Attleboro Superintendent Evaluated, Given Contract Extension

Superintendent Dr. Pia Durkin received high marks from the school committee in her yearly evaluations and her contract was extended until June 2013.

Each committee member was asked to rate Durkin’s work on a scale of one to four in five categories: instruction and learning, personnel management, fiscal management, public engagement, and relationship with the school committee.

Durkin averaged a score of three overall in each of those categories, which is defined in the evaluation as meeting the standards and expectations of the goal areas.

Durkin’s lowest marks came from Brenda Furtado, Jim Stors and Teri Enegren. The three were the only members to score Durkin with a one or a two in multiple categories.

A score of one is defined as failing to meet standards; a score of two is defined as needed improvement and not fully meeting standards and expectations.

Issues With School Committee

Furtado gave Durkin scores of one in two sections of the five categories that were part of the personnel saying there was not enough information provided to score Durkin on her development of personnel practices and her establishment of staff evaluations.

Furtado also gave Durkin scores of one when rating her ability to keep school committee members informed on issues and her ability to present clear information at school committee meetings.

“There have been many instances that the committee receives important information at the last minute the night before the meeting where a vote must be taken,” Furtado said.

Stors also had issues with Durkin’s communication with the school committee, giving the superintendent a score of one in her ability to present annual goals and actions to accomplish agreed-upon priorities, her ability to execute the intent of Attleboro Public Schools policies, and her ability to seek, utilize and be open to constructive feedback.

“At times it does seem that the superintendent fails to understand that she works for the collective members of the school committee,” Stors said.

Stors indicated that there was a level mistrust between the superintendent and the committee stemming from inaccurate information regarding the Finberg rental contracts, though he did hope the relationship could be improved in the future.

Enegren also had issues with Durkin’s communication with the committee, saying “Information is never complete when requested. Members will receive minimal information when continuously asking for more.”

Praise for the Superintendent

On the other end of the spectrum, both Helen Johnson and Frances Zito gave Durkin scores of four in every category.

Johnson said she felt the superintendent had exceeded all expectations and called her “a powerful leader” adding that “If she was allowed to lead without malice we could even go further.”

“Our school system has made great progress on its way to excellence under her leadership,” Zito said.

“Some of our school committee has been less than cooperative on occasion and she manages to deal with situation with poise and dignity,” Zito said.

Durkin received the highest marks and most unanimous praise with regards to her fiscal management.

Durkin was praised for proposing a “transparent and lean” budget by Michael Levinson.

Additionally Stors commended her ability to seek out grants as well as business manager Marc Furtado’s ability to reduce costs and find ways to make the budget work.

However, Stors expressed the need for a long-term budget plan, saying “Dealing with a structural budget hole through concessions “Band-Aids” the problem, but never fixes it. If this is indeed permanent, then a permanent fix is required.”

Durkin was also given credit for improving the district’s MCAS scores, lowering the achievement gap of low income students, and improving the high school’s graduation rates.

However, some committee members saw room for further improvement. Stors said in his evaluation that the high school graduation rate was still too low at 82 percent, which was the state average.

“I don’t believe the state average is what we should be striving for,” Stors said.

Extension of Contract

The school committee ultimately voted to extend Durkin’s contract until June 2013, with Enegren and Furtado voted against the extension and Stors abstaining from the vote.

Prior to the Robert Hill raised the issue of Durkin’s application for the Lowell district’s superintendent position and said he felt “shocked and hurt” when it was made public that she had applied for a position outside of Attleboro.

This caused him to have reservations about her contract extension. “I definitely don’t want to be left in a lurch.”

“I would hate to think that that would be held against me,” Durkin said. “My commitment is to Attleboro.”

Durkin also responded to a few of the criticisms in her evolutions, saying that communication works two ways and much of the issues stem from misunderstandings.