Draft Report of Traci Davis's 2016-2017 Review

2016-17
Superintendent
Evaluation Report
DRAFT
(pending acceptance)

Produced on October 30, 2017 by
OnStrategy & HRC

1
2016-17 Superintendent
Evaluation Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Board of Trustees Summary Evaluation

The Board of Trustees conducted their evaluation via the completion of the Evaluation Rubric on a scale of 1 Developing
to 4 Distinguished and provided evidence to explain the rating. Key themes are highlighted here.
Areas of Excellence Themes:
There was consensus with the Board of Trustees that Superintendent Davis has a laser focus on student
achievement especially with regards to 90 by 20. Some Trustees felt that this emphasis on graduation rates
excluded other important goals for the district.
It was noted many times that Superintendent Davis celebrates successes within the district very well
All Trustees stated that Superintendent Davis is very active and present in the community.
A majority of the Board feels she creates a culture of respect through her integrity, honesty and fairness.
The Board of Trustees feels that Superintendent Davis is doing what she can with regards to recruiting teachers
despite the national teacher shortage.
Areas of Opportunity Themes:
With regards to the strategic plan and district goals, there is a desire to have the focus on it to be more structured,
regular, and inclusive manner (the Board of Trustees noted that this focus has already begun).
Superintendent Davis is less likely communicate about her or the districts failures.
A majority of board feels there is room for improvement in developing Trust with the board, staff and the
community. Examples of this: feeling unease in communicating with her or approaching her, not being valued or
appreciated, and not feeling heard.
The budget process was identified as a major failure due to the fact that it was presented to the board too late and
that they had to approve the budget without being able to take appropriate time to assess it.
Relationship building/team building were identified as items that could help the Board of Trustees connect with
each other and Superintendent Davis.
Evaluation Process Themes:
The Trustees described a range of experiences with Superintendent Davis from negative to positive, which were
reflected in their scores. For example, evidence was cited as positive evidence from one Board member was cited
as negative evidence from another Board member, which displayed a lack of consensus among and between the
Board of Trustees.
The survey results impacted (both positive, and negative) the Board of Trustees evidence and feedback was
mentioned during the course of each interview.

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
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%

Evaluation Report

EVALUATION PROCESS
OVERVIEW

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

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

Evaluation Report

BOARD OF TRUSTEES
EVALUATION
OVERVIEW

Evaluation Report

BOARD OF TRUSTEES EVALUATION RESULTS
Dimension Trustee 1 Trustee 2 Trustee 3 Trustee 4 Trustee 5 Trustee 6 Trustee 7 Average
Dimension 1: Strategic District Leadership

1a: Vision, mission, strategic plan 4 2 3 3 3 4 3
1b: Data-driven planning and decision-
2 2 3 3 2 3 2
making
Dimension Average 3 2 3 3 2.5 3.5 2.5 2.8
Dimension 2: Instructional Leadership
2a: Student achievement results 3 3 3 4 3 3 4
2b: Highly effective personnel 3 2 3 3 3 3 3
Dimension Average 3 2.5 3 3.5 3 3 3.5 3.1
Dimension 3: Systemic Leadership
3a: Systems for managing change 2 2 3 2 3 2 3
3b: Fiscal management 2 1 3 2 2 4 2
Dimension Average 2 1.5 3 2 2.5 3 2.5 2.4
Dimension 4: Collaborative Leadership
4a: Parent & community outreach 3 2 3 3 2 4 3
4b: Communications 3 2 3 3 2 4 3
Dimension Average 3 2 3 3 2 4 3 2.9
Dimension 5: Board Relationships and

Professional Ethics
5a: Professional ethics 2 2 3 4 3 4 4
5b: Board relationships 2 1 4 4 2 3 4
Dimension Average 2 1.5 3.5 4 2.5 3.5 4 3.0
Dimension 6: Organizational Leadership
6a: Distributive leadership 1 1 3 3 2 3 2
6b: Acknowledges failures, celebrates
1 1 3 3 2 3 2
accomplishments
6c: Efficacy and empowerment 4 1 3 2 1 3 2
Dimension Average 2 1 3 2.6 1.6 3 2 2.2
Trustee Overall Average 2.46 1.69 3.07 3.0 2.3 3.3 2.8
Scale Values Overall Range Overall Evaluation
Distinguished
Accomplished
4
3
Composite 3.7+
2.8 to 3.69
Highly Effective
Effective
Emerging
Developing
2
1
score: _____ 1.8 to 2.79
<1.8
Minimally Effective
Ineffective

Evaluation Report

STAFF & COMMUNITY
SURVEY OVERVIEW

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.
How to Interpret the Results

The data are provided in the following manner by stakeholder group 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.
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 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
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
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.

