Should the public have role in Ann Arbor school superintendent's evaluation?
The Ann Arbor Board of Education is talking about possible changes to how it conducts its annual review of the superintendent, including allowing parents and others to weigh in.
The board will evaluate Superintendent Patricia Green for the first time in June, almost a year after she joined the district.
Patricia Green
One of the changes the board is considering is adding a component for public input.
Unlike other districts, Ann Arbor Public Schools
Amy Osinski, the board's assistant, said the board sends out annual evaluation forms to about 70 key community stakeholders, such as leaders of the district’s bargaining units, parent associations, principals and five to seven individuals hand-picked by each school board member.
In the past, the board also has asked the superintendent to provide a few names of people he or she has spoken with and would like to receive feedback from, said President Deb Mexicotte.
“What is the downside of opening up a broad, survey-style evaluation to our parents — all of our parents?” Trustee Simone Lightfoot asked.
Board Secretary Andy Thomas said that surveys of this nature tend to skew negative because those who take the time to fill them out often have an axe to grind.
Stead suggested the board consider some criteria for determining which parents and community members are allowed to take the survey, such as only those who have met the superintendent.
“I would rather us look at ways to address dealing with that skewed view than not allowing them to provide input,” Lightfoot said.
Baskett agreed, adding one complaint of Green, whether real or perceived, has been that she is not accessible to the community.
Asking the entire district to participate in a favorability rating of the superintendent, similar to how politicians are given a nationwide approval rating, is different than asking them to partake in a performance review of an employee, Stead said. She said personnel matters are always handled confidentially within the district.
“We could probably spend a lot of money hiring somebody to do that for us, but an evaluation is specifically evaluating how she carries out her roles and responsibilities in the district and should be based on a broad spectrum of people’s experience with her,” Stead said. “Is is not necessarily ethical to have a polling or favorability rater drive our superintendent’s evaluation.”
Stead said her experience as a consultant in the private sector, and seeing how schools are being asked to more frequently conduct their business like private sector businesses, suggest that people who had not worked with an individual would not be asked to provide feedback on his or her review.
But Lightfoot said she thinks the board is “adult enough” and “intelligent enough” to wade through the negative responses. She said perception is important and if the public’s perception of the superintendent is positive or negative, that should be known to the board.
“We as a district get accused of controlling information quite a lot and I think (not offering the chance to provide feedback) to all would fall into that category yet again,” Lightfoot said. “We asked all citizens to weigh in and give us $45 million (in the recent election over a technology bond) but yet we only want people who have met the superintendent to fill out an evaluation.”
Board members have said they will continue this conversation during the summer months to decide whether they would like to change their process for evaluating the superintendent in the future.
Thomas said the board should remember that hiring, directing and reviewing the superintendent is one of the primary responsibilities of a school board in Michigan, per state law.
“This (evaluation) is based on how well the superintendent fulfills the goals and missions that we have set forth … so we can certainly solicit public comments, but this is ultimately our evaluation,” he said.
Staff reporter Danielle Arndt covers K-12 education for AnnArbor.com. Follow her on Twitter @DanielleArndt or email her at daniellearndt@annarbor.com.
Comments
Peter Konigsberg
Tue, May 22, 2012 : 11:09 a.m.
It appears that many think that after an election we should not be able to voice any opinion. Is this the same group that would wait until they can appoint an Emergency Manager from the state to control a save able school system? How Democratic of you.
cette
Tue, May 22, 2012 : 11:21 a.m.
Write the Board, let 'em hear what you have to say. They get elected, they are beholden to their constituents. But it's not for us to do their jobs for them.
cette
Tue, May 22, 2012 : 11:09 a.m.
Simone Lightfoote and Sue Baskett want public input to evaluate the principal. I find that odd, and perhaps what they really want is cover for voting against her, because she's seems administrator. Those two complain about her every chance they get, they criticize the way she talks, and undermine her constantly. In some ways, they view themselves as the true representatives of those in the achievement gap, and yet, those two don't know how to work to get something done. Those two just lob grenades in public, instead of supporting an overarching worthy goal. It's a shame.
cette
Tue, May 22, 2012 : 11:10 a.m.
and I meant to say Dr. Green seems like a fine administrator who works well behind the scenes.
