A total of 5,738 surveys were mailed. The overall response rate is 9.5%. The response rate provides a reliability factor for the questions of +/- 4% variation. This means that the responses can be generalized as being representative of all school board and superintendents.

The respondents replied to the 18 specific statements in two ways. First, the respondent was to indicate agreement/disagreement about a statement describing the district. Then, if the statement described the district, the respondents were asked to rate the statement from most effective to least effective. If the statement was not reflective of the district, the respondent was asked to rate the desirability of the statement from most to least. In both cases, the respondents were given a 5-point response scale.

Statement 1: A current performance evaluation policy exists for the superintendent.

The responses to this statement indicate that most districts have a policy for evaluation of the superintendent. A few responses indicate that the policy is lacking in effectiveness. Among those responding that the district does not have an evaluation policy, a majority failed to respond to the desirability of having such a policy.

Statement 2: A current performance evaluation policy exists for administrators.

Responses to this statement indicate a pattern similar to the responses provided for first statement. Based on the responses, a policy for superintendent evaluation appears to indicate that a similar policy exists for administrators. Where the responses indicated no policy existed, the number of responses without a rating was substantially large.

Statement 3: The governance team has special planning sessions, besides regular monthly meetings.

Responses to this statement indicate that for every two districts with special planning sessions there is one district with no planning session. A majority of the respondents indicating a planning session view these sessions as generally effective (rating 3 or higher).

Statement 4: Job descriptions exist for administrators.

Responses to this statement pattern the responses to the first and second statements relating to superintendent and administrator evaluations. The level of consistency occurs in both describing and not describing the district. Such consistency is not unexpected. Evaluations, to function effectively, should be based on duties of the position that are found in the job description. Consistent with the first and second statements, there are a substantial number of responses in the does not describe the district where “no rating” was provided about the desirability of job descriptions.

Statement 5: Governance team members take the time to get to know each other as individuals.

This statement provides an overview of the level of interaction between individuals on the governance team, defined as the nine board members and the superintendent. The response pattern to this question was similar to statement three responses (planning sessions). It would appear that planning sessions afford the opportunity for governance team members to express positions, reasoning and other information that would increase individual member knowledge about other members of the team.

Statement 6: The superintendent supports the governance team concept.

Responses to this statement mirror the responses to statements one, two and four. Most of the responses where the statement was viewed as describing the district indicate a generally high level of effectiveness. Responses where the statement does not describe the district failed to provide a desirability rating.

Statement 7: The governance team regularly establishes goals.

The use of goal setting by the governance team is consistent with the responses to the use of planning sessions (statement three). A significant variance with statement three is that where the statement did not describe the district, the level of desirability was higher than desirability for the use of planning sessions. It could be inferred that use of planning sessions establishes a basis for goal setting.

Statement 8: An atmosphere of trust and understanding exists between the board and the superintendent.

Responses to this statement are similar to the responses about evaluations and job descriptions (statements one, two and four). The level of desirability is substantially larger and the “no rating” is substantially lower where the statement does not describe the district compared with statements one, two and four. Where the statement describes the district, the level of effectiveness is substantially greater for most effective than statements one, two and four.

Statement 9: Other than regular board meetings, most communications between the board and administrators, including individual requests for reports from administrators, flows through the superintendent.

About 90% of the respondents indicated that communications between administrators and the board go through the superintendent. Most of the responses where the statement describes the district were rated as effective (rating of 3 or above). Where the statement does not describe the district, the desirability of such action was about evenly spread across all responses with a slight advantage to highly desirability (rating of 3 or above).

Statement 10: The superintendent provides recommendations for action items for the board's consideration with supporting rationale.

Responses to this statement indicate that the superintendent provides recommendations regarding board action items. Over 90% of the responses to the statement describing the district indicate this is an effective way of doing business (rating of 3 or higher). Where the statement does not describe the district, the desirability ranking was evenly split between most desirable 36.4% (rating of 3 or higher) and least desirable 36.4 (rating of 2 or below).

Statement 11: Policy manuals are current.

Responses to this statement are similar to the responses to statements one and two concerning evaluation policy for superintendent and administrators. Very few respondents indicated that current policy manuals are either least effective or least desirable.

Statement 12: Policy manuals are consistently followed.

Responses indicate that where districts consistently follow policy manuals, the manuals are viewed as most effective (rating of 3 or higher). Where the statement does not describe the district, the level of desirable is high, even with one of every three responses not providing a rating.

Statement 13: Board policy encourages training and development for all members of the governance team.

Responses to this statement indicate that about 70% of districts have a policy that encourages training and development of all members of the governance team. Among the districts where training is encouraged, about 10% of the responses indicated that this is least effective. Among responses that the statement did not describe the district about 16% felt that this was least desirable and about a third of this group did not rate the desirability.

Statement 14: New board members are encouraged to attend new board orientation programs.

Only seven of every 10 responses indicated board policy supported training (Statement 13), nine of every ten responded that new board members are encouraged to attend training, specifically new board orientation programs. Even where the statement does not describe the district, a large proportion of those responding indicated a high desirability for new board orientation.

Statement 15: The board's expectations are clearly communicated to the superintendent.

Responses to this statement are similar to the pattern of responses to statements one and two. Clearly communicated expectations are viewed as most effective (rank of 3 or higher) in 90.9% of the responses where the statement described the district. Where the statement does not describe the district, 55.2% of the responses rated clear communication of expectations as highly desirable.

Statement 16: The superintendent's expectations are clearly communicated to the board.

Respondents indicated that superintendent expectations are clearly communicated at a slightly higher rate than board expectations are communicated (90.9 to 81.9). In both statements, the effectiveness and desirability ratings are very similar.

Statement 17: The board engages in a regular self-evaluation process.

In a response pattern that could be considered contrary to the other responses, only 22.9% of respondents indicated that regular self-evaluation occurs. Where it does occur, 84.9% rated it most effective (ranking of 3 or higher). Where the statement does not describe the district, 36% of the responses provided no rating on desirability rating and 43 % of the responses, where the statement does not describe the district, indicated a ranking of most desirable (ranking of 3 or higher).

Statement 18: My working relationship with the governance team is:

While there were 42 surveys with no response to this question, almost 84% of those responding to this question indicated a good, very good or excellent relationship with the remaining members of the governance team. Only 42 individuals indicated a working relationship of poor or fair.

Statement 19: The governance team follows a code of conduct.

This survey was conducted just shortly after PSBA announced the results of the Effective School Governance initiative covering both standards and code of conduct. At the time of the survey about 64% of the respondents indicated that the district had a code of conduct. The results of this question will be the base line for evaluating the extent to which the Effective School Governance effort can be measured. The results of the responses follows the pattern found in statement three on special planning sessions and statement five taking time to get to know other members of the governance team.

Summary

Statements 1, 2, 4 and 8 produced similar patterns of responses. These four statements addressed policy on superintendent and administrator evaluation, administrator job descriptions, trust and understanding between the board and superintendent.

Statements 3,5 and 7 produced similar response patterns. These statements address special planning sessions, interaction of governance team members, governance team goal setting.

Statements 4, 9 and 10 address: administrator job descriptions, communications with the board and recommendations to the board by the superintendent. These three statements produced similarity in response patterns.

Statements 1, 2, 11 and 12 show consistent response patterns. Topics addressed by these statements include: policy on superintendent and administrator evaluation, policy manuals and following the policy manuals.

Overall the response patterns for each of the statements provided consistency between statements where such consistency would be expected.