Board looks into teacher evaluation questions

Bigfork parents and concerned community members are closer to reaching answers to questions on teacher evaluations after weeks of addressing Bigfork School District administrators and school trustees.

At a Wednesday meeting, board chairman Paul Sandry (who replaced chairwoman Maureen Averill after she lost to Christina Relyea in the May trustee election) conceded that the district and past board members haven’t made sure the number of teacher evaluations have been completed according to board and district policy.

The board then assembled a small committee that will gather data on the number of evaluations completed for kindergarten- through 12th-grade teachers over the past five years. The hope is to provide a snapshot on how large the discrepancies may be.

“I think five years is plenty,” Sandry said. “I just know when we look through those files we’re going to find noncompliance across the board. This is a lay board. It’s asking an awful lot of the board, but we signed up for it and the administration is the one that needs to be accountable for it and we’re going to make sure they are.”

This solution comes in the wake of public criticism over the nonrenewal of kindergarten teacher Kelli Whalen’s contract.

Whalen’s dismissal was the spark that set off the fireworks for parents such as Monica Harris and LaSaundra Keuchmann when Whalen, a nontenured teacher, received just one evaluation for the year, which contained top marks for performance, instead of two according to district and board policy.

According to board policy, tenured teachers are supposed to receive one evaluation per year.

Earlier in the meeting, board members answered questions about evaluations and district policy, however, they reiterated that Whalen’s nonrenewal was a closed matter.

“This is a much bigger problem,” Harris said. “There are teachers here who were nontenured, who aren’t being renewed, who are still not getting proper evaluations.”

Harris asked the board to find out how things reached this point so they are not repeated.

“Number one, I think I speak for a lot of past board members,” Sandry said. “Most of these folks [board members] are new, and so if somebody’s been remiss it’s me and other board members who have sat on this board and not made sure that these personnel files are complete. We just haven’t done it.”

“We looked into it a little bit. I looked into it a little bit, and this district, the high school and elementary, has been remiss,” Sandry continued. “You bring up a good point. Evaluations that are performed are not in line with the policies. They’re just not. You found that out and so now I know that.

“I should have been a little more active. Personally, I don’t think I should have to go through personnel files to make sure these guys [administrators] are doing their jobs,” Sandry said.

Sandry reminded the audience that there have been several administrator changes in the past two years. Superintendent Cynthia Clary resigned due to family medical issues in January 2014. Russ Kinzer filled in until former elementary and middle school Principal Matt Jensen was promoted to the position in July 2014.

Brenda Clarke was promoted to the principal position but suffered a brain aneurysm in January.

Sandry said these aren’t excuses for why the “ball was dropped,” but could be part of the reason.

“I take your comments as constructive criticism, and it’s warranted. It is. You’re absolutely right. We need to have evaluations if we have a policy that says we’re going to evaluate twice a year — we need to do it,” Sandry said.

Harris was also concerned that a teacher such as Whalen did not have her contract renewed despite no negative written comments or marks, or improvement plans.

Jensen and Sandry reiterated that evaluations are both formal and informal and teachers receive verbal feedback regularly. One board member said it was not valid to conclude that because there wasn’t written feedback an employee would have no idea on his or her performance.

Harris begged to differ.

“If you and I enter into a contract together, or if you and I enter into any part of a business transaction — let’s be clear — that’s what this is — this is a business transaction between the school and the teacher. So if you’re having discussions about your business relationship seems to me that some things, especially if they are material enough to terminate the relationship, should be reduced to writing,” Harris said.

“With an associate in their performance — do you say, ‘Hey, this isn’t working out. I’m not going to write this down I just want you to keep it in mind to the best of your memory and try to do what I say to do.’ No. I’m in a law firm. You reduce these things to writing. I get a written evaluation once a year. In doing my work I would refer to these things because memories get cloudy.”

She later added, “I think that’s why the evaluation is so important to me and a lot of parents. Because if there’s no record then there’s a lot of room for indiscretion.”

Board member Zack Anderson made a point that if a teacher hadn’t been evaluated, he or she should tell the principal. Sandry disagreed, saying it is the principal’s duty, not the teacher’s. Audience member Suzanne Childers commented that she felt it was the joint responsibility of the teacher, principal and board to make sure evaluations were being completed.

Sandry said the committee should complete its review of the number, not the content, of reviews by June.

Reporter Hilary Matheson may be reached at 758-4431 or by email at hmatheson@dailyinterlake.com.