Flea
Tue, May 22, 2012 : 2:57 a.m.
There's a story in this story. Our ace reporter provides the facts and leaves it to us to connect the dots. It's not paint by numbers: it's real life. Democracy doesn't come with a manual. Here's the story I see: Ms. Lightfoot and Ms. Baskett don't feel that other Board members accord them enough deference in areas they view as falling within their expertise. The frustration is boiling over. This is an obvious gambit to leverage public sentiment to advance their agenda by bringing political pressure to bear. If you can't persuade a majority of your fellow board members on the merits, there are other ways to persuade. The Superintendent's evaluation is a core mission of the Board and one of the most important functions we elect Board members to accomplish. In a perfect world, the members of the Board work with the Superintendent collaboratively to form goals for the upcoming year. Unless the Superintendent asked for it, this approach does not appear collaborative. This is just one dot-connector's opinion, but if a member is so unsure of his or her ability to evaluate the Superintendent's performance under the current evaluation model that s/he feels s/he needs the crutch of public opinion, then either 1) the model is broken, 2) the member is not qualified to serve, 3) the member needs to modify his or her attitude toward Board govenance, or 4) some combination or permutation of the above.
cette
Tue, May 22, 2012 : 11:17 a.m.
I don't think that Ms. Lightfoot and Ms. Basket feel like they get enough deference just on their areas of expertise, I think they often feel that way generally. But I agree, this is a gambit to give themselves cover to vote against Pat Green.
A2James
Tue, May 22, 2012 : 1:30 a.m.
When Patricia Green first arrived in A2, she said that "I just want to be a part of the community...I just want to be seen. I want to be approached by people and I don't want people to think I'm a title instead of a person". So why does she allegedly insulate herself from other teachers, with glass walls outside of her office, and being evasive to the public? This interview from her (back when she first got hired in) below is interesting to read: http://www.zimbio.com/Mayor+John+Hieftje/articles/M6hR-mGMRtz/Q+Patricia+Green+Ann+Arbor+Public+Schools
DonBee
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 9:24 p.m.
I know I don't know how to evaluate Dr. Green. She does not have the community profile that the last 3 superintendents had. She is quiet most of the time during board meetings and seldom reacts to comments in a visible fashion. I could not write a fair review. How much internal policy and procudure work is she doing? How much of the budget changes is she responsible for? Few if any really know. If asked I would decline to review her. I do wish she would be more visible to the district and provide a more vocal set of positions on where the district is going.
ligrasp
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 8:22 p.m.
Why bother to elect a school board if we don't let them represent us? If we are parents, then we need to be making our voices heard throughout the year, either by phone or by letter. Does the board actually attempt to supervise any of the superintendent's decisions? Running surveys is very chancy: how questions are worded can lead to ambiguous/wrong judgments and/or improperly drawn conclusions about the results to say nothing about the expense and time taken to produce and analyze a "survey."
julieswhimsies
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 7:41 p.m.
Oh.my.God. Have the public take part in the evaluation of the Superintendent. Better to have a committee composed of a school board member, a few citizens, teachers and students. EVERYONE having a part. That may take til the end of the planet as we know it.
Ryan Schlehuber
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 7:02 p.m.
If they can come up with a cost-effect and non-time-consuming process then sure, fine, but I think a simple public survey on evaluation of the superintendent's performance would be as far as I would go. More onus and/or trust should placed on and in to the voted members of the board. I like the idea of sending evaluation forms to selected stakeholders of the community, too, as long as it's always a blended variety.
mtlaurel
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 4:58 p.m.
Kids are told to do their homework,enlist their parents help, expect less from schools,get used to larger class sizes-hey fewer school buses as well. So why, when budget issues were full well known about, didn't some grilling take place when the candidates were being reviewed. The time to set expectations and make clear what her role would be is when you are looking her over. Could have done a teleconference with people from her last district....NOW..you have given a huge pay raise and the grumbling is beginning. Get over the glossy cover letters and feel good statements during interviews that are slick and one dimensional.Too bad, she may be a poor fit, it remains to be seen. Public input now?? for what use??
