Goose vs. Gander: The double standard for teachers and superintendents

Oct 01

jonpeltoEducation Reform, Hartford, Teacher Tenure, Teachers , , 7 Comments

Last week, Hartford’s Superintendent of Schools, Christina Kishimoto, sent a letter to the Hartford Board of Education (her employer) saying,

“I will not engage in political debate with board members…My duty, my sole concern, is for the academic and career success of our Hartford school children and youth.”

Meanwhile, rather than take calls from the media, she directed that all calls about the situation be referred to her attorney.

Although the immediate debate was about whether Kishimoto was communicating sufficiently with the Hartford Board of Education, the real impetus behind the superintendent’s bizarre and incredible letter was the performance evaluation that the Board of Education’s recently concluded.

Last year, the Board of Education and the Superintendent agree to an evaluation process that was based on a variety of indicators and measures.

Of the 10 student achievement targets that Superintendent Kishimoto was to be evaluated on, she “failed to meet most of them.”

On other key measures, the Superintendent was rated on a scale of 1 to 5 scale, with 1 being unacceptable and 5 noting outstanding performance.

Her score for educational leadership was a rather dismal 3.0.  When it came to engaging stakeholders, such as parents, teachers, community members, she scored a 2.4, and, as for the school board-superintendent relationship, Kishimoto got a failing 1.6 rating.

Considering the Hartford Courant has championed Governor Malloy’s effort to use “teacher evaluations” as the best vehicle to determine which teachers to keep and which to let go, one would have reasonably expected that any Courant editorial would take the Superintendent to task for her failing evaluation.

Instead the Courant called on the Hartford School Board and the Superintendent to, “mend” their relationship, and the Courant editorial went on to say, “Ms. Kishimoto knows reform. She’s top-notch at it, as her supporters point out.”

Failure to meet agreed upon achievement targets, low scores on educational leadership and engaging stakeholders, and utter failure to maintain a good relationship with her employer, and the Courant suggests her “top-notch” understanding of reform means she should keep her job?

How much clearer could it be?

Education reformers talk a good game, but refuse to walk the walk.

They demonize teachers and teacher tenure and suggest that teacher evaluation is the single greatest step we can take to turnaround the American education system.  Then they turn the other cheek when one of their own falls flat on the most basic measures of performance and achievement.

And to top it off, Hartford has a superintendent of schools, a public servant, who is pulling down six figures, who has the audacity to say to the Board of Education, “I will not engage in political debate with board members…”?

Perhaps the Superintendent missed the college class when students were taught that political debate is the discussion of policy options and, in this case, the role of the Board of Education to make appropriate policy decisions as the formal legislative body of Hartford’s school system.

We’re not talking about name calling or character assassination; we are talking about the most fundamental role of the superintendent – board of education relationship.

Her claim that she is somehow above engaging in “political debate”  suggests that she doesn’t know the meaning of the term, doesn’t understand the role of the Board of Education or apparently feels that the obligation of democratic governmental systems simply don’t  apply to her.

Between her inappropriate letter and her scores on her recent evaluation, she certainly appears unable to successfully perform her job.

If those who believe that “evaluation” is the measure of who should stay and who should be let go, then Hartford‘s Superintendent of Schools should be packing up her office and looking for another job.

For more background see the Courant article and editorial – http://www.courant.com/community/hartford/hc-hartford-kishimoto-eval-0928-20120927,0,4935745.story and  http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-ed-superintendent-turmoil-in-hartford-schools-20120927,0,5491532.story

Be Sociable, Share!

  • brutus2011

    Jon, this underscores a central point I that I believe in … that the management structure of our public schools is at odds with the bottom line of public education or the education of our future generations.

    I also believe that, in a republic such as ours, the education of our future citizenry is the only real thing between what we have known and tyranny. For those who might think I’m nuts, I refer you to Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington and the federal legislation passed in the years just prior to the 1787 Philadelphia Convention.

    Back to the hierarchy of the management of public schools, if one considers the financial incentive (six figure salaries and equally formidable pensions) of today’s education executive or administrator, then one might seriously think about abolishing that hierarchy and give the implementation and administration of the curriculum to those specifically trained and already in place to do so–our teacher corps.

    I believe that we would get more done with less and our student outcomes would substantially elevate regardless of whether we deep-six standardized testing or not.

    This is the real public school reform that would give us all a break-students, parents, teachers and taxpayers. The only interest group who would suffer would be those at the top–the very ones who are trying like the dickens to place the accountability everywhere else except where it truly should rest–the bosses.

    • Linda174

      Bravo!

    • Apartheid First

      yes, Bravo!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tommy-Burns/712565941 Tommy Burns

      we got it right in New Haven Brutus

  • Pingback: CT Essential Politics – Tuesday 10.02.12 - CT Devil's Advocate

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tommy-Burns/712565941 Tommy Burns

    This woman couldnt teach dogs how to bark–her actions according to this written piece are certainly grounds for dismissal–goodbye–T

  • Billy

    Linda for superintendent! Pick someone that can identify problems but never solve them. Go Linda….please lead us and show how you would change the lives of minority kids forever. But then you would have to eat at the same table as their parents.