Evaluating the Eval

Sharon Thomas received 2 evaluations prior to her being fired as the D11 superintendent. Her firing is cited as one of the reasons that the group "Chaos" wishes to recall Sandy Shakes and Eric Christen. While never listing any of Thomas's accomplishments or proposed actions to improve D11, Chaos members have said that the firing was wrong because it cost the D11 taxpayers just over $400,000. This monetary loss to the District was a result of a Golden Parachute that was voted into Thomas's contract by ex-Board members Karen Teja, Dave Linebaugh, and Mary Wierman. Shakes voted with those 3 at the time, but quickly discovered that Thomas could have played a lead role in "The Emperor's New Clothes." She brought nothing of value to the District.

As noted in a previous post, Shakes tried to get the mid-year evaluation process off the ground in December 2005. Board President John Gudvangen refused to allow this evaluation to occur, and Thomas herself complained that it was not fair to evaluate her at this point. It was also noted in an earlier post (Oh, is that the reason?) that Thomas agreed to evaluation metrix in a letter to Shakes, but then publicly complained about never receiving any evaluation metrix.

The Colorado Association of School Boards (CASB) was hired to assist D11 in its superintendent search after past superintendent Norm Ridder took a job in Missouri. CASB was hired against the votes of myself, Christen, and Willie Breazell. CASB claimed that it could conduct a thorough search for $32,000. The CASB representative claimed that CASB could provide D11 with top notch candidates even though the Board had a reputation for being contentious. I had proposed using a local search firm which was in the business of conducting international searches for CEO's. This search would have been conducted at no cost to the District, but that offer was rejected by the D11 Board majority.

CASB only returned 9 finalists to D11. This was a very poor search that was anything but thorough. CASB issued a litany of excuses for their sub-par performance, one of which was a "contentious board," the exact issue that CASB promised that it would overcome. CASB not only failed in its superintendent recruitment efforts, but it also failed in its contractual follow-up. As part of its contract, CASB was to assist D11 with setting goals for the new superintendent. The following is from a memorandum that CASB provided to the D11 Board:

CASB never followed through with this performance plan meeting. Its efforts were a very wasteful failure. Despite CASB's failure to perform its job, Thomas did acknowledge that she was in receipt of evaluation criteria for her first year on the job:

Thomas understood the criteria, and she and her supporters claimed that Thomas was the perfect match for D11. Thomas had worked both as a D11 employee and as legal counsel for the District. As noted in the Colorado Springs Independent:

As for Thomas holding onto her job, some community observers give her good odds. "She can hit the ground running," said Mary Ellen McNally, Chairwoman of Friends of District 11. "[Getting fired] is not even on her list of problems."

McNally is now one of the recall leaders, and she now claims that Thomas "never had a chance to get to know the district."

Thanks to McNally and her friends at Chaos, there is a perception in the community that Thomas was only evaluated poorly by Shakes, Christen, Breazell, and me. Let's see if that is the case. Thomas made it very clear that she wanted to have every aspect of her evaluation open to the public. She went so far as to make an Open Records request for all Board member correspondence regarding her performance. Below is the open records, or CORA, request from Thomas:

All members of the Board of Education,
As the Custodian of Records for the District, I am notifying you that I have received a Records Request from Superintendent Dr. Thomas as follows:
1. Copies of all e-mails and other written communications between two or more Board members relating to her
a. performance as superintendent generally, b. 2005-06 mid-year performance evaluation, or remediation plan, or, c. selection or longevity as District 11's superintendent.
To clarify, this request includes all written communications in which one or more of these topics is addressed or discussed. The relevant time period is March 1, 2005 through February 15, 2006.
2. All written communications as are described in paragraph 1 immediately above that occur after February 15, 2006, be preserved.
3. In addition, this is to serve as a request that all e-mails and other written communications between any Board member and any other person relating to her
a. performance as superintendent generally, b. 2005-06 mid-year performance evaluation, or remediation plan, or, c. selection or longevity as District 11's superintendent.
4. All written communications as are described in paragraph 3 immediately above that occur after February 15, 2006 be preserved.
This request is two fold.
1. Written communications and e-mails that you have as described above from March 1, 2005 through February 15, 2006, please send to me prior to Wednesday February 22, 2006. Paper copies may be delivered to the Board's office in the Administration building or the District's Records Management Center. E-mails may be forwarded to me at keydl@d11.org.
If you do not have any records responsive to this request it is imperative that you reply to this e-mail stating so prior to Wednesday February 22, 2006.
2. From February 15, 2006, until notified otherwise by myself, all written communications and e-mails received as described above are to be preserved by you.
If you have any questions or would like assistance in this process please feel free to reply to this e-mail or give me a call at 520-2075.
Deb Key, Custodian of Records Archives and Records Center Colorado Springs School District 11 719-520-2079

The employee evaluation system in D11 allows for one of 4 ratings in several different categories. As can be seen on the below evaluations, these ratings are "Unsatisfactory," "Progressing," "Proficient," and "Advanced." Keep in mind that Thomas was making a CEO salary of $170,00 per year plus benefits, which launced her cost to the District to approximately $262,00 per year. One would expect that a CEO making that type of salary would "hit the ground running" to earn many more Proficient and Advanced ratings than Unsatisfactory or Progressing ratings. New teachers begin their careers as student teachers. They also begin new jobs in new districts as probationary teachers. When one hires a Chief Executive, such as a superintendent, there should be a very high threshold of expected performance.

The following is a roll-up of the final evaluations from all Board members:

Out of a possible 147 individual ratings (7 Board members X 21 categories), Thomas received 56 Unsatisfactory ratings and 46 Progressing. She was found to be below average in 102 of 147 possible ratings by 7 Board members. Further, the next chart shows Board of Education & Superintendent relation indicators.

Out of 35 possible ratings (7 BOE members X 5 categories), Thomas received 20 Unsatisfactory ratings. She only received 2 Excellent ratings.

After reviewing the evaluation of Thomas, the question about the purpose of the recall becomes very interesting. Why would any board retain a low performing superintendent like this? Was the Golden Parachute a waste of money? Of course it was, and the board members who were responsible for that should be held to account and Thomas should immediately return those funds. Sadly, as the performance evaluation makes clear, more harm would have fallen upon D11 by allowing Thomas to remain with the District. She would have continued to draw a large salary that she was not earning, and she would have continued to harm morale.

Why is it that the Chaos group is so upset over the removal of a superintendent with this type of an evaluation? Why do they want to have this type of person leading an organization with the major task of educating kids?