Tuesday night’s Hartford Board of Education meeting was well attended for two main reasons: the recognition of the late, great “Doc” Hurley and the appointment of seven new principals. The audience was filled friends, coworkers, and well-wishers. But once these agenda items passed, the crowd headed for the doors. But many were able to see the final, conflicted actions of a lame-duck, and now rudderless, administration.
The most agonizing of these was the discussion and debate of one of the hallmarks of the Kishimoto administration: the Teachscape teacher evaluation system. The program was on the agenda since the yearly contract was up for renewal. The annual fee for the evaluation system is $206,800. In discussing the evaluation system, the district pointed to the ease of managing well over 1,800 staff members and the wonders of a paperless system. They also pointed to the staff surveys, which found nearly 70% of the respondents happy with the evaluation system. But as board members Dr. Shelley Best and Robert Cotto pointed out, the district’s data revealed that well over 1,300 staff members were dissatisfied with the Teachscape evaluation system or did not even participate in the surveys.
Best and Cotto both pushed the district to explain the benefits of the system that went beyond the ease of electronically managing over 1,800 teachers and staff members. Best pointed out that at no point in the presentation did the district highlight how teachers were benefiting and growing from Teachscape, which is supposed to be the goal of any teacher evaluation system. She also preferred the $200,000 to be spent directly on the teachers in the form of professional development. Board member Mike Brescia also wanted to know why only teachers supportive of Teachscape were mentioned, especially since more than 50% of the entire teaching staff did not participate in the survey. Cotto brought up other alternatives and potential evaluation models used in state, like the peer assistance and review model used in Madison which did not cost any money. He even went so far as to ask whether Central Office staff was evaluated under the Teachscape model [Nope].
The Teachscape contract came down to a 4-3 vote in favor of renewing the contract for one year. In a rare move, chair Richard Wareing requested a roll call vote. Voting against were Best, Brescia, and Cotto. Those for the contract renewal were Taylor, Stallings, Colon-Rivas, and Wareing casting the deciding vote in favor of Teachscape. With Kishimoto on vacation, Acting Superintendent Jacoby seemed visibly shaken by the controversy and vote. She recommended more discussion on Teachscape because the vote was so close.
The other major dust-up of the evening was far less dramatic and quickly alleviated when the board voted to table a plan to alter the transportation contract for the district. The plan would switch the company that manages special education school bus services. According to the bus drivers’ union (CSEA), one of the companies being considered, Specialty Transportation Inc., “has refused to hire our existing school bus drivers before hiring untested drivers.” With the plan successfully tabled, it seems the bus drivers will be mobilizing for the next meeting on June 3. The board is scheduled to take up the proposed plan that night.
