State Board Delivers Low Marks on Sentance Job Evaluation, Discusses Draft ESSA Plan

The State Board of Education voted 6-2 Tuesday to accept the results of State Superintendent Michael Sentance’s performance evaluation, with Mary Scott Hunter (District 8) and Betty Peters (District 2) opposing. The vote followed an executive session as well as a heated debate about the fairness of the process.

The early evaluation of Sentance, who has not yet served a full year in the position, was called for by Board Vice President Stephanie Bell (District 3) and took place amid rumors and news reports that the board planned to terminate Sentance at the meeting.

Hunter voiced multiple objections to the timing and manner of the evaluation, but Bell frequently cut off her comments using the gavel. Bell maintained the timing of the evaluation was not unfair and explained the move was simply an effort to fulfill the terms of Sentance's contract.

Hunter also objected to the executive session that preceded discussion of the evaluation, saying, “The people’s business should be done in front of the people.” While it was unclear what would be discussed in executive session, the board’s outside counsel, Lewis Gillis of the Montgomery-based Means Gillis Law Firm, offered assurance that it was not to discuss the evaluation or any aspect of Sentance’s job performance. He indicated the session was permissible to discuss good name and character and potential ligation.

Gillis, who collected the individual responses and scored the results, presented the evaluation to the board following the executive session. The instrument covered five sections including 37 indicators ranked from one (needs improvement) to three (exceptional).

Multiple concerns were raised about the methodology used to tabulate the composite scores. While only seven of nine board members submitted an evaluation, a divisor of eight was used. Hunter, who abstained from participating and called the evaluation an “illegitimate process,” was included in the divisor, with her non-responses counted as zeros for each of the 37 indicators. Gov. Kay Ivey, who serves as president of the board by virtue of the office, also did not complete an evaluation. She was not included in the divisor.

After the meeting, Bell agreed to amend the scores to reflect a divisor of seven, and six on some questions after Cynthia McCarty (District 6) said she did not complete certain questions due to a lack of information. Ultimately, the changes only slightly increased Sentance’s performance scores which ranged from 1.28 to 2.07 on the revised instrument.

Sentance was invited to give the board his response to the evaluation at the next scheduled state board meeting August 10 in Montgomery.

According to Sentance’s contract, the board must give him “a reasonable time,” to address concerns following an unsatisfactory evaluation score. If improvements have not been made, his contract can be terminated for cause. His contract also could be terminated at any time by a majority vote of the board.

Every Student Success Act Plan

Earlier at the board’s work session, Sentance provided an overview of the draft Every Student Success Act plan that has been in development for over a year. He explained the draft plan includes recommendations made by the SDE’s strategic plan committees for science mathematics and reading, as well as the ESSA Implementation Committee formed under an executive order. Following board input, the plan will be sent to Gov. Ivey by Aug. 1 for her comments. The final plan will be presented for board approval at the Sept. 14 meeting and is due to be submitted to the U.S. Department of Education no later than Sept. 18.

Use of Outside Counsel Policies

Also during the work session, a committee comprised of board members Yvette Richardson (District 4), McCarty and Jeff Newman (District 7) presented recommended protocol for the use of outside legal counsel. They outlined three recommendations: an individual board member seeking legal guidance must first have that request vetted by the board’s vice president; items requiring a board vote must be submitted by the board’s vice president; and any routine legal documents not involving ligation must be sent to SDE staff attorneys.

Hunter asked about the billing rates of the outside attorneys and was told the rate is $300 an hour for firm partners and $225 an hour for associates. The board voted 7-1 to accept the committee’s recommendations, with Hunter opposing because of the billing rates. The board agreed to include billing rate concerns on next month’s work session agenda.

Next State Board Meeting and Work Session

The board’s next meeting will take place in Montgomery on Aug. 10 at 10 a.m., with a work session immediately following.

District Meetings: Whose Lane is it Anyway?