iekliffe City Schools: ADMINISTRATIVE EVALUATION FORM Name:_Ms. Vicki Wheatley Position helé: High Schoo Principal Dale of FINAL Evaluation; 10/12/09 ‘The criteria and accompanying descriptions for the performance evaluation of administrators inthe Wieklife City Schools are listed below. ‘The evaluator, Kathleen Cinavey, Ph.D., has circled the rating number foreach eategory below, then she provided written comments. The following scale is used for the Likert ratings: ‘exceeds expectations ‘occasionally exceeds expectations ‘meets postion requirements needs improvement unsatisfactory 1. “Analyzing Situations" This administrator is skilled in challenge solving and demonstrates this ability by using sound judgment, logical thinking, creativity and imagination Additional research is conducted as needed. Potential outcomes are taken into consideration prior to decision making. Decisions are made within the context of what is best for students within the context of state and federal laws, mandstes, and guidance, se well az Wickliffe City Schools Board adopted policy. 4 3 2 1 Comments: ‘The following directives under Ms. Vicki Wheatley illustrate her disregard for sound judgment made within the contest of state and federal laws, mandates, and guidance, as well as Wickliffe City Schools Board adopted policy: 1. The transcripts indicate credit cared by multiple students who do not have an HEP for “work study” program where students received credit for non-cuveular work experience. This was nt state or locally sanctioned: Credits were earned for showing a paycheck with no authorized class attended. Guidance counselors indicated they were directed by Ms. Wheatley to collect pay stubs and oversee {his illegal course. 2. Per Ms, Whestie’s direction, multiple students with dssilties eamed credit for tutoring under the {tie of support eventhough tis was not an approved course. This enabled some students to graduate even though credit should not have been given and they did not have the eredits needed to graduate. 3. Ms, Wheatley set up the transcripts. “Support” on student's transcrip indicate they have an IEP, Having en IEP i to be kept confidential 4.Ms. Wheatley directed the graduation parameters, contrary to board policy. Students have graduated without the needed 21 credits. 5, Phantom course credit has been given, for example students’ Academic History shows an attempt of 3 ‘credits and six credits are listed as eared. 6. Under Ms, Wheatley’s direction, several students with an IEP were given multiple credits during a 42 minute period, The Camegie Credit Unit requires 120 clock hours in a classroom per yearlong course. 7, EMIS codes ordered by Ms. Wheatley were fraudulent when the teacher of record was actually a {guidance counselor but the code for community college or carer technical education was used 8, Ms. Wheatley directed that al students were sted a “excused” absent or tardy until it was proven they were unexcused or cutting in droct violation of state rules, therefore falsifying accurate HS attendance 9. Ms, Wheatley periodically ordered duty monitors to substitute teach. They were not board approved to substitute, Her assistant principal verified this practice and indeed said she directed hm o proceed in his manner. Some of them do no have four year degrees 10, Multiple students were granted “waivere® for meeting hoard approved graduation requirements under Ms, Wheatiey's direction tothe guidance counselors. Some ofthe waivers were for local requirements. For some students, they would not have met the required 19 credits by the Ohio Department of Education without the waivers. The Board of Education was never informed of this illegal practice. 1, During the opening week of school 2008, over 130 students did not have a schedule. They satin the vflice ordre cafeteria until they were had scheduled, Ms. Wheatley attributed ths to “pressing the wrongtouton." ‘The night prior to the fist day of school, she ought the help of another principal and she went home, directing him to clean up the problems which he was notable to resolve. 12, Every building in Ohio should have an Intervention Assistance Team (IAT) in place to work with students and parents to create approaches to help them be more successful educationally and socially. During Ms. Wheatley's tenure as principal the IAT did not exist until it was directed tothe assistant principal to implement it this past winter. 13, When the interim principal arved mid uly 2008, work had not been done onthe master schedule ‘Numerous problems existed. She had to build the schedule and cleanup non HQT assignment. 14, Ms. Wheatley sanctioned awarding more credits for some students than they attempted, as Fofleted in their academic records, This ation i improper, unprofessional and ha che potential to jeopardize state and federal funding, and expose the distrit to costly litigation, ‘After the 2008-10 school year started, it was brought to the superintendents attention that regular ‘education students participated in a“work study" program created by Ms. Wheatley. Students were _granied upto 6 Camegle Units of credit fr their pancipation in “work stay.” Only special edveation students (IEP) hada program with a work study coordinator and a curiculum. The students who did not have an IEP brought pay stubs to the wo guidance counselors s proof they Were working. In exchange they left school early and were awarded credit. The OWE program had been discontinued years earlier for ‘nom IEP students. The work study couse was listed on the course selection sheet through the curent school year. It was assigned cours codes 961 and 963. Course code 963 doesnot exist inthe couse master. Ms, Wheatley’s “work study” program for regutar education students had no curriculum, no course of study, and ithad not been adopted by the board of education. It was not listed inthe Student Handbook or in the Course Description Guide, both adopted board documents. It was not sanctioned, Among the students who have ths listed on ther transcripts inthe class of 2009, three ofthe regular ‘education students would not have had the credits neaded to graduate, For the class of 2008, ons of the regular education students would not have had the 21 credits needed to graduate. This improper graduation practice continued through the clas of 2004, the year Ms, Wheatley became High Schoo! principal ‘The guidance counselors met withthe “work study” regular education students. They re not certified ‘Uwe teachers yet they granted the credit. EMIS fraud was employed by assigning “Staff L” as the teacher of record, or community college/Career Technical Education teacher. Furthermore, in reviewing transcripts, forthe class of 2008, one student attempted 3 credits for course 963, “individual work study TIF” but se earned 6 credits. Another student attempted one credit for course 261 “individual work study” and she eamed two credits. At least two students were listed as “attempting” less amount of credit hours than what they were awarded, according to their Academic History log. When the guidance counselors were questioned on te rationale behing this, they had no memory or explanation for thi, but agreed it should not have been. This was another improper and unethical practice In essence, Ms. Wheatley created a “phantom” course for regular education students with no teacher assigned, no course of study, ete. They were afforded a credit fr # non existent course while students ‘with an TEP had a course that met requirements, Additonaly, transcripts should not cary indications thet student as an TEP. The tuenseripts under Ms. Wheatley contained “support” as a credit eaming course ‘which indicates that each student who had this “course” also had an LEP, This undermines the federal mandate for confidentiality associated with students who have an identified disability. ‘The fact is these directed practices are highly improper, regardless of Ms. Wheatley's belief that she ‘was merely continuing an existing district procedure. These practices constitute educational fraud. ‘There is no evidence that Ms. Wheatley took corrective steps to eliminate these practices. Itis the Principal's duty to uphold graduation requirements. This conduct illustrates a complete failure to perform this basie aspect of duty as Principal. 2. “Organizational Enhancement” This administrator is a cooperative and willing participant in the evaluation, development, and planning of procedures, standards, guidelines, and polices which promote the effective implementation of organizational goals, He/she understands that personal