Tie salary raise for schools chief to clear performance goals

My one victory as a member of the state Board of Education was creating a performance contract for the schools superintendent.

In 2004, the state Legislature mandated principal performance contracts by the 2006-07 school year. We were evaluating the then-superintendent.

Our choice was "Pick One": Unsatisfactory; Needs Improvement; Fully Meets Expectations; Exceeds Expectations; Exceptional.

"How can we hold principals accountable for student achievement if the superintendent isn’t willing to lead by example?" I asked.

To her credit, Superintendent Pat Hamamoto agreed. We negotiated fair goals, and the board agreed to conduct her next evaluation based on her performance.

I heard they reversed the decision after I left the BOE and returned to the old system.

The 2013 superintendent evaluation was conducted in executive session. While I’m told the current BOE did set performance standards, they are not public. All we know is that the superintendent was "Exceptional" last year.

We have no idea why, or what goals the BOE believed to be the highest priority for the superintendent.

We recently adopted teacher evaluations that include some measure of student achievement.

Do we really expect that evaluation system to be taken seriously, when it is overseen by principals who still aren’t on performance contracts; who are overseen by a superintendent who has no public performance expectations; who is overseen by a board that does not publish its performance priorities for the superintendent?

Today the Legislature is being asked to raise the superintendent’s salary cap by 66 percent to $250,000.

I support adopting competitive, professional salaries for public education — provided that they come with specific and transparent performance expectations.

We should be linking performance goals to increasing student achievement overall and eliminating the achievement gap that persists for certain groups and geographic regions. There is no higher goal than that.

This performance goal should be included throughout the Department of Education — not just for the classroom teachers — and should certainly be a part of what we expect from a superintendent.

Some may argue that the BOE is responsible for setting expectations for the superintendent.

But what message would the Legislature be sending if we approved a 66 percent increase in the superintendent’s salary cap without addressing the expectations that come with such a significant pay increase?

This bill sends the signal that significant raises come without any expectation of increased performance, specific outcomes, or public accountability at the top of our system.

Keep in mind, the last time the Legislature raised the cap, the BOE raised the superintendent’s salary the full amount. This created a cascade of raises for all the central DOE administrators whose salaries were tied to the top.

If the Legislature doesn’t set some expectations with this increase, then we have little hope of the board or department setting expectations with the subsequent salary increases that will surely follow within the central DOE.

We should seriously consider making our superintendent’s salary competitive. But at the same time, we must also tie that to a requirement that the BOE adopt annual performance goals that are public and include some link to student achievement.

The BOE should determine the specific goals each year, and the personnel evaluation itself should be confidential.

But it is reasonable to require the state superintendent of our public education system to aim for specific annual performance goals that are publicly available.

And it is reasonable to expect increases in our student achievement and graduation rates in return for our investment in competitive, professional salaries.