Analysis of alternative evaluation models

Abstract

Based on our review of current evaluation practice, we have identified twelve main models for evaluating superintendent performance. The models may be grouped into three main categories according to how evaluation judgments are made: global judgment, judgment driven by specified criteria, or judgment driven by data. These three main categories of evaluation model are reflected below. This article presents an analysis of the twelve alternative evaluation models. It provides, for each model, a description or characterization of the model and a summary evaluation in relation to the 21 Joint Committee (1988) Personnel Evaluation Standards. The descriptions and evaluations presented here are drawn from an exhaustive indepth analysis of each alternative model published in a separate technical supplement (Candoli, Cullen, & Stufflebeam, 1994). This in-depth analysis of each model includes a description of the approach under a series of headings incorporating the main elements of an evaluation model. These descriptions were drawn from the research literature and the evaluation materials acquired from various states and school districts; as well as the various project participants' combined knowledge of an experiences with superintendent evaluation systems. In addition, the in-depth analysis involved a thorough evaluation of each model using 21 separate checklists, each comprising a series of questions relating to one of the 21 Standards. The information obtained using these checklists was then synthesized to produce, for all twelve models, an extensive list of strengths and weaknesses in relation to each of the 21 Standards. The summary of this work, presented here, is divided into twelve parts, one for each evaluation model. Each part includes first a description or characterization of the model, structured under eight main headings that are defined as follows: