Overall evaluation: Unsatisfactory
Evaluator Comments:
The
state regulations regarding educator evaluation (603 CMR 35.00) center student
learning and student growth in the evaluation of all educators in
Massachusetts. Additionally, the evaluation of the superintendent sets the tone
and the standard for all professional evaluation in the district. This
evaluation of Superintendent Maureen Binienda for the 2020 year thus centers
the experience of our students and defends to the high standard we are told to
uphold for our students and for our educators. To do otherwise is to harm our
students.
It is a professional evaluation; it is not a personal statement.
The two overriding themes that arise again and again in this evaluation are the
lack of capacity in administering the district in aspects from roles to ethics
to leadership to professional learning; and the perpetration of a district
climate for staff and students that too frequently is silencing, fearful, and
discouraging, rather than collaborative, nurturing, and supportive.
Standard I: Instructional
Leadership
Needs improvement
Overall,
this standard requires that “the education leader promotes the learning and
growth of all students and the success of all staff by cultivating a shared
vision that makes powerful teaching and learning the central focus of
schooling.” That cultivation of a shared vision is lacking in the Worcester
Public Schools under Superintendent Binienda. The functional administration of
the education of 25,000 students and the second largest employer in the city is
scattered, moving from one thing to the next with little sense of
prioritization and no delegation. The smallest of decisions must be made by
Superintendent Binienda; the smallest of actions must be done directly by her. This
has, at times, virtually paralyzed the administration. While this has been
touted as attention to detail, it is not; it is an unwillingness, if not an
inability, to appropriately administrate.
During normal times, this is dangerous; during this pandemic, it is catastrophic.
This standard calls for “effective and rigorous standard-based units,”
“well-structured lessons,” and “measurable outcomes” which the superintendent
is to “ensure” all staff design. There is no evidence given by Superintendent
Binienda in her self-evaluation of this indicator. To the contrary, this past
spring vague school-wide or multi-grade lessons were required of schools which
were not well-structured and were neither effective nor rigorous, despite the
ineffectiveness of this being repeatedly noted by students, parents, teachers,
and the Worcester School Committee. The expertise of teachers was cast by the
wayside for weeks at a time.
The narrow district focus on programs like the Advanced Placement and dual
enrollment programs pull attention away from the high expectations and
engagement of all students required in the second indicator,
accommodating students’ “diverse learning styles, needs, interests, and levels
of readiness.” It is not clear that such diversity is recognized within the
work of the administration, let alone supported effectively in the classroom.
One of the more troubling aspects of the self-evaluation is the lack of data
backing assertions; there has, as well, been ongoing concerns raised by the
community over lack of data access. How “multiple sources of evidence” are
being used to improve “organizational performance, educator effectiveness, and
student learning” is not in evidence in Superintendent Binienda’s
self-evaluation, and it is a weakness in the presentations of this
administration. Lists of things that happened are cited as if these are data;
the impact of what was done on student learning is lacking. Organization
performance, within this standard, is particularly of grave concern.
Multiple measures of student growth have not been shared with the committee;
impact on student learning is thus extraordinarily difficult for the School
Committee to assess. It is not clear that multiple measures are used for
decision making; they are not cited when speaking with the Committee.
There are many improvements to be made in instructional leadership. Effective
administration of the district is badly needed.
Standard II: Management and
Operations
Unsatisfactory
Management
and Operations is the systems function of the organization of the district,
“ensuring a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment, using
resources to implement appropriate curriculum, staffing, and scheduling.” Superintendent
Binienda’s performance is unsatisfactory.
The ”effective plans, procedures, routines, and operational systems” called for
in the first indicator fall prey to the scattered instructional leadership
described above. Focus and delegation are absolutely necessary in any school
district, but most especially one of Worcester’s size. Instead, there is no
ability to prioritize; central administration is “in the weeds” all the time. The
inexperience of many in central administration further compounds this lack of
prioritization and delegation. Objections raised by employees do not follow the
line of authority, but go directly to the superintendent.
There is no systems thinking by the Superintendent in managing the district;
everything is an individual problem to be solved, rather than viewed as part of
a larger whole to which solutions can be created at a district and school
level. This again is not a strength, but a weakness.
A single individual hiring and a small program are the evidence given by
Superintendent Binienda for the second indicator, tying strongly into third
district improvement goal, of creating systems for “recruiting, hiring,
induct[ing], and develop[ing]” educators; the systems thinking needed to ask
how we recruit and what our hiring process is, what our district culture is and
where it is going, does not exist. Processes are what make change in
hiring; shifts in culture are what change retention. Small numbers of
people whose degrees have been supported is not enough. Even the framing of the
response to this indicator itself demonstrates the weakness in administration
in management. This must improve.
