Skip to main content
Horizon School Division
Creating a better world, one student at a time.
AP 470 - SLT Role Expectations Evaluations

The Senior Leadership Team (SLT) shall be comprised of:

The Director of Education, Deputy Director of Education, Superintendent of Human Resource Services, Superintendent of Operational Services/COO, Superintendent of Finance Services/CFO, Superintendent of Student Services and Superintendent of Learning Services.

All SLT members must have a current role description that provides clear direction and is aligned with the role of the Director of Education. These role descriptions are contained as Administrative Procedures. Each SLT member shall receive an annual written evaluation based on evidence that the assigned role has been carried out in an exemplary fashion. The rationale for providing SLT members with clear expectations and annual evaluations is as follows.

The Board has mandated in Policy 2 that the Board shall evaluate the Director of Education annually “in regard to the Director’s job description and additional Board direction (e.g. holding the Director accountable for results identified in the strategic plan)”. Policy 11 delegates authority to the Director and also provides that the Director may “sub-delegate authority and responsibility as required”. The role of the Director is detailed in Policy 12 and the evaluation process to be followed by the Board is contained in the Appendix to Policy 12. As noted in Policy 12 the Director is the CEO of the Division in accordance with Section 108 of the Education Act 1995. As CEO, the Director is the only staff member who reports directly to the Board and who is evaluated by the Board, yet the Director is held accountable by the Board for the work of all subordinates in addition to the work completed personally. Therefore, the Director must delegate with clarity and maintain an evaluation process which ensures delegated work is completed to the standard set for the Director by the Board.

Delegation with accountability is powerful. Delegation without accountability is abdication. The two most significant accountability mechanisms developed by the Board are the Director evaluation process in Policy 12, (Appendices’) and the requirement for accountability reporting as detailed in Policy 2 Appendix, (The Annual Board Work Plan). Role descriptions and evaluation processes aligned with the Director’s role must provide clear expectations for SLT members and hold them accountable for areas of assigned responsibility which have been sub-delegated to them.

Policy 12 requires that the Director ensure “effective evaluation and supervisory processes are developed and effectively implemented to provide for both growth and accountability”. Further the Board requires in Policy 12 that the Director practice leadership in a manner that is viewed positively and has the support of those with whom he works most directly in carrying out the directives of the Board. The first leadership practice noted is the provision of clear direction. Policy 15 further clarifies that role descriptions are required for all Division Office staff.

In compliance with Board direction as noted above the following evaluation process shall be implemented for all SLT staff.


Features of the Evaluation Model
  1. Provides for both growth and accountability, and the strengthening of the relationship between the Director and senior staff. The written report will affirm specific accomplishments and will identify growth areas. Some growth goals will address areas of weakness while others will identify areas where greater emphasis is required due to changes in the environment.
  2. Recognizes that the Director is the Chief Executive Officer. The Director is held accountable for work performed primarily by other senior administrators, e.g., fiscal management and thus the Director must hold SLT members accountable for delegated responsibilities.
  3. Emphasizes the need for and requires the use of evidence for evaluation purposes. Evaluations are most helpful when the evaluator provides concrete evidence of strengths and/or weaknesses.
  4. Is aligned with and based upon the SLT member's roles and responsibilities.
  5. Is linked to the Division's goals.
  6. Sets out standards of performance. The quality indicators set out initial standards. When growth goals are identified, additional standards will need to be set to provide clarity of expectations and a means of assessing performance.
  7. Is also a performance-based assessment system. Such an evaluation focuses on improvement over time. The second and subsequent evaluations take into consideration the previous evaluation, and an assessment of success in addressing identified growth areas.
  8. Uses multiple data sources.
  9. Ensures feedback is provided at least annually.
Evaluations Process                                                                                                         
  1. It is the responsibility of the SLT member to at least annually provide evidence that role expectations and quality indicators have been met during the evaluation period. An evidence portfolio must be provided to the evaluator(s) at least one week in advance of the scheduled evaluation meeting. The evaluator(s) will review with the SLT member the evidence presented and will determine whether, or to what extent, the quality indicators have been achieved.
  2. The evaluator(s) may provide assessments of evidence gained through direct observations or alternate sources.
  3. Accountability reports prepared during the year shall form part of the evidence considered by the evaluator(s). All accountability reports shall be provided in the prescribed format and in accordance with the required timelines. Any identified deficiencies in accountability reports shall be remediated in a timely manner to the satisfaction of the administrator's supervisor.
  4. An external facilitator may be utilized in the evaluation process.
  5. If the Director is not the immediate supervisor, the Director and immediate supervisor may both be present at the evaluation meeting.
  6. During the evaluation workshop, a written evaluation report will be facilitated which will document:
  • the evaluation process,
  • evaluation context,
  • assessments relative to each of the criteria,
  • an examination of progress made relative to any growth goals or redirections identified in the previous year's evaluation,
  • identification of any growth goals if deemed appropriate, and;
  • a conclusions section followed by appropriate signatures and dates.
        7. A signed copy will be provided to the member being evaluated and a second signed copy will be placed in the personnel file held by the Division.

Evaluation Criteria        
  1. The criteria will be those defined in the administrative procedure plus any growth goals provided in previous written evaluation report(s). Such growth goals may be areas requiring remediation or actions which must be taken to address trends, issues, or external realities such as an increased emphasis on capital construction due to an increased number of approvals.


Reference:       Section 109 Education Act

April 8, 2015

Revised May 3, 2017