Bill Would Return Superintendent's Evaluation to Secrecy

I was wondering when this was going to surface.

Over at Dr H's Blog the Commish is supporting SB 178. He sees it as an issue of transparency versus effectiveness.

This from the Legislative Research Commission:

SB 178 (BR 1830) - D. Givens
AN ACT relating to evaluation of superintendents of schools.

Amend KRS 156.577 to clarify the evaluation requirements for the local superintendent; require that the summative evaluation be discussed and adopted in an open meeting of the local board of education and reflected in the minutes; specify that if the local policy requires a written evaluation that it shall be made available to the public upon request; and require that preliminary discussions relating to the evaluation of the superintendent by the board or between the board and the superintendent prior to the summative evaluation be conducted in closed session.

Feb 25-introduced in Senate
Mar 1-to Education (S)
Mar 4-reported favorably, 1st reading, to Calendar
Mar 5-2nd reading, to Rules

Host of schools support fight to keep superintendent evaluations private

OK...but shouldn't the education groups really be pushing for new legislation? Isn't it the language in the law, rather than the ruling, that needs fixing?

This from the Courier-Journal:

The Kentucky Department of Education, its board and a host of school boards from around the state are seeking permission to file a brief in support of the Jefferson County school board’s fight to keep superintendent performance evaluation discussions out of the public eye.

“Our main thing is that there was never any intent in the legislation to require one individual in a school district to be evaluated in public. Everybody else has their evaluations done in private,” said Brad Hughes, spokesman for the Kentucky School Boards Association, one of the entities that have filed the motion.

The Jefferson County Public Schools Board of Education is appealing a state Attorney General opinion that the board violated state law when it evaluated Superintendent Sheldon Berman in closed session July 29. The Courier-Journal contested that action, seeking the attorney general opinion. The case is pending in Jefferson County Circuit Court.

Jefferson County board Chairwoman Debbie Wesslund...

...gave a lame excuse that ought to be ignored. If board's can simply circumvent the law by stating the mere potential for discipline or dismissal, then everybody would do it and the law would be meaningless. Such possibilities - absent specific actions - do not qualify as exceptions to the Open Meetings law.

Sheldon Berman already announced that his evaluation contained nothing negative. But that's another topic.

Why go to the court? A lower court, correctly in my view, held that “The exceptions to the Open Meetings Act are to be strictly construed in light of the decided preference that the public’s business be performed before the eyes of the public.” It's hard to imagine the basic principle of a strict test being overturned on appeal.

If there is to be an exception made for school superintendents - and perhaps there should be - it ought to be specifically stated in the law.

I wonder. Is it possible that school administrators have already had conversations with legislators? If so, is the idea of an exception in the law getting any traction?

Groups Want Superintendent Evaluations to be Private

This from the Spencer Magnet:

KDE joins local fight

The state’s top educational organizations – including the Kentucky Department of Education – have placed their support behind the Spencer County School Board’s decision to conduct the superintendent’s evaluation in closed session and are asking the judge to reverse an opinion by the Office of the Attorney General.

“The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) has misinterpreted the Open Meetings Act and reached erroneous legal conclusions which will adversely impact all local boards of education in Kentucky,” said Attorney Michael Owsley in a court document filed last week.

Owsley filed the amicus curiae, or “friend of the court”, brief on behalf of KDE, the Kentucky Board of Education, the Kentucky School Boards Association, and several educational cooperatives which represent many of Kentucky’s school districts.

And, in A Matter of Opinion: What are they afraid of?

The Kentucky Department of Education and a whole host of other taxpayer-funded education organizations are trying to influence a local court into allowing the Spencer County Board of Education to continue evaluating the superintendent’s performance in secret.

Our superintendent who:
• administers a yearly school budget of $20.7 million (comprised of local, state and federal tax monies);
• is responsible for the education of 2,676 Spencer County children; and
• supervises over 400 instructional, facilities and support staff employees (the
county’s largest employer).

All this, while earning a base salary of $121,000 with a few fringe benefits. Doesn’t that sound like someone who taxpayers would want to know whether he was doing a good job?

The question that begs to be answered is: what are they all afraid of?

What is going on in these superintendent reviews that they do not want the general public to hear?

The argument that superintendent evaluations should be in closed session because they might lead to the discipline or dismissal of the district’s highest administrator is ridiculous. If school board members plan to dismiss the superintendent, the public needs to know – and they need to know why.

Another excuse that has been tossed around is that school districts could be subject to slander lawsuits if one of the board members got carried away and said something inappropriate. Slander only applies to statements that are untrue. As long as school board members speak with facts and figures, this should not be a problem.

What does become a problem is if an individual questions how superintendent evaluations are conducted. In this case, the message being sent by the Spencer County School Board is that if you rub the system the wrong way – if you don’t accept that this is the way things have always been done – then look out, retaliation may be coming in the form of a lawsuit.

Perhaps what they are most afraid of is that the public will see the diverse views of board members. They have different opinions about finances, instruction – and the superintendent’s perfomance in these areas. Every vote can not possibly be a consensus if board members are honestly representing the wishes of their constituents. Yet, board members are often encouraged to vote together for appearance sake.

As the highest school official in the county, Superintendent Chuck Adams should have no expectation of privacy. He is a public figure – and so are the 173 other superintendents in Kentucky. He answers to five bosses. The five people that voters in this county elect to ensure he does his job correctly. Voters should be allowed to hear what kind of evaluation their elected representatives are providing.