Evaluation of School Superintendents

 

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The university of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]  

School superintendents in British Columbia (directors of education or chief superintendents in other jurisdictions) are the chief executive officers employed by boards of education to ensure smooth, efficient, and effective operation of school districts. Evaluating their performance is a challenging task for many school boards. They often lack the basic information needed for such evaluations: data about student performance and the superintendent’s compliance with board policies.  

In jurisdictions like British Columbia, where mandated data collection and reporting exist, the task is somewhat easier. BC’s Framework for Enhancing Student Learning (FESL) requires school boards to report on the intellectual, social, and career development of students. While improvements in data sources are necessary, the framework provides essential data for evaluating superintendent performance. The central evaluative question is whether the school district is making reasonable progress toward the goals established in the FESL framework.  

Superintendents are responsible for both student performance improvement and compliance with board policies. However, the multiplicity of policies many school boards have complicates this task. Effective monitoring of policy compliance requires established evaluation and feedback mechanisms, robust data systems, and clear communication strategies.  

School boards operate with limited resources, making it challenging to track and manage compliance metrics for numerous policies. Miscommunication can lead to discrepancies in policy implementation and monitoring. The principal reason for the numerous policies is often the board’s desire to constrain the superintendent’s actions, which at times can lead to an unmanageable policy framework.  

It is likely obvious that I favor a lean policy framework. Having one is advantageous because it enhances compliance and reduces employee confusion. A lean policy framework makes for a more agile and resilient organization, one that is focused on performance and its priorities.  

Boards should focus on setting clear objectives and performance metrics, involving stakeholders in the evaluation process, and providing professional development based on evaluation outcomes. Regular review and adaptation of policies, leveraging technology and data analytics, and maintaining effective communication can enhance the evaluation process.  

Boards that take their responsibility to evaluate the superintendent seriously should operate with a lean policy framework. Without it, evaluating the superintendent is challenging, leading some boards to either avoid evaluation altogether or use irrelevant and indefensible standards.

Are schools or programs of choice contrary to the spirit of equity and inclusion?

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]  

Over the course of the last 50 years, Canadian public school boards have increasingly offered schools or programs of choice. Yet, over the same period – and especially in the last decade or so - Canadian schools boards have pursued policies of equity and inclusion. The prominence of the two ideas prompts me to wonder, Are schools or programs of choice contrary to the spirit of equity and inclusion?  

The first question that comes to mind is: Do schools or programs of choice cost more than non-selective programs or public schools? If they do, what is the magnitude of the difference between the resources they enjoy and the resources that non-selective programs or schools enjoy? Schools and programs of choice can lead to resource disparities, where the children in these schools or programs have more resources (lower pupil teacher ratios, more field trips, better supplies, etc.) than their counterparts in nonselective programs or schools.  

A second question comes to mind: Is there a risk that some programs or schools of choice are predominantly attended by students from specific racial, socioeconomic, or academic backgrounds? Though it may be unintentional, socioeconomic, academic, or racial segregation seems antithetical to equity and inclusion.  

A related question is: Have programs or schools of choice implemented selective admission processes that in effect exclude students with lower academic performance, disabilities, or behavioral issues? If they have, does this not undermine the principle of inclusive education?  

To ensure that programs and schools of choice align with the spirit of equity and inclusion, policymakers and educators should develop admission policies that prioritize inclusivity, ensuring that students with diverse backgrounds and needs are represented. It takes no small effort to change course when such schools or programs have persisted without regard to inclusivity for a long period of time. Nonetheless, policy makers and educators should regularly assess and address any disparities in enrollment, resources, and outcomes between different student groups.  

The impact of schools of choice on equity and inclusion depends significantly on the specifics of their implementation. With thoughtful design and proactive measures, it may be possible to create a system that enhances educational opportunities for all students while maintaining the principles of equity and inclusion. But doing so requires intentionality and vigilance. 

Things may be worse than we thought

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]  

In our August 28 commentary in the Times Colonist (“Balancing graduation rates and educational quality”) Jerry Mussio and I observed a paradox in British Columbia about student learning outcomes. We said that rising graduation rates are accompanied by declining performance in key areas like reading and mathematics, prompting our concern about the effectiveness of the education system. While Canadian 15-year-olds, including students in British Columbia, generally perform above the PISA average, a closer examination reveals that these averages might obscure more troubling trends. We pointed to the decline in PISA scores in British Columbia before and during the pandemic.  

A colleague who read our article suggested that we read the appendix in Measuring Up: Canadian Results of the OECD PISA 2022 Study. Following our colleague’s advice, we discovered that exclusion rates and potential non-response bias suggest that the overall performance of Canadian students may be worse than we thought.  

Just as British Columbia’s increasing graduation rates are overshadowed by a growing number of students failing to meet international and provincial standards, the PISA data may be presenting an overly optimistic view of student achievement across Canada. The underrepresentation of students with disabilities or limited language proficiency in the PISA assessments could mean that the national averages are artificially inflated, much like how British Columbia’s graduation rates may be masking deeper issues in educational quality.  

If lower-performing students are underrepresented, as appears to be the case, the data might falsely suggest that Canadian students, including those in British Columbia, are performing better than they are. This disconnect between reported outcomes and the underlying realities is evident in British Columbia’s declining PISA scores and the increasing number of students struggling to meet basic literacy and numeracy standards.  