Will Warner
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 4:17 p.m.
"Should the public have role in Ann Arbor school superintendent's evaluation?" God, no. When the "input" seems not to have been heeded, people will resent it more than not having been invited in the first place. The public's input is in the selection of board members.
a2schoolparent
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 3:04 p.m.
I'm not sure whether the rationale works that people who take time to respond to surveys often have an ax to grind. I thought we vote in this country, no? So do those who actually go to the polling stations often have an ax to grind? I would love to see a survey that asks parents what they really think about Ann Arbor schools. What are the schools doing right? What should they improve? I've seen very specific surveys in the past but never anything that allows parents to tell the district how they view AA schools. As far as I know, not all parents think AA schools are so great. Don't people want to know why?
J. A. Pieper
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 10:47 p.m.
a2schoolparent I would love to share my opinions about AAPS as a parent, but I doubt they really want to hear what the community honestly thinks. All surveys are set up to get the answers they want, not to true information.
Commoncents
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 4:47 p.m.
mixmaster: I LOVE THIS COMMENT!!
mixmaster
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 3:15 p.m.
What about property tax payers who are not parents and have never had children in the local schools? Am I any less a stakeholder than someone with kids in the system? I think not.
Steve Norton, MIPFS
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 3:15 p.m.
That may be true, and it makes sense to take the temperature of the community about the performance of their public schools. But that's mostly separate from the question of how the superintendent is performing according to the criteria of her immediate supervisors, the board of education.
Floyd
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 2:48 p.m.
The notion of limiting input to just the people this superintendent has worked with is foolish, given that she is the kind of leader who deliberately limits the number of people she interacts with. The criticism coming from multiple corners - parents, teachers, building administrators, union leadership - is that she does not collaborate, consult, discuss, or interact with the stakeholders in Ann Arbor schools. To limit "outside input" only to the lucky chosen few would only increase this winnowing process and justify Green's myopia. The best leaders in any organization listen to folks who think differently than they do. Diversity of opinion has a way of highlighting the complexities of a situation. This superintendent, however, does not leave the "safety" of her cabinet, the people to whom she recently gave handsome raises. Why should they feel encouraged to inform the Empress that she is naked?
J. A. Pieper
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 10:43 p.m.
Floyd, very well stated. I have yet to hear of much that is positive about her, and I work in the district!
cette
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 5:57 p.m.
She listens just fine. When was the last time you spoke to her about an issue directly? It's unlikely you have at all/ Just mouthing off to mouth off is unhelpful
Steve Norton, MIPFS
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 3:11 p.m.
That's a bit much, don't you think? Dr. Green was out stumping for the Tech Bond as much as anyone else, and I understand she had some very forthright conversations at some of the schools she visited - and people came away feeling better about their issues. While there may be criticism, and I'm not sure if it is nearly as widespread as you claim, how much of that is simply because she is working to change the system - as she was hired to do? I'm not saying everything is peachy, but just that any effort to turn the ship would frustrate a lot of people. We need to separate that from any legitimate concerns about direction and methods. Moreover, the ongoing budget crisis makes everything that much more volatile.
KeepingItReal
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 2:13 p.m.
"Baskett agreed, adding one complaint of Green, whether real or perceived has been that she is not accessible to the community." Baskett may have added that she is not accessible to a segment of the community that most need her engagement. And to think that one of the factors the board used in hiring her is her track record in diversity.
J. A. Pieper
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 10:41 p.m.
Keeping it real, she actually has refused other segments of the community the opportunity to meet with her also. Some dedicated parents who have spent years volunteering through various school PTO's have been refused a meeting, and told they were "nothing" to her. So, it is not just one segment of the community, and don't forget her "glass partition" to separate herself from her community members. Would love to see a photo of this!
mixmaster
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 1:42 p.m.