Surveys Completion Statistical

Stakeholder Group* Surveys Sent
Completed Rate Representation
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
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.
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).

Organizational Leadership (1)

Instructional Leadership (2)

Collaborative Leadership (3)
Perception of District
Systemic Leadership (4) Effectiveness

Board Relationships & Prof. Ethics (5)

Strategic District Leadership (N/A)

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
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)
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP: ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP:

Overall, the Superintendent exhibits Overall, the Superintendent
comprehensive knowledge of demonstrates an effective understanding
District Staff instructional management. of all people in the District.
No statistical third priority

(40% agree this is being demonstrated) (38% 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.

Draft as of 10/30/17 13
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).
Average Perception Rating Overall: 5.67 out of 10

District Leadership Site Certified
Educational Community
Leadership Team Leadership Staff
Support (164) (89)
(106) (24) (124) (708)
If I had a friend or relative in the
educational profession, I would likely
recommend WCSD as an exceptional 6.5 7.14 6.73 5.34 5.63 5.96
District that fully meets the
educational needs of its students.
Response scale: Not at all likely (0) to Neutral (5) to Extremely likely (10)
Themes from Open-Ended Comments:

If there was ONE thing the Superintendent could do that would help improve the District, it would be
(63 answered in Top Third. The following are those that provided comments.)
More support for, recruit new, allow for advancement of teachers 16 responses
Improve hiring and retention 13 responses
More interaction/involvement with schools 13 responses
Focusing on the needs of students 13 responses
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
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
Evaluation Report

DIMENSION-BY-
DIMENSION RESULTS

Draft as of 10/30/17 16
Evaluation Report

BOARD OF TRUSTEES RESPONSES

1a: Vision, mission, strategic plan 4 2 3 3 3 4 3

1b: Data-driven planning and decision-
2 2 3 3 2 3 2
making
Dimension Average 3 2 3 3 2.5 3.5 2.5 2.8

Trustee Evidence
1a: Vision, mission, strategic plan
State of Education Address: was effective, gave specifics, factual, students shared their stories, articulated the vision for the district (5)
Clear emphasis on graduation rates and student achievement -- 90% by 2020 (5)
Strategic Plan is available on the WCSD website public has to look at it, need to want to read it, not easy to find (5)
Exclusive emphasis on graduation rates, want to see the same level of passion for all the district goals, not just about graduation rates
(4)
Visible in the community talking about Every Child, By Name and Face, To Graduation (3)
1b: Data-driven planning and decision-making
Need to refocus on how the data relates to and guides the strategic plan (3)
Targets and outcomes for strategic plan are not defined or specific (3)
Data is tied to the end result not individual schools tied to department plans not district targets are defined at school site level and
with area superintendents (3)

Superintendent Evidence
1a: Vision, mission, strategic plan
State of Education Address
Lead Teach Learn meetings with school administrators every other month
Differentiated Learning
Letter and ticket to graduation magnet sent to every student
Freshmen seminar at each high school
Student Voice allows students the opportunity to tell their stories
1b: Data-driven planning and decision-making
MAPS Assessment
KPIs
Department Reports
Decrease in percentage of students requiring remediation courses
Increase in percentage of students participating in college readiness courses
Graduation rates

Draft as of 10/30/17 17
Evaluation Report

STAFF AND COMMUNITY RESPONSES

Demonstrates leadership by developing a collective District vision; shapes school culture and climate; provides purpose and
direction for individuals and groups. Sub-dimensions are:
Vision, Mission and Strategic Plan
Data-Driven Planning and Decision-Making
Average Dimension Rating Overall: 2.63 out of 5.0

