent models an uncompromising ethical -- -- needs of its
students.
system with moral leadership. .085
(Dependent
SECTION 6: ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP: Overall, Variable )
the Superintendent demonstrates an effective
1 2 1
understanding of all people in the District. .166 .267 .210
2
Model fit (Adj. R ) .309 .477 .284
Draft as of 10/30/17 36
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report
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.
Draft as of 10/30/17 37