Evaluations by the public should be limited to those who actually vote in the school board elections, usually less than 20%.
YpsiLivin
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 8:15 p.m.
mixmaster, My opinion was bought and paid for by the First Amendment, just like yours and everyone else's. Everyone in the area, (including me), has a stake in what happens to the school districts, regardless of what district we live in. Like it or not, our fates are intertwined by both circumstance and design. I have lived in Ann Arbor, paid taxes in Ann Arbor and contributed to the development of Ann Arbor. When Ann Arbor offers a ridiculously high, out-of-market salary to its superintendent, the job of finding a superintendent becomes harder for the surrounding districts, including mine.
mixmaster
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 3:12 p.m.
I don't have kids, pay property taxes and have voted in every election. If people took part in the process it might be better than it is. Stick to Ypsi's problems
YpsiLivin
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 2:30 p.m.
Everyone who pays school taxes has a stake in the performance of a school district. It's about who pays the bill, not who makes the decisions.
Wake Up A2
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 1:33 p.m.
Yes, and then she can FOIA the results........
John Turck III
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 1:32 p.m.
Lightfoot said it best... But Lightfoot said she thinks the board is "adult enough" and "intelligent enough" to wade through the negative responses. She said perception is important and if the public's perception of the superintendent is positive or negative, that should be known to the board. "We as a district get accused of controlling information quite a lot and I think (not offering the chance to provide feedback) to all would fall into that category yet again," Lightfoot said. "We asked all citizens to weigh in and give us $45 million (in the recent election over a technology bond) but yet we only want people who have met the superintendent to fill out an evaluation."
xmo
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 1:16 p.m.
"Lightfoot said she thinks the board is "adult enough" and "intelligent enough" " I guess other people have doubts about our school board also?
ToddAustin
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 1:14 p.m.
Silly me, I thought we had a representative democracy. That's one of the functions of the elected Board, isn't it? If you have praise or a concern, you take it to the Board. If the Board needs to make that process more clear to residents, then that's where the resources need to be invested.
Albert Howard
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 12:51 p.m.
Absolutely. Yes. The public should have a role in Superintendent Patricia Green's evaluation.
Quoniam
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 11:58 a.m.
There should be no such thing as public schools.
Quoniam
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 10:43 p.m.
Hewlett Packard launched a remarkable advertising campaign in the mid-1980s in which a simple statement was made: "Bless the Why-notters". The ad described a workplace majority faction that reflexively acquiesced to the status quo, then went on to celebrate a small but occasionally vocal minority which asked the profoundly simple/simply profound question...."why not?". I'm one of those. You should consider joining us.
YpsiLivin
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 8:31 p.m.
"The point I am making is that human beings have an innate desire to learn..." We offer a free public education now and even when the obstacle of money is removed, a significant number of people don't avail themselves of it. While SOME people may have an innate desire to learn, not all do. Outside the force of law, not all people would pursue an education for the sake of being educated or for the good of society as a whole. Most people operate first out of self-interest, and consider social good only after their own needs are ensured. I pay several hundred dollars per year in school taxes, and several thousand dollars per year in private school tuition for my children. I assure you that my school taxes wouldn't even make a dent in my tuition bill, so your notion that a taxpayer will redirect his/her school taxes to private education is nonsense. Every property owner pays school taxes, while only parents pay tuition. If you reduce school payments only to parents with children, you vastly increase the cost of education and effectively eliminate the opportunity for most families.
Quoniam
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 4:14 p.m.
The point I am making is that human beings have an innate desire to learn, modern societies desire an educated citizenry, and parents in particular want the best for their children. If there was no such thing as compulsory state education, we would, individually and as a society, still seek to educate our children. Modern technology provides a vast array of options to deliver on this need, and will continue to do so, at a costs far lower than those foisted upon taxpayers by public schools. Our government-run educational system has become too bureaucratized and insulated from its "customers" (hence this article), and far too often fails in its stated mission with no meaningful accountability. If there was no such thing as public schools, and therefore no need to fund them through taxation, those monies would revert back to the taxpayer to spend as he/she determines as the best investment in non-public education for his/her children.
