Superintendent Maria Geryk listens to three School Committees evaluation of her
Last night the Regional School Committee, Pelham and Amherst School Committees and Union 26 sat in final judgement of Superintendent Maria Geryk's performance over the past school year. The final verdict was a good one. Mostly.
Overall they gave her a 3.08 out of 4 which is described as "proficient". But the document was quick to point out, "This is the rigorous expected level of performance."
Interestingly the Superintendent's lowest score, 2.8, came under "Management and Operations" which was probably negatively impacted by all the racial turmoil created in the wake of the Carolyn Gardner affair.
The joint committees voted 10-1 in favor of the condensed summary of 13 individual evaluations with only Amherst School Committee member Vira Douangmany Cage voting "No".
Ms. Cage had earlier asked why Pelham School Committee Chair Tara Luce -- an Amherst Regional School employee -- was allowed to evaluate her boss?
The Mass State Conflict of Interest law holds public officials to a very high standard and strongly suggests avoiding even the "appearance of a conflict."
Superintendent Geryk stated the School's attorney had looked at the situation when Luce was first elected and opined that as long as she did not vote on (her own) salary contract, it was not a conflict.
Currently Maria Geryk is the highest paid public employee in town with an annual salary of $158,000 plus $840 cell phone allowance and $10,000 for annuity/life insurance policy. She does not get a monthly car allowance.
25 comments:
Vira is poison.
That is a lot of money for public employee administrator - looks like a reward for great success. This could be a reflection of excess costs all around that could result in very high per student per year education costs.
Are the kids graduating locally really doing that much better than those from other towns or states?
Is she being evaluated based on a shear opinion of a few locals or on metrics from the students' educational effectiveness vs. those that have come from other institutions? Isn't there something like a common core standard for evaluating those in this position so it does not fall down to a few questionable opinions.
I ask because I have not heard one good thing about this woman, especially here on this blog, yet she gets a 75% positive rating. Why does her public reputation not match her performance review and how does a community address this?
Anon 9:59 AM
Some people think Anon commenters are poison.
Why not both?
Vira is divisive, self-serving and an opportunist. She has displayed such behavior since the beginning of her "victimization routine" around the CG incident. She cashed in on the whole deal just like Carolyn.
how does the survey by parents/guardians impact the evaluation? At all? Was it (another) waste of time? will that data ever see the light of day?
When you call 911 to report a fire or other emergency you do not expect the Dispatcher to say "Oh, you're the divisive, self-serving opportunist looking to cash in ..."
A fact is a fact is a fact. I agree with her that Pelham School Committee Chair Tara Luce should recuse herself from evaluating her boss.
The main purpose of the school committee is to hire/fire/evaluate superintendent (and to recommend a budget).
No SC member should recuse him/her self from this important duty.
Pioneer Valley-ites use the conflict-of-interest card way too much. Get over it.
What was the purpose of the survey (SI and SC) by parents/guardians? Will the results ever see the light of day? How will we know how the consumers evaluate the SI and SC?
On one side you could say an employee evaluation could be used to gain or loose favor with a corrupt boss, but not a worthy public employee supervisor.
I would suggest that if the community feels that a boss cannot be evaluated by en employee, that the boss is already not worth evaluating, should be let go because folks do not trust her. But if you don't trust her with properly treating direct employees, how can you trust her to make grand decisions about your children, who are far more precious than this employee to most? Thus, it is good that the employee can evaluate, it shows that to date, the community does trust the boss who they are already trusting with their kids and would either way.
On another side there are few others in as good of position to evaluate the person in question. Would it not make sense to have the employee evaluate and have the evaluation be anon (yikes bad word here)? Even better, could the evaluation be done by vote of citizens, since they are the ones being served? They can vote on pay too...
Or better yet, base the evaluation on something we can measure, like efficiency of the spending of community funds vs. performance or job placement of past students and take much of the human emotional, side taking element out of it. You can tie the pay to this too and really watch the kids succeed. Slaves used to die at a rate of 50% or more on trade ships until a bright Catholic priest got the idea to only pay for slaves that arrived alive and ready to work, then they just about all arrived alive. Incentive is so effective. If all she has to do is win favor of 4 people (or only 3) easy peasy.