The use of data has been diminished under currently leadership, as is apparent
even from the organizational chart. Community calls for clarity and transparency
in data, most particularly around student discipline, have been rebuffed. As
evidenced both by the professional practice goal and by the second district
improvement goal, the district’s use of data, as evidenced by the presentations
of the Superintendent, is weak, incomplete, or missing.
The third indicator of this section, requiring both compliance with and
understanding of the laws, ethics, and policies at all levels is of grave
concern. The Superintendent has frequently made it clear that she does not
understand her own role in her interactions with the School Committee, with
other staff, and with the community. Employee privacy and student privacy are
marginalized in her interactions in pursuit of solving or sometimes dismissing
concerns. Lines of employee grievance and of employee oversight are set aside
on an ad-hoc basis. More than once during my time on the Committee, district
legal counsel has been enlisted to buttress the Superintendent’s arguments
against Committee purview, in violation of the counsel’s actual line of
authority to the School Committee. The administration’s advisory role in policy
is unevenly carried out; at one meeting, legal counsel had not reviewed the
policy being considered; at others, policies being reviewed had not had the
legal review necessary prior to an update. Those both are the responsibility of
the administration. At the same time, policies set by the Committee, after
public deliberation and public comment, are not necessarily carried out; this
spring’s waiver of the Advanced Placement testing requirement, for example, was
not made clear on the district website until there were repeated inquiries by
members of the Committee, and communication of that policy varied by teacher.
Policy is not subject to the whims of the Superintendent.
The ethics under which decisions are made was publicly in evidence during last
year’s decision of the transportation contract. A decades-long planning process
to switch to district-run transportation was, for reasons still unclear, run
aground by the Superintendent, leaving the district with an unresponsive transportation
provider that is costing the district as much to have not run buses as it would
to have transportation actually be provided in-house. That the January 16, 2020
motion by the Committee that clear metrics of on time performance be provided
to the Committee and to the public still had not appeared two months later
demonstrates not only how casually the Superintendent takes her role regarding
the Committee, but more importantly, how the ability of students to get to
school safely and on time is not a priority of this administration.
The mismanagement of our limited fiscal resources lies not only within Superintendent
Binienda’s recommendation on the bus contract; the oversight and lack of
transparency regarding the district use of grants remains troubling. It does
not appear the administration is actually abiding by the fifth point of the
Seven Point Plan for Advancing Student Achievement and Program Sustainability,
the fiscal policy set by the Committee in 2014: new grant funding is not being
targeted at supplemental support and staff development, but is frequently
funding additional staffing or programs, and is being done without a multiple
year budget. This is not sustainable. Most recently, that the Committee was
expected to approve the allocation of $9.4M in federal CARES Act funding based
on a spreadsheet lacking detail and a list of items without explanation attached
to dollar amounts demonstrates the lack of regard those managing grants have
for the funds in their charge as well as for the School Committee oversight of
those funds. Grant funds like the larger budget are public funds for a public
good for which we are publicly accountable. This is unacceptable.
Standard III: Family and Community Engagement
Unsatisfactory
It should be noted that if Superintendent
Binienda and the administration had provided some level of engagement commensurate with what has been provided over the past
few weeks, this would be a very different conversation, and the district’s
relationship with its stakeholders would also be very different.
As it is, we must evaluate based on the entirety of the past year, with a focus
in my case on the past seven months. Our families and the community continue
largely continue to feel alienated from the school district, in marked contrast
to the “effective partnerships” envisioned in the statewide superintendent
rubric.
The standard is clear: all families “are welcome members of the
classroom and school community.” In the Worcester Public Schools, far too many
families are left out at the district, school, and classroom levels. The
administration must reframe its picture of the families the Worcester Public
Schools serve: nearly 60% of families speak a language at home that is not
English, and our families represent a multiplicity of cultures and races and
ethnicities. It is not enough to post that as a statistic on our website; we
must frame all that we do in that context.
Per the standard, collaboration must be continuous: it cannot be when it
is convenient or when it takes the Superintendent’s fancy. Members of the
School Committee asked for weeks that the Superintendent hold a town hall
during the closure of schools this spring; we were put off and put off and it
never happened. The significant attendance at the forums the week of July 20
give some indication of how much this interaction is eagerly welcomed,
particularly because, as the next standard notes it was two way.
The two way communication called for in the standard—opportunities for the
community to talk back to the district: to share concerns, to ask for
assistance, to express opinions, to shape the future of the district—are lamentably
few. Very basic protocols—having social media monitored and being responsive
there, as other districts are; ensuring parent and student participation on
site councils; creating community conversations, student forums, parent coffees—do
not happen. When students, in particular, speak at meetings or other events,
too often their voices and their experiences are dismissed. Those experiences
frequently have and do reflect a lack of cultural proficiency among many in our
district. Far too many of our students have had experiences in their schooling that
demonstrate a profound lack of respect for who they are and what they are
about. That starts at the top. The current environment for far too many of our
students reflects what one student said earlier this year: “Would you want to
go to school where you didn’t feel welcome?” No student should experience that
in the Worcester Public Schools.
