Superintendent Evals Public Under State Law, But It Doesn’t Always Work Out That Way

The superintendent is the only public school employee whose annual performance review is subject to public scrutiny under Connecticut state law, but don’t bother looking for those appraisals in Farmington, or West Hartford, or any number of communities throughout the state.

Roughly a third of school boards evaluate their top school administrator behind closed doors and do not produce written records on the matter, The Courant has found.

Of 133 school districts that responded to The Courant’s requests to disclose their superintendent’s annual performance evaluations, 41, or 30.8 percent, said they conduct oral evaluations in executive session.

The remaining 92 districts said the superintendent’s annual evaluation is completed via a written process. Seventy-seven of those produced hard copies of the evaluations.

Critics call the use of oral evaluations in secret an end run to state law. Mitchell W. Pearlman, former executive director of the state Freedom of Information Commission, said the decision is deliberate.

“You have a number of school districts where the choice has been made [and] they know how to get around FOI laws by having this communication not in writing,” he said. “They meet in executive session to discuss the performance of a public official, there’s no record and the public is left out of the loop – but we still have to pay the bill.”

It’s not a new issue. As far back as 30 years ago, state Freedom of Information Commission members weighed in on the practice.

In 1986, when Pearlman was executive director of the commission, members scolded the New Haven board of education for holding oral evaluations of the superintendent and failing to release documents associated with the process. By abolishing the written evaluation process, the commission ruled, the board left “the citizens of New Haven without a meaningful assessment of the superintendent’s performance … and conceals from public scrutiny its decision-making process.”

“In this case,” the commission ruled, “the board, in effect, has left itself powerless to take any disciplinary action concerning the superintendent’s performance as provided by contract. Moreover, the commission believes that the respondents’ fear of the public’s reaction to the evaluation process insults the intelligence of the citizens of New Haven and has no place in a representative democracy.”

Count Richard Wareing, chairman of the Hartford school board, among those who believe in a written evaluation, open to the public.

When hiring former Hartford Superintendent Beth Schiavino-Narvaez in 2014, Wareing said, he told her up front that her annual performance reviews would be public documents. Narvaez, after all, was Hartford’s highest-paid municipal employee with a salary of $257,500.

“If you’re doing your job, there’s nothing to hide,” he said.

Education is “a public function and public money pays for it,” said Wareing. “Of course the people have a right to know what’s going on. I am surprised that any town would resist giving up their superintendent’s evaluation. … I’ve never understood that beyond a desire to not make waves. It’s not realistic.”

Some state education experts say that the form of an evaluation is not as important as the board’s action to retain a superintendent and that the superintendent deserves the same privacy afforded to many other jobs.

A spokesman for the state chapter of a national superintendents association suggests that mandating public disclosure of written evaluations could actually deter school boards from writing them.

“You now have a situation where the board of education may feel that the superintendent is doing a very good job but wants to make some suggestions for improvement,” said Joseph J. Cirasuolo, executive director of the Connecticut Association of Public Schools Superintendents.

“The board may be concerned if those [suggestions] get put in writing, all the good things about the superintendent will not be focused on … and will give the impression that the board is not very positive about the superintendent when they are.”

Cirasuolo said the ability to have discussions behind closed doors, without the scrutiny of the public or press, allows both board members and the superintendent to be candid.

Local Level

East Hartford Superintendent Nathan Quesnel has spent his entire career in the district. He collaborated with the board of education to develop the written evaluation tool that he says was “built with mindset that it wasn’t trying to catch me [but] trying to work with me.”

Quesnel said the process is “dictated by the culture of our community, the relationship of the board and superintendent and also the history.” He said he tends to be thorough in drafting his own goals and self-assessment, so the board has historically returned the favor.

“I am a public servant. In our district we talk about accountability at all levels and that includes me,” Quesnel said. “We have a written document in East Hartford that memorializes the conversation that took place. The board obviously acknowledges what I’ve done well but also points out things I can improve upon.”

Wareing said he believes there is a risk in not putting concerns down in writing.

“If stuff goes sideways, how can you prove as a board that you held your superintendent accountable to anything?” he asked.

Southington conducts its evaluation orally and in executive session, though the board of education issues a press release detailing the discussion. Board Chairman Brian Goralski said that process has been in place for at least 14 years.

Goralski said that while that process is a good fit for Southington, any community should be free to decide how to evaluate its superintendent. He does not believe the state should decide the evaluation procedures for superintendents, as it did with teacher and administrator evaluations.

“The state should not dictate how an evaluation is done,” he said. “I truly believe they really were well-intended with teachers and administrators, but the end result was chaos and confusion [at the local level]. That being said, I like that most towns do their own thing for their superintendent. I’m proud that Southington does, as well.”

In Farmington, the board conducts a midyear review and an annual review, both orally and in executive session, but does not keep written documents. Board Chairman Christopher Fagan defended his town’s process, saying the district’s success – and, by extension, Superintendent Kathleen Greider’s – speaks for itself.

“We are continually reflected as one of the highest performing districts in the state and in the nation. That’s the true story of Farmington schools,” Fagan said. “The proof is in the pudding. If it ain’t broke you don’t fix it. The proof is in the results.”

Fagan said the process, created by the board, has been in place for years. It involves the superintendent’s developing five-year goals that coincide with the district’s “vision of the graduate.” Those goals are then broken down in an action plan for each year.

