AI-generated transcript of Medford School Committee Subcommittee 03-27-23

[Sharon Hays]: Please be advised that on Monday, March 27th, 2023, from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m., there will be an evaluation subcommittee meeting to be held through a remote participation via Zoom. The meeting can be viewed through Medford Community Media on Comcast Channel 15 and Verizon Channel 45 at 5 p.m. Since the meeting will be held remotely, participants can log in or call by using Oh, she's logging in now, okay. Using the Zoom link or the call-in number. Medford Public Schools invites you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Do I read off the Zoom address?

[Jenny Graham]: You can just read one of the phone numbers and the password. Okay, thank you.

[Sharon Hays]: Thanks. Okay, so the meeting ID is 95295170069. and you can call the number 1-305-224-1968. Questions or comments can be submitted during the meeting by emailing shayes at medford.k12.ma.us. Those submitting questions must include the following information. One, your first name and last name. Two, your Medford Street address. And three, your question or comment. Let's see, memorandum as approved by the committee on February 1st, 2023, the evaluation subcommittee will meet to review and develop the process for the 2022-23 superintendent evaluation as an agenda. As approved by the evaluation subcommittee on Thursday, February 16, 2023, the subcommittee will meet to, one, discuss the template options for the superintendent evaluation and select one for this year, and two, discuss instructions to provide members to complete their individual evaluations of the superintendent using the template. So let's see. Oh, okay. So Melanie, so member McLaughlin is on. She may not, she's with us, but she may not be able to speak. So first on our agenda is to look at some template options for the superintendent evaluation. And I was able to get the, if I can. Member Hays, I think you just need to call the roll. Oh, I apologize. Correct. Okay. Member Graham? Here. Member Hays? Here. Member McLaughlin is here. Here.

[Marice Edouard-Vincent]: She will comment on chat. She doesn't have a good signal.

[Sharon Hays]: Got it. I did hear a very long, slow here, so she is here. Okay. Thank you. I have, if I can remember how to share my screen, an editable PDF version of the DESE template for the superintendent evaluations.

[Unidentified]: And I am not sure how to do that. Oh, dear. I see a green button at the bottom of your screen.

[Sharon Hays]: Okay, I hope I have the right. Okay, hold on. I have a number of screens open.

[Marice Edouard-Vincent]: It might be better to close some of the other screens and keep the one that you want to have open and then that it makes it very simple to share.

[Sharon Hays]: Okay, thank you. All right, let me work on that.

[Unidentified]: I apologize, still working on learning all of this. All right, let's see if this works. Can everyone see it?

[Sharon Hays]: Yes, perfect. Okay, thank you. All right, so this is the DESI template, and it's pretty straightforward. I can scroll through and just show you in terms of, you know, text boxes can be typed into, type their name correctly, but, and it has the nice checkboxes for giving the ratings.

[Unidentified]: Again. checkboxes, provides spaces for comments.

[Sharon Hays]: It's interesting, I didn't realize this, but they actually put in there that comments are recommended for any rating, but are required for anything other than proficient. So again, then it has the performance goals and You know, I would fill those in and individual members would check off their ratings. For these, we would be able to just check off which one of these we chose as the focus indicators. And then again, the members would give their ratings, check off and write a commentary down there. And this same form gets used when we do the compiled, I'm losing the word right now, when we put them all together into the final summative compiled, just a different word. So, I mean, it's pretty easy to use. I did send it to one other member and just asked them to try it out and make sure they could check off the boxes, fill in the comments, and they were able to do that.

[Jenny Graham]: Can I just ask a quick question?

[Sharon Hays]: Sure.

[Jenny Graham]: Does this contain everything, or does it just contain the things that we have decided should be on our list?

[Sharon Hays]: I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I mean, this is the complete DESE version of, you know, a number of school districts around here. I looked, used this. In fact, this was the most common one I found. So when you, I guess, which things are you, I mean, it has- No, you know, we picked certain indicators, right?

[Jenny Graham]: Like we said, you know, in each category, there's like one or two indicators.

[Sharon Hays]: Right, so that's, let's see, down here. But this form has everything.

[Jenny Graham]: Yes. It's not just our stuff.

[Sharon Hays]: No. OK. It has everything. So we would just check off. These are all the indicators. And we chose, I think, two from each standard. Right. So it has each one of the standards with indicators.