YpsiLivin
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 2:29 p.m.
Well, no such provision existed originally. The whole free public education thing didn't really gain steam until the mid- to late-1800's, and it wasn't until the 1900's that all states had compulsory universal education. Prior to that, all education was private. If you had the money, you could go as long as your cash held out, or you weren't needed to support the family. One of the drivers of compulsory education was military service, actually. As it turns out, uneducated and miseducated men don't make good soldiers. So... if you want to know what would happen if we didn't have compulsory education, look at what primary and secondary education were like prior to the Civil War. Of course your analysis will need to accommodate the fact that society and the demands of the modern economy have changed substantially since the Civil War, but you'd be really hard pressed to make the case that an uneducated electorate is generally more desirable than an educated one.
Quoniam
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 2:02 p.m.
If no such constitutional provision existed, would we not still seek to educate current and future generations?
YpsiLivin
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 12:38 p.m.
Well, since the state constitution requires the provision of a free public education, you're going to have an uphill battle with that one.
soggy waffle
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 11:47 a.m.
No, its inappropriate. Understanding to whom you report is important for any job. By reporting directly to the general public, rather than to the public through the board, the superintendent is guaranteed failure. I'd submit the case of Michelle Rhee, the former superintendent of the DC schools. Whether you agreed with her specific policies or not, I'd argue she was undermined by her the polarization of her position(a lot of this was her fault). We pay professionals for their knowledge and expertise. We can't expect every staff member to be a slave to the political process. These things being said, I do think that subordinates should have an opportunity to review their superiors. Teachers should have a chance to review her performance on non-salary issues. From my understanding there is a lot of frustration in the district at the moment. Its apparently school policy not to refer kids of color to special education services or suspension in order to create a closing-the-gap illusion.
mittengirl
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 11:36 a.m.
I'd like to see an article enumerating all of the 'positive' changes that Ms. Green has brought to our district in 365 days. If they exist, I'll probably have to FOIA it............
alarictoo
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 4 p.m.
I concur, mittengirl. @DaniellArndt - How about it? I think an article like this would be very enlightening.
Evergreen
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 11:17 a.m.
In Milan recently the School Board voted to extend the length of their time on the board. Sounds to me like they have their people in place! I think the superintendent should also have to receive the blessing fo the voters who pay their salary on a regular basis. And ax grinding is valuable information when compiled to show patterns.
Steve Norton, MIPFS
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 3:04 p.m.
By the way, a lot of school board members' terms got lengthened by the state legislature: when the legislature required school board elections to be held in November of even-numbered years only, then by default any sitting board member who would have been up for election in an odd-numbered year got a year added to their term.
ToddAustin
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 1:20 p.m.
By this logic, you should get to vote for every person at the public works department, the fire department, the police department, etc. You elect representatives to hire leaders who hire staff. If you don't like the decisions, elect different representatives.
Commoncents
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 11:02 a.m.
It shouldn't be limited to current parents, what about future or expecting parents ? If this woman gives herself midnight raises she should have to face reality /the public. These govt folks think they can avoid the public or that we'll forget, but if they knew their job counted on being honest I think it would improve their decision making. I still cannot wait until I get the chance to confront her in person.
Steve Norton, MIPFS
Tue, May 22, 2012 : 3:47 a.m.
Well, thanks for giving me credit for trying to be fair. But I'm not ignorant nor is my reasoning laughable. And no, I'm not on the school board - which you would know if you follow the schools so closely, no? Saying that school administration is not efficient and "everyone knows it" is a bit like saying that the world is flat and everyone knows it. Except it wasn't, and isn't. Try actually looking at what things are like rather than taking other commentators at their word. I argue with DonBee in part because I know and can prove that much of his information is flat-out wrong or at best misinterpreted. The tech bond wasn't about iPads or other "top dollar electronics" but about remodeling server closets, laying cable and fiber, and replacing seven year old desktops. The district had originally wanted to put it on the ballot last November, but volunteers like me pushed them to wait until their leadership team was in place and they had a chance to explain the proposal to the public. Why wait another school year, especially when we are going to have to cut so much in the meantime?
