Peoria Public Schools Superintendent Ken Hinton’s employment contract comes up for renewal at Monday night’s school board meeting. No doubt it will be approved. But how good of a job do you think he’s doing?

Hinton’s current (2007-2008) contract includes some specific performance goals for the 2007-2008 School Year. They are included in “Addendum B.”

ADDENDUM B
Superintendent’s Goals
2007-2008 School Year

1. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
   1. Increase the percentage of students making AYP and decrease the number of schools not making AYP
   2. Complete and implement the Restructuring Plan for Manual High School
   3. Identify what the Achievement Gap is in District 150 and develop strategies to address the gap as it pertains to race and class
   4. During the year, put together a team to address the over-identification of minority students and delivery of service for special education
   5. Put a team together and implement strategies to improve the academic performance, programs and structures of the high schools
2. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
   1. Meet budget projections to stay on target for balancing the budget
3. QUALITY STAFF
   1. Develop a performance based evaluation instrument for central and building administrators
4. SAFE, CARING ENVIRONMENTS
   1. Develop a plan for the Board and achieve community consensus for an alternative school
5. CULTURE OF CUSTOMER SERVICE
   1. Develop for all staff a series of professional development opportunities on improving customer service
   2. Develop a communications plan to improve the District’s image in the community

Obviously, I would have no way of knowing if he’s met all of these goals since several of them deal with the internal workings of the district. Nevertheless, since he’s a public servant (and the highest paid one in Peoria, City Councilman Bill Spears reminded us recently), I think it’s fair for the public that pays his salary to assess him on the basis of what we do know.

So, starting at the top (1.1), has the percentage of students making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) increased in the 2007-2008 school year? Well, we don’t know yet, because school test results generally come out in the fall. However, those test results are public information once they are released, so we can look at past performance. From 2005 to 2007, the percentage of students meeting and exceeding standards has indeed increased a little each year:

Even though the overall scores are up, in order for the district to meet AYP, “they must achieve the goals in all eight of the sub groups – White, African-American, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, LEP, Students with Disabilities and Economically disadvantaged,” according to District 150 Director of Research Bryan Chumbley at the Sept. 17, 2007, school board meeting.

Mr. Chumbley reported on the progress of the District, we did not make AYP for the fourth consecutive year. Five out of eight subgroups are making AYP in reading and 7 out of 8 subgroups are making AYP in mathematics. The district saw modest increases in five subgroups in reading and modest increases in seven subgroups in math.

What about the second part of that goal? Has the number of schools not making AYP decreased? Well, yes, but not because the schools started making AYP. Rather, it’s because the school board has simply been closing failing schools. This year, they closed Loucks (which hasn’t been meeting AYP), so voila! The number of schools not making AYP decreases by one. Quite an ingenious way of meeting that part of the goal.

Goal 1.2 has to do with the Manual High School restructuring plan. That’s been completed and implemented, so that goal is met.

If Hinton has done anything about goals 1.3 through 1.5, it must all be internal, since I’ve seen no information on those items being reported in the press, and I’ve heard of no call to the public to be involved on any of the teams he’s tasked with putting together.

Goal 2 regards fiscal responsibility. Because of a projected loss of $1.4 million in revenue, Hinton had to come up with a way to “meet budget projections.” He decided to do it by (1) closing Loucks Edison, (2) cutting the school day for primary students, and (3) delaying the purchase of new school buses.

Goal 3 is also internal.

Regarding goal 4, is anyone aware of any plan or “community consensus” for an alternative school? I can’t find anything using the terminology of “alternative school,” but perhaps this goal is being met by Hinton’s research into charter schools or a math/science academy for the Renaissance Park area. Still, even if there is some study or planning going on, there’s certainly no “community consensus.”

Ah, goal 5, a “culture of customer service.” One of the things that has gotten lumped under here over the past year is the Pacific Institute training. Freedom of Information Act requests also get reported under this heading at each school board meeting. But it’s clear that Hinton has created no communications plan at all, let alone one that “improve[s] the District’s image in the community.”

And that last point is Hinton’s biggest downfall. If there were better communication, if parents felt like their concerns were seriously being considered, and if a spirit of collaboration existed between the board, the administration, and the parents, I think most of any superintendent’s weak points could be looked upon with more grace. But when parents are treated like adversaries, they start acting like adversaries. No one wins in that scenario; and the ones who suffer the biggest loss are the children.

So, let’s see that communication plan, Mr. Hinton. And please give it to us directly — not through the press. Direct talks would be a really good first step.