(Disclaimer: everything here is my own opinion. I ordinarily shouldn't have to mention this, but there are times where mentioning certain catalysts for thoughts tends to make those catalysts angry and definitely not do things that resemble acts of retaliation against people who aren't me but are related in some way to me. This isn't even about them. But I feel I have to explicitly state that because sometimes the catalysts may not be very good at reading comprehension.)
The local paper recently had an article announcing that a local school superintendent was awarded the highest rating for his performance. I personally wasn't too surprised given that during negotiations over teacher contracts, questions for his opinion on the matter were something to the effect of, "I serve at the will of the board."
But I wouldn't speak ill of the school board. When criticized, things happen that are definitely not retaliation against people who are related to me in their district. And this isn't about the board. It's about the obligations that make boards...or any regulated body...look like they're doing work when really it's a waste of time and opportunity to rubber stamp their own work (or use it as an excuse to get rid of someone that displeases the regulated body in some way).
The news report had said that there were four performance ranks that could be given: distinguished, proficient, needs improvement or unsatisfactory. Having a set of scores aggregated in sets of one to four isn't necessarily bad...even Netflix now has a rating system based on a 1 or 2, which of course eliminates all the nuance of "The movie didn't make me want to throw up, but I definitely wouldn't want to watch it again" and instead reduces the viewing experience to "I LOVED THIS FILM" or "This film is so terrible that it will become a niche cult classic in 10 years when the latest group of self-appointed film buffs rediscovers it and nit picks the flaws into virtues."
What areas were evaluated? "Professionalism, human resource management, district operations and financial management, student growth and achievement, organizational leadership, and communication and community relations."
A key question to ask is, how are these evaluated? These are standards. It's spelled out in school laws established in "1949 Act 14": "...the employment contract for a district superintendent or assistant district superintendent shall include objective performance standards..."
To figure out if this is actually useful or a waste of time when referring to an obligatory standard, you need to ask yourself against what ruler the standards are measured, and ask how the areas being measured are established.
The article said nothing about the scores other than the board members sat down and filled in sheets that were aggregated and found to be wonderful. Some objectives seemed like they'd be easy to measure, such as "student growth and achievement," something that has plenty of semi-effective rules regulating measures of student test results. Other things are blatantly arbitrary. How do you measure professionalism? You get a minus one each time you show up wearing a clown outfit? Or do you get a minus one for not wearing a tie, a minus two for wearing a "fun" tie, and a minus five for dressing as Pennywise?
Not having standards that can be objectively measured is a strong indication that you're dealing with a feel-good waste of time.
What about what or who establishes the items to be measured? This time around the superintendent had to post a list of what was to be measured on the school website. After some digging around, I found the list. Apparently the list is determined by the person being evaluated, then the board okays it (which again is allowed by the school code...it turns out the "standards" for evaluation are "mutually agreed to").
I won't comment on how weird it is that the first half of the letter to the board is a word for word match to another district's older set of "standards" (although it does make me wonder if those items are actually, as it states, "set forth in the Superintendent's Contract are as follows:"...)
Instead I'll point out statements such as, under "School District Operations and Financial Management", that the "Superintendent shall manage effectively, ensuring completion of activities associated with the annual budget, oversee distribution of resources in support of School District priorities, and direct overall operational activities within the School District."
What does that even mean? Manage effectively meaning, this job is completed? And what is the job? Ensuring the completion of activities related to the budget would basically mean you check in on the person or people in charge of actually creating the budget. Oversee resources being allocated to District priorities means what, if not making sure money goes into proper budgets and books go to the right classes? And directing overall operational activities means he's in charge of the district which, oddly enough, is what a superintendent DOES.
This whole paragraph sounds like he's being evaluated on whether he actually does his job. And I also noticed there's no actual gauge by which to measure it. The measure is arbitrary.
There's a section called Organizational Leadership, under which it states, "Superintendent shall work collaboratively with the Board to develop a vision for the School District, display an ability to identify and rectify problems affecting the School District, work collaboratively with School District administration to ensure best practices for instruction, supervision, curriculum development, and management are being utilized, and work to influence the climate and culture of the School District."
What does that mean? The superintendent will work with the board to establish a vision for the district, which under ordinary conditions would make sense, except when he clearly said during contract negotiations that he serves at the will of the board. The translation would therefore imply that either the board is coming up with the vision, or he's going to propose something that the board will vote to pass if they don't want to come up with one.
And "display an ability to identify and rectify problems affecting the School District"? I'd be interested in hearing someone talk about a time when a superintendent talks about the problems of their district. I don't recall hearing something like that from the superintendents of our local districts.
The last part is also vague--influence the climate and culture of the district? I'm not sure there is an objective measure for cultural influence. Most "culture and climate" I've heard regarding the school comes from the community, and much of that is influenced by the public and opinions spread by the school board during contract negotiations...and it's rarely positive. The statement itself doesn't even say he's going to positively or negatively influence the climate and culture. As the "head" of the district serving at the pleasure of the board, he could achieve this objective just by establishing a baseline expectation that when an issue is brought to his attention, the staff knows what they'll expect will probably happen, for better or worse.
And again, this has no objective measure against which to base a standard to score.
That brings me to the next sign you're dealing with a waste of time. The language is flowery, but vague. Stopping to translate paragraphs into actual meaning shows they aren't really meaning much at all once boiled down.
The last part of the letter is supposed to spell out how he is going to meet his objectives. It has items like, "Increase interventions and remediation's (sic) for students who need it most before, during, and after school", and, "Create a long range and comprehensive strategic plan - WILDCAT 2025".
If you thought I'd call this a waste of time, you'd be wrong. The list reads like a checklist, and having a checklist isn't a bad thing. If your goal is to get these things accomplished in the course of the upcoming year, that's great.
If anything were wrong with it, it's that this is a checklist in the context of a subjective set of standards by which to measure the performance of the person in charge of the district. If you judge a sports player and his or her checklist includes an item to improve the distance he or she throws the ball, that's great. But how much? 10% farther? 10 feet farther? Does he or she get points based on how many feet they improve the throw, or the quality of the throw by combining the distance with accuracy?
So why go through the effort of publishing a story about a superintendent being rated insanely great by the board that hired him in the first place and spent the past year "serving at the will of the board?" It's entirely a matter of speculation, and I can't engage in speculation because that could lead to definitely not retaliation. And this evaluation is just one more example of something mandated by the state that probably started with good intentions and mutated into a pathetic waste of time as it bounced around various fingers before becoming part of the law. But it's important to be able to apply critical thinking and differentiate when something reaching the public is worthwhile news and when something is little more than a waste of time.
No comments:
Post a Comment