The members of the school committee theoretically represent not only the parents but the taxpayers. You had someone who was both -- Catherine Sanderson -- and you didn't stand up for her and now you don't have her.
The Ed Reform law (mistakenly) presumed that a School Committee would be willing to fire a Superintendent if the schools weren't excellent in all manners, and that is why so much power was otherwise removed from the School Committee -- so that the Superintendent had the ability to "sink or swim." No one ever imagined that instead the School Committees would turn their one remaining power into a rubber stamp...
Things will continue downhill until (a) Maria G does something *so* outrageous that she finally crashes & burns, or (b) you get a majority of the School Committee(s) being people willing to objectively (and disinterestedly) do their jobs.
Believe it or not Maria's salary is on par with all the other schools in western Mass. They all make about or above what she makes. If you get rid of her, you'll end up with another problem. Few of these people are actually good at what they do. Just look at what preceded her. She's simply a lousy manager but then again most of these people are striving for the degree to get the job, not necessarily to be good at it. Easier for the town to put up with her than get rid of her. As long as she scores anything above a 1 out of 4 she'll stay, or until some one gets wind of a person who might fit the Amherst bill. And look at the bonus, you get to read social posts by her wacko husband.
I was trying to work him into the article but then thought better of it.
Because I do at times find myself thinking, "At least we don't pay him for those social media contributions."
"Easier for the town to put up with her than get rid of her. As long as she scores anything above a 1 out of 4 she'll stay, or until some one gets wind of a person who might fit the Amherst bill. And look at the bonus, you get to read social posts by her wacko husband."
Fkin nailed it Walter.
~Nailed~ it!
-Squeaky Squeaks
Is it a 75% grade, that is a C? or a 3.0, a B?
I want an A+ superintendent but will settle for an A.
A community of D minuses think they deserve an A plus super, now that is funny. Good bet 6:09 bought his house for $1.00 from his mother.
Whatever would I do without my sagacious, humorous Anons?
Three cheers for Maria! She's done a fine job despite the constant negative chatter from this blog's blowhards. One of which doesn't even live here.
last year the district released the individual evaluations the SC members did on the superintendent after the SC meeting which approved the summary evaluation. Will the district be doing the same these year?
I don't see how a district employee, Tara Luce, can feel free to be totally honest and truthful in her public evaluation of the superintendent unless it is glowing all round. The district has had numerous employees leave not of their own volition and with few public details ever released. Plus, if you criticize the superintendent, you can unleash the wrath of her spouse.... which could definitely make one think twice about saying anything critical publicly, even if you job wasn't potentially at stake.
I am glad that the issue of Ms. Luce serving on the SC and the potential conflicts of interest are now being looked at further.
Anyone looking into Vira's conflict of interest in discussing and voting on matters related to the NAACP? She is a member of the NAACP and her husband is the vice president.
Sounds like you already looked into it.
All I did was state some facts. Does anyone care?
I think the conflict would come if the Regional School Committee voted to go into official "mediation" with the NAACP, which they did not.
You shouldn't be so hard on yourself...
The bottom line is that the school committee is patting itself on the back for hiring such a well loved Super.
But here is the truth, Geryk should have to prove herself every day she is on the job. Most objective observations show her to be:
1) a mediocre administrator;
2) fiscally incompetent
3) politically savvy
Other objective measures show that the schools under her direction are slumping toward mediocrity. Almost nothing she does is an inspiration to anyone EXCEPT those whom she showers with fat salaries.
A couple of questions:
If she is as good as her reviewers say, would any other town hire Maria Geryk to be superintendent of their town's schools?
If the answer is yes, then perhaps there is merit in those comments giving her high approval ratings.
My guess is that no municipality of any consequence would hire a Super with so few skills and such a poor track record.
3 out of 4 may not be bad but in school, it's merely average.
Post a Comment