% Agree & District Educational Community
Leadership Admins/ Certified
The Superintendent Strongly Leadership* Support Partners
Team (24) Site (124) Staff (708)
Agree (106) Prof (164) (89)
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%

demonstrates critical Agreement 43% 52% 28% 22% 28% 30%
strategic leadership by
providing direction for all
stakeholders. Dont know 5% 0% 2% 9% 18% 12%
* Includes Leadership Team

10% or greater No significant 10% or lower No color = Not
than 2016 change than 2016 comparable

Draft as of 10/30/17 18
Evaluation Report

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
Evaluation Report


2a: Student achievement results 3 3 3 4 3 3 4

2b: Highly effective personnel 3 2 3 3 3 3 3
Dimension Average 3 2.5 3 3.5 3 3 3.5 3.1

Trustee Evidence
2a: Student achievement results
Safe and Healthy School Commission: evident that this is a focus for the district (4)
Adapted and adjusted safety protocols as needed Sparks vs. Hug policies are in place, increased police and implemented one door
entrance (4)
Focus on Acceleration Zone Natchez, Gerlach added to North Star online school (3)
Relationship with kids demonstrates love and passion, relates to kids of all ages, concerned about their overall well-being, mentors
them, has a teacher mentality (3)
2b: Highly effective personnel
District is doing what they can to recruit in a national teacher shortage, district does recruitment trips and conferences, recruit all over
the nation, develop UNR students to be teachers, program at Sparks High School (7)
Evaluation system is in place (5)
Professional Development classes and trainings are available - MyPGS lists all the classes available, information is sent out, has a
department for this, Northern Regional Science helping elementary teachers learn science (5)

2a: Student achievement results
th
12 Grade AP/IB/CTE/Dual Credit Completion
th
12 Grade AP/IB Performance
Implementation of Safe and Healthy School Commission
Closing achievement gaps
2b: Highly effective personnel
Increase in professional learning opportunities offered: 518 courses with 5,070 sections
Increase in professional learning opportunities completed: 29,059
Increase in number of teachers accepted into Teacher Leadership Pool: 136
Completed 6,498 evaluations
8% increase of Highly Effective teachers and administrators
Decrease in first day vacancies
Increased participation in hiring events

Draft as of 10/30/17 20
Evaluation Report


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.
Sub-dimensions are:
Student Achievement Results
Highly Effective Personnel

Agree (106) Prof (164) (89)
Communicates high Agreement 75% 71% 70% 59% 57% 58%

expectations for all students
to achieve academic success. Dont know 2% 0% 18% 3% 6% 8%
Provides targeted support to Agreement 43% 50% 29% 23% 35% 42%
increase and reward student
achievement. Dont know 17% 4% 2% 11% 0% 11%
Leads and supports the

District's efforts to decrease Agreement 64% 67% 46% 32% 44% 48%
and ultimately close the
achievement gap. Dont know 3% 0% 0% 6% 9% 9%
Has been effective in

developing a culture and a Agreement 48% 50% 37% 32% 43% 36%
climate that provides a safe
learning environment for all
students. Dont know 4% 0% 1% 4% 8% 5%

ensuring that the District Agreement 41% 50% 27% 26% 36% 32%
personnel are committed to
a positive school climate. Dont know 4% 0% 0% 6% 7% 13%
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 21
Evaluation Report

Ensures the District is able to
provide professional Agreement 53% 58% 51% 41% 47% 34%
development opportunities
for all personnel. Dont know 3% 0% 0% 4% 7% 21%

exhibits comprehensive Agreement 40% 46% 26% 20% 30% 39%
knowledge of instructional
management. Dont know 11% 4% 2% 10% 14% 12%

What is the primary reason you believe the Superintendent exhibits solid instructional leadership?
Focus on students 36 responses
Work on improving graduation rates 13 responses
Level of communication with internal and external stakeholders 11 responses