[Jenny Graham]: So I guess, you know, one thought I had is that I think we wanna get to a format that allows us to not create confusion by including everything on here, but instead just our focus indicators. And I think the sort of the other thing that I think we've talked a lot about is like, how does this all get compiled, right? And short of like somebody sitting down with like eight individual pieces of paper, and having to like manually do something to aggregate this. And I'm wondering if it's something that looks a little bit more like what we used last year, which was the Google sheet so that it can be like pretty quickly put all in one place for us to be able to do our work. Because my concern with this is I think it actually will be pretty tedious to fill out with all these like fillable forms and check boxes, but that's, I think the least of our worries. I just think. We don't want to have a form that is greater than what we're actually asking the members to do, because I think we don't want to create confusion around that. So I would be a proponent and I think, I'm not quite remembering the conversation from last time, but figuring out like, what is our form that like maintains the things that need to be maintained, like the instructions and requiring comments and things like that, but also, um, does so in such a way that it's easy for us to then like, like aggregate this, um, without somebody spending like, you know, 15 hours manually going through and trying to like tick and tie all of this stuff. So I guess, um, That's what I was hoping we were going to do today, because I think this form is too comprehensive for what we are specifically evaluating.

[Sharon Hays]: Sure. If I can respond, I think, I guess I would say two things to that. One is, if one of our main goals is to make sure that our process is more aligned with DESE, I would think Dessie's form would make the most sense to align with Dessie. I also think, well, I guess two things. One is in terms of quickly compiling, I know part of what was with last year's was because we were using the numbers and I believe member Rousseau had a way of making it come up with the average of the numbers. I was assuming that I as the chair, although it could be anyone, but would, probably create a form to put the basic ratings that each person did in, you know, in some kind of a chart form that would be quickly and easily to be able to read across quickly and know, you know, there were, you know, three exceeded and four met or, you know, whatever, so that we could see right across. And I was, I haven't had a chance to make that as, unfortunately I've been sick, but, That would be my plan in terms of being able to, you know, when we come to the meeting where we need to compile it all, I would make sure those ratings were in the chart form that we could easily go across and see. And hopefully, you know, hopefully it would be easy enough to, well, We'll have some discussions around, you know, depending on how many ratings there are for each of each category. We have to figure out, again, that's one of the main things we need to do is figure out how to condense them all into one rating. But, you know, I know, as I said, I looked around and it seems like most districts that I saw around here use this. So, you know, it seems like it must be fairly straightforward to use or, you know, DESI would have either changed it or people wouldn't be using it. At least that's my two cents of it. I think that the check boxes are pretty easy to use, are very easy to use.

[Unidentified]: And yeah, it's just checking off which ones we chose, which again, it's pretty straightforward.

[Melanie McLaughlin]: Member Hays, may I speak? Sure. Thank you. Is this a PDF document? Is there, because I guess with Adobe or whatever, we could be potentially editing it as a PDF if it's in that format.

[Sharon Hays]: It is, it's in an editable PDF, yes.

[Melanie McLaughlin]: Yeah, so we could also just trim it down to the meat and potatoes of what we specifically want, right? misunderstanding that?

[Sharon Hays]: To be honest, I'm not sure. I'm not that computer savvy. I would have to check with my personal software person, who's not here right now, to understand how to do that. I mean, I guess I'm not clear on why, again, it's I think, to be honest, last year's form was pretty difficult to read and everybody seemed to be able to complete it. So this one seems so much clearer and more straightforward that I'm not sure why we're thinking this would be difficult for people.

[Jenny Graham]: Can I offer an alternative suggestion of how we might use Google Doc to do this? Can I share my screen?

[Sharon Hays]: I think we just need to stop sharing. Yep, yeah, OK.

