Hamlet’s grade after his first year in charge of Pittsburgh Public Schools: ‘proficient’
In its first major review of Anthony Hamlet, the board of the Pittsburgh Public Schools found that the superintendent was “proficient” in five major areas and awarded him a $10,000 bonus.
The six-page evaluation completed in June was received through a Right-To-Know Law request by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. The bonus, plus an annual raise of $6,300 — both written into his contract for meeting performance goals — brings Mr. Hamlet’s total compensation to $216,300.
Nothing in the document defined what “proficient” means, though, and school district solicitor Ira Weiss said the “scale” by which Mr. Hamlet was judged was confidential.
But in an interview, school board President Regina Holley explained that Mr. Hamlet’s presentation to the board, and a series of responses to its questions, could have landed him overall in one of four categories: Distinguished, Proficient, Needs Improvement or Failure. It’s the same scale used for all district employees, she said, and “proficient” means “that he’s doing well, and he can do better.”
“I tell that to my teachers, as well,” said Ms. Holley, a former principal. “’You are doing a fabulous job, but I am giving you an achievable stretch.’ ... To get to a ‘distinguished’ mark, you will be able to see that this person has
done many marvelous things. [Mr. Hamlet] has done some marvelous things. I’m going to give [him] that achievable stretch.”
Mr. Hamlet’s presentation to the board centered on how he completed his 90-day transition plan. Board members received copies of his responses to their questions, then each individually scored him on a 1-3 scale, with 3 being the highest score he could receive in a particular category. The board then sent its remarks and scores in a sealed envelope to an outside agency that tallied the number and assembled the comments, Ms. Holley said.
Those numbers led to the “proficient” designation, though the district wouldn’t elaborate on the total score.
“He scored pretty well. Our scores were generally around the same number,” Ms. Holley said, emphasizing it was first time she could recall all nine board members participating in the process. “I think it was more than rigorous.”
The board examined what he accomplished in each of the five sections of his entry plan: governance team (essentially how well he’s working with the board), student achievement and supports, central office efficiency and alignment, business operations and finance, and community engagement.
It also reviewed whether he accomplished the goals the entry plan was created to address:
• Ensure a successful transition of leadership that is effective and efficient, with the long-term outcome of delivering equity and access to high-quality education for all students.
• Create opportunities for all constituents to be heard as we engage in Districtwide school improvement.
• Foster a culture of productive collaboration that is built on trust and inclusion.
• Evaluate systems within the Pittsburgh Public Schools.
• Provide the Board with recommendations/key findings based on observation, research and feedback from school-based and community outreach and lay the groundwork for development of a five-year strategic plan.
Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Hamlet declined an interview, but Ms. Holley said “he wanted to know what things we could do to improve” during a retreat with the board this summer.
“We had conversations around those numbers and around some of the comments. Everyone wants to be distinguished,” she said, adding that he asked, ‘How do I get to that level?’
Ms. Holley is more circumspect about that part, including where he needs improvement and what she wants to see him focus on this school year. “I won’t say that,” she said. “I think [the public needs] to know that we have identified him as proficient in each of those areas.”
A line in the superintendent’s own contract might have been another reason the stand-alone evaluation didn’t have many details — and why other board members were reluctant to discuss it.
A provision of the agreement states this evaluation “shall at all times be conducted in closed session and shall considered confidential to the extent permitted by the law and with the input of the superintendent.”
Melissa Melewsky, an attorney for the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association, said the Pennsylvania School Code “provides very little insight into superintendent performance. Details are not required.”
It “requires the school to announce the evaluation criteria and whether the superintendent met those criteria in the annual review. Simply listing the criteria and saying ‘met’ or ‘did not meet’ would suffice, but they could certainly add additional detail.”
A year-one review of a superintendent inherently has its limitations, said District 8 school board member Kevin Carter, who said he “was not necessarily the biggest fan” of the evaluation process.
Mr. Hamlet spent a lot of his first year making hires, learning about the district and crafting a strategic plan, Mr. Carter said, calling it a “exploratory” period.
Mr. Hamlet got off to a rocky start after questions arose about whether he had inflated his record as a school adminstrator in Florida, but he nonetheless started as superintendent in Pittsburgh on July 1, 2016.
Mr. Hamlet told the board he won’t take his full salary increase until the district reaches a new contract agreement with teachers. Negotiations are underway.