Family and community concerns, per the standard, are to be addressed “in an
equitable, effective, and efficient manner.” This simply is not the case. Language,
race, ethnicity, and various kinds of access all have a great deal to do with
how concerns are resolved. Some families have access and are listened to and
prioritized; others are not. Far too often, again, it is not equitable. Experiences
this spring again were indicative of this: some families begged for technology
for weeks, having no other access to their children’s education beyond a single
packet that was sent out. The district posted work online, but the technology
the district has, as in the first district improvement goal, was not granted.
Families that didn’t already have access simply went without. This, too, is
unacceptable.
Standard IV: Professional Culture
Unsatisfactory
Much as the standards to which the School
Committee holds the superintendent set a model for the evaluation of the rest
of the district, so, too, does the professional culture created by the
superintendent become that of the district. That culture does not just happen;
it must, as the overall goal states, be nurtured and sustained. In the
Worcester Public Schools, that is not being done by Superintendent Binienda.
The commitment to high standards and continuous learning is a value that must
be modeled by the superintendent; in the Worcester Public Schools, it is not.
The professional learning of the superintendent, the modeling of improving
one’s professional practice, is nowhere in evidence in the evidence presented
to the Committee.
I have written elsewhere in this evaluation of the lack of cultural proficiency
evidenced far too often in the Worcester Public Schools. Rather than engage in
the implicit bias work requested by the community and vital in being an
effective educator for Worcester students, the superintendent has resisted and
deflected into other sorts of training throughout the district, frequently
addressing our families from a deficit mindset rather than one which recognizes
the strengths and knowledge families bring to the schools and to their
students. If we are, as elsewhere mentioned, to seek to retain a diverse
workforce, our schools as workplaces simply must be intolerant of
microaggressions, support those from all backgrounds, and constantly work to
become actively anti-racist and anti-biased. Meaning well is not good enough.
Communication, here and elsewhere, is of concern. In particular, students are
not spoken to as if they are human beings with independent thoughts and
theories of actions. The administration’s habitual use of the district data
bases to look up those who speak at public forums is, frankly, creepy, and it
seems generally to be used to attempt to disprove what those speaking are
saying. Interpersonal communication too often is damaging to our students. We
have a responsibility to hear and believe children, and we have a
responsibility of working with families. Too often the Worcester Public Schools
do not.
Successful and continuous engagement with all stakeholders for the shared
education vision referenced is simply not happening. Community groups have
repeatedly noted their being shut out and cut off from work with the Worcester
Public Schools. Like much else of this time, this was unfortunate before; now
it is disastrous. The contacts and outreach efforts of community groups would
have been invaluable during this spring of school closure. The losses resulting
from this lack of coordination are immeasurable to our students. From the
sharing of data to the coordination of services to simply meeting the needs of
students, we should be working with our community. With a system as large as
Worcester’s, again, this needs to be more than, as happens too often, asking
for a check.
I noted prior to my rejoining the Committee the degree to which the prior low
level paranoia among many who work in the Worcester Public Schools had
skyrocketed over the past several years, and my time on the Committee has only
confirmed this. Teachers not wishing to be quoted on the record for the Boston
Globe article on the straightforward question of when technology reached
students is only the most public of examples. Staff are convinced that
retribution will follow the raising of concerns; when concerns are raised, too
often it is the one who raises the concerns that faces consequences. It
troubles me enormously to raise such a concern so vaguely in such an important
document, but the simple fact of the matter is that under this administration,
the members of this Committee cannot be more explicit without retribution
falling on others.
Only this evaluation appropriately carried through can call this behavior to
account.
Student Learning Goal
By June 2020, update and utilize the WPS High Quality Teaching and Learning
(HQTL) framework to align and increase academic relevance and rigor across all
grades.
Some progress
The
High Quality Teaching and Learning framework was updated and has been shared
with us, and it appears to be a thoughtful document.
The Committee has been given no evidence of the larger work of utilizing
the framework shared by the administration. The alignment and the increase of
academic relevance called for in the latter part of the goal has not been
demonstrated to the Committee. We cannot evaluate what we cannot see.
Professional Practice Goal
By June 2020, implement a comprehensive, district-wide approach to monitoring,
measuring, and improving student math outcomes.
Some progress
The
district now is using STAR and districtwide common assessments, which meets the
measuring portion of the goal. There was a bit of evidence shared with us of
the monitoring work: the monthly department head meetings would appear to be
that. There does not seem, from the evidence shared, to be larger monitoring
work being done by the administration or by schools; if it is, it has not been
demonstrated. Two curricula are now in use throughout the district; it is not
clear how this interacts with the district-wide approach called for in the
goal. The Committee is required to evaluate the superintendent based on
evidence presented; time logged into a program, as in the graphs given of
student time online, is not evidence in support of the goal.