Please provide an objective example of how the Superintendent is not exhibiting instructional leadership.
Teachers are frustrated with low recruitment/retention and not speaking with / engaging with them 205
responses
Disconnected from staff and schools 81 responses
Hiring / retaining quality teachers/staff not a priority 67 responses
Absent/chaotic leadership 46 responses
o Lack of instructional decisions 40 responses
o Better quality professional development and training 32 responses
No support / lack of meaningful support 32 responses

Losing highly qualified personnel 24 responses

Draft as of 10/30/17 22
Evaluation Report


3a: Systems for managing change 2 2 3 2 3 2 3

3b: Fiscal management 2 1 3 2 2 4 2
Dimension Average 2 1.5 3 2 2.5 3 2.5 2.4

Trustee Evidence
3a: Systems for managing change
Very knowledgeable about policies and policy governance - knows the laws forward and backwards (5)
Has not managed and allocated resources well: small programs with large staff, programs that need personnel dont have them (4)
3b: Fiscal management
Not enough time was given to the Board to review the budget and make changes: had to approve budget without being able to go in
depth, had to go with finance staff recommendations, had to make teacher cuts, increase class sizes, and could not fill open teacher
positions (5)
Prior warning was not given to the Board about the scale of the budget deficit were led to believe it could be managed (3)

3a: Systems for managing change
Legislature every Tuesday
Participation in State Superintendent work sessions and retreats
Serves on National Governors Board
WCSD chosen to be case study on best practices
3b: Fiscal management
WC1
Conducted Town Hall meetings

Draft as of 10/30/17 23
Evaluation Report


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; frames, develops priorities, and formulates
solutions. Sub-dimensions are:
Systems for Managing Change
Fiscal Management

Agree (106) Prof (164) (89)
When implementing a new

initiative, the Superintendent Agreement 44% 54% 36% 29% 34% 43%
effectively communicates
the need for change. Dont know 5% 0% 0% 6% 14% 13%

sets clear expectations for
staff and students. Dont know 6% 0% 0% 7% 14% 21%

is able to anticipate
obstacles. Dont know 9% 0% 2% 13% 20% 14%
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%

exhibits a deep
understanding of the School Agreement 40% 42% 25% 18% 23% 34%
District as a system by
defining processes that
utilize data for decision- Dont know 5% 8% 2% 11% 19% 10%
making.

Draft as of 10/30/17 24
Evaluation Report

Please explain why you are supportive of the Superintendents ability to utilize data for decision-making. (131 responded
Strongly Agree to Agree to the Overall question. The following are those that provided comments.)
The data / decisions support students best interests 22 responses
Helps the District reach its achievements 17 responses
Gathers the data from and shares it with teachers and staff 15 responses
Gathers data from individual schools for decisions 11 responses
Works within and communicates the budget 10 responses
Please explain ONE gap in the Superintendents understanding of the School District as a system.
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
Evaluation Report


4a: Parent & Community Outreach 3 2 3 3 2 4 3

4b: Communications 3 2 3 3 2 4 3
Dimension Average 3 2 3 3 2 4 3 2.9

Trustee Evidence
4a: Parent & Community Outreach
Goes out in the community and attends events/meetings: serves on Boards, visits schools, attends PTA meetings. Meets with faith-
based groups, tribal groups, Rotary clubs, HOAs, Hidden Valley Country Club, EDAWN, Realtors Association, Spanish Chamber of
Commerce, Black Pastors Association, Council on Family Engagement. Facilitates Town Hall meetings and Conversation Corners (7)
Reaches out to the under-served communities - helped target groups for more parent engagement (3)
4b: Communications
Friday Minutes sent out weekly (4)
Needs a more thought out communication plan: proactive not reactive, needs more consistency, stay ahead of bad news, needs to let
the Board know ahead of time (examples budget deficit, Wildcreek), need to consider the impact on the community (3)
Did a great job with WC1 communications and meetings (3)
Superintendent Highlights are sent weekly (3)
Can be defensive in her communication (3)
People feel fearful (community, teachers/staff, board) they feel they cannot speak up, little room to ask questions, input is not
welcome, not approachable (3)

4a: Parent & Community Outreach
Attended 253 events throughout the school year
Asked to speak at 52 of those events
Serves on the National Parent Teacher Home Visit Project Board
AASA, The School Superintendent Association
Parent University
Deliberate goal has been to engage populations of the community who previously were disengaged
4b: Communications
Superintendents Highlights sent weekly