[Jenny Graham]: I was just trying to create this as we were talking, so it's in. Rough form, but hopefully you can see that. I guess in my mind, right? We need a place for individuals to come in and easily like put in their evaluation. There might be like one or two or three of the overarching components up here. And then there's like the eight goals that we pick where we would basically word for word, copy and paste them into this form. And then the members would just come through and they would throw an X in each one, you know, something like that. And then you could type in your comments here and everyone would have their own individual key which they would then So you as the chair, and the next thing that needs to happen then is to figure out like, okay, how do you combine all of this? So what I would want to be able to do is something like this, where you copy anything that whatever's here and you come to some combined sheet and we're like, okay, this is number, number one. And I'm going to pop it right in here. I copy and paste. So now I have everything here times all the numbers. Right. And then. all the way to the right, we'd set this up account so that we could see a distribution of our goal one, right? There are seven that are actually goal, let's use goal two because I didn't put it in the right column. But for goal two, what I think we want to be able to see is the distribution. So we want to see how many members said unsatisfactory, how many members said needs improvement, how many members said proficient and how many members said exemplary. obviously these like examples don't tie together, but we, we would be able to see like in this, in my made up example here that four people said proficient and three people said exemplary because what we ultimately need to do is come up with a recommendation. Right.

[Sharon Hays]: Can I just for a second, I just wanted to say that's exactly what I was saying that I would set up to do with the with the sheets, but if we use the DESI one, I would set up something like this to transfer the goals, I mean, to transfer the ratings into.

[Jenny Graham]: Okay, because I, yeah, I think we should just, I think it's reasonable to expect people to fill something out that makes that easier, because otherwise you're gonna have to individually take each person's like checked boxes, PDF, and transcribe into a consolidation who said unsatisfactory, who said proficient, who said what? And just that mere translation alone across all of those variables times seven people is prone for error. And I wanna make sure that we're trying to eliminate those opportunities for error in there too. So I would lean towards creating something that the members fill out that takes that like manual intervention, like out of the mix, because otherwise you have to manually do it. And as soon as a human has to get in the mix and manually do something, then, you know, the potential for error is high. And this is really important. I wanna make sure that doesn't happen. But then I guess, as I'm thinking about it, right, there would, we would have to, we, this group would have to look at this goal and say, okay, four people said proficient and three people said exemplary, what is our consolidated set of comments, which we would like read across and craft, like, you know, sort of pick and choose and craft a comment. And then we would say, is our recommendation proficient or is it exemplary? So, you know, maybe here we say proficient, right? And so that would, I think, make it really easy, I think, for them, the members to come in and look at this and say, okay, there's the distribution of how all of us evaluated the same thing. And the group is recommending that the answer in this particular example is sufficient. Are we in agreement with that? Or does somebody want to have some discussion to change them? So that's perhaps a way to like manage through this process without it being like wildly labor intensive.

[Sharon Hays]: I understand what you're saying, I guess. Personally, I lean towards the dusty one, again, just because, one, it seems to be commonly used. I also feel like it's just very user-friendly in terms of how it's formatted. So that's, I mean, that's my opinion or my thought about it. But I think Melanie Melanie are you able to talk?

[Melanie McLaughlin]: Yes, I am. Thank you. I was just I'm sorry I'm in an Uber I had to work late and I'm on my way back so forgive me, but I was just saying, yeah, I mean I can see the. I can see your perspective, Member Hays, in terms of having the DESE form just to ground sort of everything. I think it's helpful to see what the expectation is that DESE has for this, what these things are, what that form looks like. I think without it, it sort of feels like just a blank form that we're filling out. So I see what you're saying, I guess. I think what I'm also hearing is that the form likely has more things than obviously what we're evaluating on. So that brings me back to the question of, and it sounds like you said this was something that you're going to find out or try to do, brings me back to the question of, can we not edit the DESI form to conform it to those indicators and those aspects that we are looking for so that we can then use the DESI form without it being additional information that we don't need? So I guess I'm asking both and instead of either or.

[Sharon Hays]: I guess the other thing I would say about that, which is, you know, I can certainly find out if that's possible, that would mean every year creating a new form, you know, because every year we'd be choosing different indicators, we'd have different, you know, so it would mean redoing it every year.

[Melanie McLaughlin]: Oh, that's a good point. And this way we can also see what the, we can also sort of familiarize ourself with what the other indicators are as we're thinking about what those might be in future settings, right? As long as we're very explicit, I guess, in the instructions that people are, you know, really understanding which line items we need to complete. I think it just is a matter of, and we're meeting to discuss that. So I think that that could make sense, especially since we, again, can see how it's grounded and what the other indicators are as we're considering future goals or indicators.

[Unidentified]: So I guess I hear you on that.

