Winston Brooks' glowing evaluation.

In a largely secret process, the
Albuquerque Public Schools
Board of Education, just finished
evaluating APS Superintendent,
Winston Brooks.

The process was tainted
from its inception.

If the evaluation of the
superintendent is good,
the school board looks good.
If the evaluation is bad, the school board looks bad.
The inherent appearance of a conflict of interest is undeniable.

In effect, they are evaluating themselves.

A few years ago, the Council of the Great City Schools audited the APS. They found that "... administrative evaluations are subjective and unrelated to promotion or step placement ..."

objective; not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased

subjective; placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.

They found administrators being promoted and raised according to a bunch of good ol' boys sitting around a table and concluding that another good ol' boy is doing an OK job, so let's give him a raise.

Nothing has changed. This was another conclusion reached by auditors; the leadership of the APS routinely ignores audit findings and doesn't change policies to reflect audit findings.

If you examine the instrument used by the board, link, you will no objective data gathering as part of the process; just board members sitting around congratulating each other on their great appointment. The conflict of interest is a clear and compelling violation of their own supposed Code of Ethical Conduct; a code that by their own admission is completely and utterly unenforceable.

There was not, nor will there ever be, any independent evaluation of the Superintendent. Board Member Paula Maes "... will never agree to any audit ..." that individually addresses the conduct and competence of any administrator, especially her pick for superintendent.

The evaluation reflects the opinions of no one except those who hired him. It did not include even the mention of subordinate evaluations; a truly accurate and important indicator of successful leadership.

The glowing evaluation of the Superintendent comes, conveniently, two weeks before the Bond Issue and Mill Levy elections.

With the evaluation came a contract extension until 2013. His salary will continue at the reported $250,000 per year. I suspect the salary report is being low-balled; his compensation package is likely closer to $300,000. The Journal reports, and I recollect, the number is $276K. It is, of course, not posted on their fancy new website. I'll follow up; I have emailed Rigo Chavez and asked for the whole truth.

Bottom line; should the School Board evaluate their superintendent? of course they should.

Should that be the only evaluation? of course not.




photo Mark Bralley