Draft as of 10/30/17 26
Evaluation Report


Articulates District purpose and priorities to the community and mass media; requests and responds to community
feedback; and demonstrates consensus building and conflict mediation. Sub-dimensions are:
Parent and Community Outreach
Communications

Agree (106) Prof (164) (89)
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%
Has an effective Agreement 41% 42% 32% 22% 27% 38%

communications program
with external stakeholders. Dont know 8% 4% 2% 13% 14% 5%
Has an effective Agreement 42% 46% 22% 25% 27% 28%

communications program
with internal stakeholders. Dont know 1% 4% 1% 5% 8% 19%

has displayed strong
collaborative leadership
throughout the last year Agreement 37% 42% 21% 18% 25% 35%
which might have been
exhibited in consensus
building, articulation of
District direction or in
responses to community Dont know 6% 4% 2% 7% 12% 6%
input.


Draft as of 10/30/17 27
Evaluation Report

Please provide an example of the Superintendents leadership through consensus building, articulation of District
direction or responding to community input.
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.
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
Evaluation Report

Dimension 5: Board Relationships and Professional Ethics

5a: Professional ethics 2 2 3 4 3 4 4

5b: Board relationships 2 1 4 4 2 3 4
Dimension Average 2 1.5 3.5 4 2.5 3.5 4 3.0

Trustee Evidence
5a: Professional ethics
Promotes a culture of respect - acts with integrity, respect, honesty and fairness (5)
Creates a culture of fear intimidating, feeling of being talked at, fear of retribution, threatening, afraid for their jobs, rumors of
retaliation if you dont agree (3)
5b: Board relationships
Responsive to the Board members (4)
Facilitates and has good interaction with Board (3)
Conducts one-on-one meetings with Board (3)

5a: Professional ethics
Community forums
Town Hall meetings
5b: Board relationships
Board workshops
Data Summit
Board briefings
1:1 meetings with Board members on a regular basis

Draft as of 10/30/17 29
Evaluation Report

Dimension 5: Board Relationships and Professional Ethics

Understands and models appropriate value systems, ethics, and moral leadership; develops procedures for working with
the Board that define mutual expectations, working relationships and strategies for formulating district policy for external
and internal program. Sub-dimensions are:
Professional Ethics
Board Relationships

Agree (106) Prof (164) (89)
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%

developing and maintaining Agreement 38% 38% 21% 21% 26% 34%
effective professional
relationships throughout the
District. Dont know 8% 4% 9% 15% 14% 13%
Overall, there is no doubt

the Superintendent models Agreement 39% 33% 21% 21% 25% 41%
an uncompromising ethical
system with moral
Dont know 4% 4% 7% 13% 18% 9%
leadership.


Draft as of 10/30/17 30
Evaluation Report

Please provide ONE example where such leadership was displayed.
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?
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
Evaluation Report


6a: Distributive leadership 1 1 3 3 2 3 2

6b: Acknowledges failures, celebrates
1 1 3 3 2 3 2
accomplishments
6c: Efficacy and empowerment 4 1 3 2 1 3 2
Dimension Average 2 1 3 2.6 1.6 3 2 2.2

Trustee Evidence
6a: Distributive leadership
No consistent themes
6b: Acknowledges failures, celebrates accomplishments
Celebrates and acknowledges accomplishments Spotlight on Success, weekly newsletter and highlights, rally at McQueen for highest
graduation rates, talks about successes at Board meetings (7)
Lack of willingness to acknowledge failures, shortcomings and concerns (4)
Can be defensive in her responses to negative feedback Town Hall meeting on budget (4)
6c: Efficacy and empowerment
Lack of trust needs to work on developing trust with staff, community and Board sense of unease, not feeling valued or appreciated
(4)

6a: Distributive leadership
Professional Development Sessions
Afforded opportunities to all direct reports
Challenged leadership members to join community groups
6b: Acknowledges failures, celebrates accomplishments
Rewards through the Stacie Mathewson Foundation
Friday Minutes sent to all WCSD staff
6c: Efficacy and empowerment
Spotlight on Success
Appreciation lunch for all operations staff