“The process is supposed to be fluid and dynamic, not static,” he said. “It’s supposed to be responsive to what’s happening on the ground. Our process is designed to meet the needs of our community.”

“Our ratification of [the superintendent’s] contract, when it comes to our review … is a clear statement that we want to retain her [and] that we are happy with her services,” Fagan said. “There is no stronger validation of a superintendent’s performance than retaining and renewing the contract.”

No Firm Guidelines

The Courant requested annual performance evaluations of superintendents from 121 town and city school districts and 17 regional school districts statewide.

Only districts with public high schools were asked to provide evaluations. Districts composed solely of elementary, middle and/or high schools were not contacted for this story.

Five districts, including Bridgeport, Torrington and Westport, did not respond by deadline to Freedom of Information Act requests to disclose their superintendent’s evaluation.

Nineteen districts indicated that evaluations take place orally and in executive session, and provided one or more documents associated with the review.

These documents included written summaries of what was discussed in executive session, annual goals or rubrics used for evaluation, or meeting minutes that indicated when the board of education approved the superintendent’s contract extension, often with a salary increase.

Twenty-two districts either claimed records associated with the superintendent’s evaluation did not exist or did not provide formal documents associated with the review.

Although state statute lays out a process for the evaluation of teachers and administrators, it does not provide such guidelines for the superintendent; the law only says a board of education must evaluate the superintendent annually and offer a maximum three-year contract.

It also states that evaluations of school employees below the rank of superintendent are exempt from disclosure.

Pearlman, who was executive director of the state Freedom of Information Commission at the time the statute was passed, said the original intention of the legislation was to keep teacher evaluations confidential. However, it quickly evolved to encompass evaluations of all education official evaluations below the rank of superintendent.

Superintendents were not included in the exemptions because they’re often the highest paid person in a school district, or even a town, he said. He argued that although a superintendent is not an elected official, he or she is still a public official.

“Municipal officials wanted to support their superintendents and schools because superintendents are really open to great deal of criticism. They can’t make everybody happy,” he said. “I understand that and that’s true, but really, they just wanted to cover themselves from accountability.”

“If a mayor has to open themselves up to all the attacks that occur … why shouldn’t the superintendent, who often gets twice as much money?” Pearlman asked.

A set of guidelines developed by the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education and the superintendents association, adopted in 2004 and revised in 2014, offers a suggested time line and process for the annual evaluation of the superintendent.

Patrice McCarthy, deputy director and general counsel for the association of education boards, said many boards base their processes off the recommendations, but practices vary from district to district.

McCarthy said the form of the evaluation depends heavily on the district’s community, the board’s expectations, and the relationship between the board and superintendent. McCarthy said it’s not surprising, then, that some boards don’t find it necessary to issue a formal written report following the executive session discussion.

“That’s what most employees expect, in the public or private sector – that there be a candid discussion between supervisor and employee,” McCarthy said. “Whether or not there’s a written document is ultimately up to the board of education and much of that is often based on the past practice in the district.”

McCarthy said the board of education’s approval to extend the superintendent’s contract serves as a sufficient signal to the public that the superintendent is performing well. She said it is not up to an individual resident to determine whether the superintendent is qualified to perform his or her job.

“That’s the job of the board of education. [A person’s] perception as one individual of member of a community couldn’t possibly take into account the myriad of factors the board of education has to consider,” McCarthy said.

Cirasuolo, of the superintendents association, agreed, saying that the board of education is accountable to the public and represents their interests. If the public doesn’t think the superintendent is fit for the job, it’s their responsibility to elect new officials.

“If people want to know what the board of education thinks about the superintendent, they can ask them. They can go to a board meeting and ask,” Cirasuolo said. “To me, though, the ultimate test is, does the board renew the superintendent’s contract.”

“I would not equate the lack of a written evaluation with a lack of accountability. I don’t think the two go together,” he said.

But leaders of local education advocacy groups disagree.

In email, Jennifer Alexander, CEO of the public school advocacy group ConnCAN, described the superintendent’s evaluation as an important tool in providing feedback on performance toward goals for a district and its students.

“We appreciate the sensitive nature of superintendent evaluations, but we also know that families and taxpayers need to know how well their school district and its leader is performing so that they can support progress, push for improvements and make the best decisions for their children,” Alexander said. “If districts withhold the results of these evaluations or do not explain how they were done, then parents and the general public could lose faith in our institutions of education.”

Jeffrey A. Villar, executive director of the Connecticut Council for Education Reform, said he is in the process of comparing Connecticut’s laws regarding superintendency to those in other states, to possibly develop a policy recommendation for legislators.

Villar said there needs to be a balance between maintaining employee privacy and acting in the public’s interest.

“A town does have a right to know, is the superintendent hitting the targets as established by the board [and] how does the board feel about the superintendent’s performance … That’s appropriate for a public official. There’s a certain level of privacy you give up when you sign on as a superintendent,” he said.

Courant staff writers Vanessa de la Torre, Morgan Hines, Sandra Gomez-Aceves, Annabelle Orlando, Taylor Swaak, Angie DeRosa and Laura Schinagle contributed to this story.

.galleries:after {
content: ”;
display: block;
background-color: #c52026;
margin: 16px auto 0;
height: 5px;
width: 100px;

}
.galleries:before {
content: “Trending Videos”;
display: block;
font: 700 23px/25px Belizio,Georgia,’Droid Serif’,serif;
text-align: center;
color: #1e1e1e;
}