No raise for Superintendent of Schools after annual evaluation
Superintendent of Schools Dr. Kimberly Shaver-Hood “needs improvement,” according to her annual evaluation by the School Committee.
Made public at the committee’s November 15 meeting, the evaluation involves each committee member giving her a 1-100 numerical “grade” and making written comments on her job performance.
The average score of 76.83 puts Shaver-Hood in the “needs improvement” category. It was the result of five individual scores ranging from 63.45 (“unsatisfactory”) to 88.10 (“proficient”).
Last year the superintendent received 82.4 out of 100. In 2017, she got 83, and in 2016, she received 85. The previous grades put the superintendent in the “proficient” category, which earned her contractually obligated raises, while this year’s “needs improvement” rating means she will get no salary increase.
Shaver-Hood currently makes $166,416 per year.
Chair Michael Flaherty said the rating should be looked at as “room to grow and improve.”
“As a Chairman of the Wareham School Committee it has been my duty to be a witness to much of the work that the rest of the School Committee never sees: The immeasurable hours, the middle of the night emails, the judgment calls, and the ability to maintain dignity when under constant scrutiny whether merited or not,” Flaherty said.
Shaver-Hood was present at the November 15 meeting and was given an opportunity to comment on the evaluation, but declined to do so.
Flaherty shared quotes from each of the written evaluations, without saying which member wrote which comments.
“Unfortunately, all the initiatives that the superintendent has put in the district have not encouraged students to stay, and many of these initiatives are not accessible to average or struggling students,” wrote one committee member. “I do believe that the superintendent has good intentions for the students. However, it has not produced the student drive that I would have hoped to see.”
Another comment noted that the school lacks a business manager, which led the superintendent to take that role upon herself, which has added “many extra hours of work” to her schedule.
“I think it is important to note that fact in her evaluation. I appreciate that she reached out to the budget advisory subcommittee on many occasions to share relevant information and ask for direction,” said the evaluation.
Committee member Mary Morgan expressed concern with the superintendent’s style of management, saying that many school employees have left the district because of a hostile environment and overwhelming amount of work.
“I do believe the superintendent has good intentions for students,” Morgan repeated from her evaluation. “I also fully disagree with her leadership style, and I believe we have lost a lot of good people because of it.”
“Four people have left the business office since last year. One resigned and three were terminated,” she said. “One of these employees has been with the district for over 20 years. . . There have been five Middle School principals, three Decas principals, three special education directors, two transportation directors, four food service directors, one of whom resigned mid-year.”
Morgan said none of the former administrators wanted her to disclose their names due to the fear of retaliation.