Draft as of 10/30/17 32
Evaluation Report


Understands and acts on the important role that organizational culture has in the exemplary performance of all schools and
departments. Sub-dimensions are:
Distributive Leadership
Acknowledges Failures, Celebrates Accomplishments and Rewards
Efficacy and Empowerment

Agree (106) Prof (164) (89)
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%
Effectively communicates Agreement 41% 42% 30% 27% 33% 47%

shortcomings and successes
of District initiatives. Dont know 7% 4% 2% 8% 14% 3%
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.

demonstrates an effective Agreement 38% 38% 21% 15% 21% 30%
understanding of all people
in the District. Dont know 4% 0% 3% 11% 14% 7%

Draft as of 10/30/17 33
Evaluation Report



Draft as of 10/30/17 34
Evaluation Report

Please provide a significant example of the Superintendents people-leading ability.
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
How could the Superintendents understanding and leadership of people be improved?

Provide recognition of, visit with, solicit feedback from teachers 203 responses
District leadership is top heavy 98 responses
More visits/engagement in all of the schools (not just Title 1) 95 responses
People (getting to know people in the community and schools, listening to their feedback) 67 responses
Focusing on what is best for all students 67 responses
Community (becoming part of, being engaged) 32 responses
Communication (improved, effective, direct) 30 responses
Principals (listen to, allow them to lead their schools) 26 responses

Draft as of 10/30/17 35
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
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

Draft Report of Traci Davis's 2016-2017 Review

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Draft Report of Traci Davis's 2016-2017 Review

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

2016-17

Board of Trustees Summary Evaluation

Dimension 1: Strategic District Leadership

How to Interpret the Results

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

Surveys Completion Statistical

Effectiveness Model Explanation

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP: ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP:

Average Perception Rating Overall: 5.67 out of 10

Themes from Open-Ended Comments:

Dimension 1: Strategic District Leadership

1a: Vision, mission, strategic plan 4 2 3 3 3 4 3

Dimension 1: Strategic District Leadership

Average Dimension Rating Overall: 2.63 out of 5.0

Overall, the Superintendent

* Includes Leadership Team

Dimension 2: Instructional Leadership

2a: Student achievement results 3 3 3 4 3 3 4

Dimension 2: Instructional Leadership

Average Dimension Rating Overall: 2.63 out of 5.0

Communicates high Agreement 75% 71% 70% 59% 57% 58%

Leads and supports the

Has been effective in

Has been effective in

10% or greater No significant 10% or lower No color = Not

Overall, the Superintendent

* Includes Leadership Team

Themes from Open-Ended Comments:

No support / lack of meaningful support 32 responses

Dimension 3: Systemic Leadership

3a: Systems for managing change 2 2 3 2 3 2 3

Dimension 3: Systemic Leadership

Average Dimension Rating Overall: 2.65 out of 5.0

When implementing a new

When implementing a new

When implementing a new

Overall, the Superintendent

Dimension 4: Collaborative Leadership

4a: Parent & Community Outreach 3 2 3 3 2 4 3

Dimension 4: Collaborative Leadership

Average Dimension Rating Overall: 2.50 out of 5.0

Has an effective Agreement 41% 42% 32% 22% 27% 38%

Has an effective Agreement 42% 46% 22% 25% 27% 28%

Overall, the Superintendent

Dimension 5: Board Relationships and Professional Ethics

5a: Professional ethics 2 2 3 4 3 4 4

Dimension 5: Board Relationships and Professional Ethics

Average Dimension Rating Overall: 2.72 out of 5.0

Has been effective in

Overall, there is no doubt

Dimension 6: Organizational Leadership

6a: Distributive leadership 1 1 3 3 2 3 2

Dimension 6: Organizational Leadership

Average Dimension Rating Overall: 2.44 out of 5.0

Effectively communicates Agreement 41% 42% 30% 27% 33% 47%

Overall, the Superintendent

* Includes Leadership Team

10% or greater No significant 10% or lower No color = Not

How could the Superintendents understanding and leadership of people be improved?

Вам также может понравиться