Commoncents
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 11:15 p.m.
Steve: You come off as a guy who is trying to be fair, but you are either ignorant or you just really want to believe what people tell you without thinking about it for yourself first. (It's gotta be the latter) Are you on the school board ? If so, sorry for my comment that I'm voting you out, but to be honest - I am - and will. I think everyone on your board needs to go. Anyway, lets address your points 1. There isn't room for cuts in the way schools are administered: This is laughable and I don't have the time to write out a full reply. That would be like saying the federal government is efficient. It's not and everyone knows it - there's no need to have a discussion. If you don't get it by now (and after reading your replies to Don Bee, I think you are a lost cause) 2. Tech Bond Timing: Your reason is laughable. With the federal election coming up in November there will be record high turnout at the polls. You're telling me these ipads and brand name top dollar electronics were going to screw up these kid's educations if they weren't purchased immediately ? The kids NEED this technology and couldn't wait 6 months ? Does that mean they're doomed because this last year they didn't have them ? Sit down and think about that. The school board had to PAY for an election in May when they could have had one for free in November ? (This is what I've heard) Lets use some common sense. I really do believe that you mean well, but open up your eyes pal. Your reasoning is laughable.
J. A. Pieper
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 10:32 p.m.
Hey, commoncents, the superintendent does not meet with the public, we are "nothing" to her. So, it won't work to have her evaluated only by the public she has met, she won't meet with us!
Steve Norton, MIPFS
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 8:12 p.m.
Also, remember that Dr. Green is not a voting member of the school board. She never got a raise - her salary was set before she was ever interviewed. The raises were to help retain good people in positions that report directly to her. Certainly the timing was unfortunate, but I also feel that we have really talented people in these positions. Isn't this what businesses do?
Steve Norton, MIPFS
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 8:05 p.m.
Commoncents: I agree that teachers are the critical part of the picture. But can you really run an organization with 3000 employees, 30+ locations, and 16,500 daily clients with no management? Dr. Green has two deputies: one for instruction (Alesia Flye) and one for operations and finance (Robert Allen). Ms. Flye has two assistant supers - one to oversee our 20 elementary schools, and the other to oversee our 11 middle and high schools/programs. Below that, it's the building principals. There are a few sideways positions, like communications, and instructional technology, and a few remaining curriculum coordinators. Then there is the whole Special Education operation (SISS), which is a world onto itself because it is so highly regulated by state and Federal law. But that's it. Two layers and you are already in the building offices. As to the Tech bond timing, they wanted it to be available as soon as possible - for the next school year. Had it been put off until next November, my understanding is that they would not have been able to purchase any equipment until at least halfway through next year. A lot of the work, including remodeling, would have to be put off until next summer. Plus, they would have had to finalize their budget (due June 30) without knowing if that money was coming. As for turnout, only 11% of registered voters turned out for last November's highly contested school board elections. So 9% for an election with absolutely nothing else on the ballot is not too bad.
Commoncents
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 4:13 p.m.
Steve: Thanks for the clarification - actually when I was writing that I thought, "Ya' know I don't know that I have ever heard the full details on the midnight raises story" so I probably should have held off commenting on it. Anyway, the midnight raises story is TRUE, but the key point you're wanting to clarify is that the raises were for Ms. Green's fellow administrator's salaries, but not directly hers. It doesn't change a thing to me, but I'm glad the details are clear and I apologize for the incorrect statement. Hey - it's the good ole' boys system of management; you vote for my raise and I'll vote for yours all in the name of "helping the kids" If I don't hear a logical explanation why the "technology millage" wasn't just added to the November ballot (other than to get it to pass because they knew it would be 9% voter turn out) you can guarantee I'm going to vote every single member of the school board out of office. Giving huge raises to administrators ? What those people do hardly impacts kids. Teachers do. Pay the teachers well, don't lay them off, reduce the number of students to teachers, stop wasting money on fat salaries for people who don't actually help the kids! The school board is completely out of touch w/ the city. You can't pay "administrators" that kind of money and then complain you need to lay teachers off. I would love to tell Ms. Green how I feel in person.
