The evaluation of superintendents is one of the most important school board functions as it encapsulates expectations for the superintendent's performance and advancement toward district goals. Current and past literature devote little attention to the processes and outcomes of superintendent evaluations despite an apparent connection between successful superintendent performance and student achievement. This omission prompted the present study of the alignment between expectations and performance standards in superintendent evaluation. The primary purpose of this study was to examine how superintendents are evaluated and assess the process for congruency between role expectations and evaluation standards. The population was a national sample of practicing superintendents. The study utilized survey research methodology and secondary data analysis to investigate superintendent responses regarding reasons for evaluation, frequency of evaluation, methods of evaluation, fairness of evaluation, evaluation ratings, and congruency of expectations and standards. The study's findings generally agreed with the literature. Modest differences occurred as to the exclusion of student achievement as an evaluation standard, confusion about the reason to evaluate the superintendent, and the evaluation method preferred most by school boards. Significant differences were found within the content, processes, and outcomes of superintendent evaluations. Few superintendents were evaluated against student achievement levels. A significant number of superintendents believed the evaluation served to clarify roles or measure performance against prescribed standards. Most superintendents are evaluated annually and the primary method of assessment continues to be a written critique absent of superintendent commentary. This study recommends states embark on three actions to improve superintendent evaluation and its impact on district performance. First, the states should employ a uniform system of objective and quantifiable standards to evaluate superintendents. The structure might include a student achievement measure. Second, states should establish a single method of superintendent evaluation consisting of formative and summative components with results forwarded to the state. This would ensure superintendents are frequently monitored with outcomes reviewed by a neutral third party. Third, states need to examine the relationship between the preparation, licensure, practice, and evaluation of superintendents. These components should be in alignment to afford superintendents and school districts the greatest opportunity for success. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2222/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]