As for improving math outcomes, a single year does not give us enough data to mark
a trend, but it is gravely concerning that, in the single academic data piece
shared with the Committee in the Superintendent’s evaluation, the average grade
equivalence for grades 7 and 8 actually fell, and fell significantly, between
the fall and winter measures. Of course, without a spring measure, it is
impossible to say if that trend would have continued this year. The mathematics
achievement of our middle school students have been of concern for some time;
in recent years, less than a quarter of our middle school students have met or
exceeded expectations on the two middle school years of mathematics MCAS.
District Improvement Goal 1
By June 2020, implement a district technology strategy that prioritizes and
supports student learning and achievement through increasing the digital
fluency skills of students, staff, and district administration.
Did not meet
At the time when we most needed a “district technology strategy,” we did
not have one. The district, and this administration, failed catastrophically.
The community was told back in October that the administration knew of the
major gaps in student access to online learning, and we were assured that the
work of the TechEquity committee would be coming forward with solutions that
were community based. Yet when schools closed in mid-March, the
administration’s only answer to work for students was to push work online and
mail out a single packet. Students went weeks without any access to an
education unless their families already had internet access and a device on
which to do work. Repeated and increasingly desperate calls from students,
parents, community members, and members of this Committee for this chasm to be bridged
were ignored, dismissed, and finally met with excuse after excuse that blamed
others.
There is simply no excuse for this. We had the technology, we had the
information, we had the resources, and we did not use them. That fault does not
lie with our teachers or with our families, but with the administration. This
was the year for the Worcester Public Schools to have a priority and support
for digital fluency, most particularly for students, and particularly with a
focus on equity.
The administration did not.
District Improvement Goal 2
By June 2020, identify and implement strategies to address social and emotional
needs that impact student school performance.
Some progress
A number of strategies have been identified by the district—various
trainings in collaborative problem solving and resiliency; the districtwide
stabilization team; internal review of disciplinary data—to address social and
emotional needs of students.
While the data shared on attendance and discipline was marginally improved over
last year, it is unclear how much of this work is reaching the classroom or if
the rates will continue to improve. There is a great deal of work to be done in
this matter, and it is the day-to-day classroom experience more than anything
that impacts student performance of all kinds. There also is much more to
social emotional learning that bringing up attendance and bringing down student
disciplinary rates; that is not in evidence in the Superintendent’s
self-evaluation or in evidence given to the Committee.
District Improvement Goal 3
By June 2020, develop a plan for staff recruitment and retention and implement
strategies that will increase access to well-qualified and diverse candidates.
Did not meet
The goal is for a plan; there has been no plan shared for staff
recruitment and retention. There has been minimal implementation of
strategies—an internal diversity committee, of which no details have been
shared; a pathway to teaching licensure for paraprofessionals, with a small
amount of information on staff involvement; the “Real Talk” group—with no data
shared as yet on the impact of those strategies.
Are we hiring well-qualified and diverse candidates? Are they staying? Without
actual data, we cannot judge the success or failure of these endeavors.
I echo the concerns expressed from the beginning on the Chief Diversity Officer
position. There is a well-documented history of such positions being created,
being given limited purview, receiving little to no backing from
administration, and being classified as a failure. I have great respect for Ms.
Perez, but she can do little unless Superintendent Binienda, as directed by
this Committee, sets this as a priority.
As yet, there is little evidence that this is the case.
District Improvement Goal 4
By June 2020, support the development of advanced and experiential learning
opportunities for students to develop intellectual agility, social acuity, and
personal agency.
Some progress
It is clear that the district administration has prioritized dual college
enrollment and the innovation pathways program. As was discussed during the
deliberation of the Student Opportunity Act plan, the degree to which this has
in fact extended such participation across the student body—most particularly
among traditionally less-reached groups of students such as those who are
learning English, are poor, or are students of color—is not clear and not
demonstrated in any evidence shared by the administration.
These are “advanced and experiential learning opportunities” of a kind. What is
not demonstrated through the evidence presented is the degree to which they
allow for students “to develop intellectual agility, social acuity, and
personal agency.” These are sophisticated things to assess, but they do require
some student data beyond signing up for and completing a class to be in
evidence. The Committee has not been provided with that information.
1 comment:
Dear Tracy, I am awestruck by the care, effort, and skillful language you have put into this report. Quite a bit of it reflects matters that have been on my mind for some time, but so much reveals problems I never thought about until today. Please keep listening to the voices of our community of all ages. Above all, keep listening to those speaking on behalf of young people whose potential has been least actualized by our school system. Thankful that you are on the case. Blessings, Nat
Post a Comment