The increasing graduation rates in British Columbia, like the seemingly positive PISA scores for Canada, may be misleading indicators of educational success. The true test of an education system’s effectiveness lies not in its ability to graduate students, but in its capacity to ensure that all students, regardless of background, achieve mastery of essential knowledge and skills. The disconnect between graduation rates and educational quality in British Columbia, and the potential biases in the PISA data, both point to the need for a more nuanced and critical analysis of educational performance and outcomes. Policymakers and educators in British Columbia and across Canada must take these warning signs seriously and take steps to address them. 

Classroom Management: It doesn’t attract much attention until things get out of hand

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]  

Section 43 of the Canadian Criminal Code is often referred to as the "corporal punishment" law. It states that schoolteachers, parents, and persons standing in the place of a parent are justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances. This section has been the subject of considerable debate and legal interpretation, particularly regarding what constitutes "reasonable" force in disciplining children.  

The Canadian Teachers’ Federation is concerned that, if Section 43 of the Canadian Criminal Code is removed without adding new rules to protect teachers, teachers may struggle to maintain safety in schools. CTF argues that teachers sometimes need to physically intervene, such as when breaking up fights or preventing students from harming themselves or others. CTF’s concern is that, without specific protections in the law, these actions might be seen as assault.  

I do not doubt that teachers are struggling with managing the behaviour of students. I cannot find reliable data about changes in student behaviour over time to determine whether managing student behaviour is more challenging today than in the past. What I do know is that the amount of time and attention devoted to classroom management in teacher education programs has diminished over time. This makes me wonder if student behaviour is the source of the problem or whether inadequate preparation makes it difficult for teachers to prevent misbehavior and respond to it.  

Effective classroom management is crucial for teachers because it creates an environment in which they can teach and students can learn. There are many things that teachers must know how to do to create and maintain such an environment.  

Establishing a welcoming and supportive classroom atmosphere is essential for making students feel valued and reducing stress-related misbehavior. This can be achieved by arranging the classroom to promote collaboration, using positive language, and celebrating student achievements. A well-organized and inviting classroom fosters a sense of belonging and encourages students to engage more fully in their learning, thereby minimizing disruptive behaviors.  

Teachers must know how to develop strong, positive relationships with students because trust and respect deters misbehavior. Teachers can accomplish this by showing genuine interest in students' lives, using positive reinforcement, and establishing a rapport through regular, positive interactions. Care and respect help to build connections that encourage students to follow classroom rules and participate actively in their education.  

Teachers must be able to effectively communicate their expectations and provide feedback. Being able to do so is necessary for ensuring clarity about what is expected and maintaining open communication with students and parents. This involves using clear and concise language, providing regular feedback about behavior, and involving parents in behavior management plans when such plans are necessary. Clear communication helps prevent misunderstandings and fosters a collaborative approach to managing student behavior. It also helps to build parental confidence in the teacher.  

Students should have a voice in classroom management. Having a voice increases their acceptance of and reduces resistance to the rules they help to establish. This can be done by involving students in setting class norms, allowing them to suggest improvements to classroom procedures, and listening to their feedback on what works best for them. Students involved in decision-making are more likely to adhere to established guidelines and contribute positively to the classroom environment.  

Classroom rules and expectations must be clear and clearly communicated. This is fundamental to preventing misunderstandings and promoting a respectful learning environment. Rules should be posted visibly in the classroom and reviewed regularly.  

Teachers must also monitor student behaviour proactively. Observing student behavior and intervening early is essential for addressing potential issues before they arise and have a chance to escalate. Teachers should circulate in the classroom, use non-verbal cues, and provide gentle reminders or redirections when the need for them is evident. Proactive monitoring helps maintain a positive classroom environment and prevents minor issues from becoming major disruptions.  

Sanctions must be administered consistently and fairly. Students must understand in advance the consequences for misbehavior and the consequences must be administered fairly. Teachers should follow through with predetermined consequences for rule violations, communicate these consequences clearly, and apply them uniformly. Consistent enforcement of rules helps students understand that expectations are serious and that there are predictable outcomes for their behavior. Teacher unpredictability is unfair, leads to fearfulness on the part of students, rarely engenders compliance, and lowers respect for the teacher.  

Encouraging students to take responsibility for their behavior fosters a sense of ownership and self-discipline. This can be done using strategies like class meetings, self-assessment checklists, and opportunities for students to reflect on their behavior and make amends. Teachers who promote self-management help students develop the skills needed to regulate their own behavior.  

Using restorative practices to address misbehavior helps resolve conflicts and restore positive relationships. Teachers can use restorative circles or conversations where students express their feelings, discuss the impact of their behavior, and agree on steps to repair the harm they have caused. Restorative practices encourage empathy and accountability. They help students learn from their mistakes and rebuild trust within the classroom community.  

It is easy to say that teachers should do all these things. But in the absence of adequate preparation, it is unlikely that teachers will be able to do them. In that case, managing student behaviour, a responsibility that all teachers have, will be difficult, unpredictable, and likely to lead to the kind of misbehavior that will require the kinds of interventions the CTF seeks to address in its advocacy for the retention of Section 43 of the Criminal Code.