Steve Norton, MIPFS
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 2:53 p.m.
Just to be clear, Dr Green never gave herself a "midnight raise." The new superintendent's pay level was decided before the board started their national search. What you may be referring to is that the school board agreed to increase the pay of two current administrators to match that of newly hired officials. In a very long meeting, the board first decided to delay consideration of the matter, and then moved to vote on it later that night. But this was not about Dr. Green's salary.
sh1
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 11:01 a.m.
I think it's important to note the "360ยบ lens" has never included teachers.
sh1
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 7:04 p.m.
@AMOC, I don't believe this is true, but even if it is, my point stands.
AMOC
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 2:14 p.m.
Not so, sh1. The teachers have input through the AAEA leadership, who have regularly been invited to give comments to the board when they were evaluating prior superintendents. But you have to be tight with the union powers-that-be or work closely with the BoE to know about that. AAEA has not ever publicly solicited the views of their membership for this purpose.
Lac Court Orilles
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 10:56 a.m.
NO superintendent is worth the amount of money that our board of education decided to pay for this position. The most valuable assets in a school system are highly trained, caring, experienced, and effective classroom teachers. These are the people who should be getting the highest salaries, not administrators!
cette
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 11:22 a.m.
you have it half right. There is a definite need for good, conscientious teachers, but the real weakness in AAPS is the administration. That is what needs to be fixed. If Pat Green can improve that, she's going to be worth the pay, because the problems with administration are really bad, and really drag down the school experience for too many.
Commoncents
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 11:04 a.m.
Couldn't agree more! Does this mean you're against the union ? How would you suggest teacher pay by performance ?
Steve Hendel
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 10:52 a.m.
We elect school board members to make these evaluations and decisions, and to be accountable for the results-not to farm them out to 'squeaking wheel' stakeholders.
A2comments
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 10:46 a.m.
The board should seek public opinion in developing the review, but the actual review should be based on the goals assigned by the board, not by how well she is liked by the public. It's not a popularity contest. I have issues with how the school district is run, but have no idea if the board or superintendent, or both, are the issue.
Basic Bob
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 11:52 a.m.
Agreed. But the board seems quite content with the administration, so what are we to make of that? Part time work for premium pay, adding an extra layer of bloat, fat raises after 1 am, and threatening the voting public with cuts to necessary (if not mandatory) services. Perhaps we should blame both!
cette
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 10:35 a.m.
Oh I think the board hears from people who are unhappy all the time. Is she doing a good job overall is one question? What are the good things she does? What are areas for improvement?
1bit
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 10:26 a.m.
In a 360-degree evaluation process, the answer is yes. I don't think the problem will be negative responses per se, as most people will temper their criticism when signing their real name. I think the greater problem may be that the criticism will be misdirected at the superintendent (i.e. she will be the lightning rod).
Peter Konigsberg
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 10:11 a.m.
We pay her salary we should be allowed to voice an opinion. Isn't that a Democracy? Not to mention her high salary when we face hugh budget cuts to student services. The boards salaries should be cut along with student services to maintain as much as we can. It was their mismanagement that has brought us here, their performance doesn't rate high end pay checks!
ToddAustin
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 1:17 p.m.
No, Peter, that's a very narrow type of democracy called Athenian direct democracy, where everyone is involved in every decision. We elect school board members. It's their responsibility to evaluate the superintendent. If the board isn't doing its job properly, elect new members. That's how representative democracy works. Direct democracy is really non-functional in a group larger than a few hundred people, because not everyone can spend the time to be sufficiently informed to make wise decisions. That's why we elect representatives.
YpsiLivin
Mon, May 21, 2012 : 12:59 p.m.
Peter Konigsberg, The AAPS pays all seven members a sum total of about $11,000 per year. ($130/month/member). I'm not sure that $1,560/year per member counts as a "high-end paycheck." Perhaps this is more a case of getting what you pay for.