[Sharon Hays]: I do have, well, that would be part two once we decide, but I do have, I was able to find another district already had instructions to go with it, to go with this evaluation. So I have those two that I could share once we, I mean, if you wanted to see what the instructions look like and we could talk about whether that would seem like it would be clear enough for everyone.

[Unidentified]: Do you have them handy if we could see them? I do. Let's see. Try this. There it is. There's a fifth step down there, but I can scroll down when you're ready.

[Marice Edouard-Vincent]: Member Hays, can you enlarge and just make the font a little bigger? Sure.

[Unidentified]: Is that better? Yes, thank you. Can I ask a question?

[Melanie McLaughlin]: So, and I think that we also voted, right? That we would have a meeting that we were, obviously we have to bring this before the whole committee or whatever, but we would be reviewing it there as a committee of the whole right before the process.

[Sharon Hays]: Yes, May 8th is scheduled a committee of the whole for the superintendent to present her self-evaluation for us to present the instruction, template and the instructions.

[Melanie McLaughlin]: Yeah, I think that will be super helpful too.

[Unidentified]: Member Hays?

[Jenny Graham]: Yes. I think these instructions are generally fine and basically the process anybody would go through to do this. But I think the template has to exist for the instructions to match it, right?

[Sharon Hays]: I'm sorry, say again, I didn't hear that.

[Jenny Graham]: The template has to exist in order to meaningfully match the instructions to the template that we're asking people to fill out.

[Sharon Hays]: Right, these instructions were with the DESE template. This was a district that was using the DESE template.

[Jenny Graham]: Where does it provide the guidance about the specific indicators that they're focused on?

[Unidentified]: That would be... Sorry, let's see. Standards. Oh, that's weird.

[Sharon Hays]: Because I did edit this, so I remember. putting some more specific instructions in for it. And now I don't know where it is. So it is in there. Well, it was in there. And I can find it and paste it back in again. I'll wait there. Here.

[Unidentified]: So it's step two. Can you make that font bigger, please? Sure. But if we're going to give people a template that has all the indicators on it, like where are we queuing?

[Jenny Graham]: Which indicators were focused on?

[Sharon Hays]: Only on the checked focus indicators which were previously selected at a regular school committee meeting.

[Unidentified]: Can you go back to the template? I don't think I know what a checked focus indicator is. Those are OK. Uh, let's see. So stop. Yeah. Sorry, hold on.

[Sharon Hays]: So they are well right here standard one instructional leadership focus indicators of those aligned with the superintendent goals, we would check off. says right at the bottom focus indicator check if yes, so we would check off the ones that we chose for each standard. Standard two and there's the focus indicators.

[Unidentified]: Standard three and standard four. So again, we just check off. And then the comments are not specific to the focus indicators, but to the category.

[Sharon Hays]: No, to the focus indicators.

[Unidentified]: But there's only one box to put them in, right?

[Sharon Hays]: Is that what I'm seeing? For each standard and for the focus, whichever focus indicators, each one has its own comment box.

[Unidentified]: So it says required for an overall rating of exemplary, needs improvement, or unsatisfactory.

[Sharon Hays]: Yes, proficient is the only one where they're not required, though they're recommended.

[Jenny Graham]: Is the instruction individually that you rate the two focus indicators and then you decide what that means in summary for instructional leadership?

[Unidentified]: Right. So you would fill this out and then you'd come up here. Yes.

[Sharon Hays]: And then you would determine what your summary or your compilation, if there's more than one, if there's two, I think we actually had three in one of them. So the individual would decide for their individual evaluation, which of the categories or which of the ratings, sorry.

[Unidentified]: And then what would we be aggregating?

[Jenny Graham]: Just these five standards, or would we be looking at

[Unidentified]: what people put in the focus indicators, it was about that time to pick up. We've been using these. If I may, Member Hays,

[Sharon Hays]: Yes, superintendent.

[Marice Edouard-Vincent]: Yes, I actually feel like what you're describing and also what member Graham shared on the other document, it's actually giving the same information where under each standard, there's two or more indicators that the committee selected that when you're in, if you pause right there on this sheet, Since it's editable you probably could just go in and highlight the two indicators or the three indicators, you know, maybe highlighter yellow or highlighter green. And so people would just be able to focus in on those two indicators, and then in the blue box below. list your feedback and comments. So if it was, I don't have the other list in front of me, but just indicator 1A curriculum. And if you were talking about indicator 1B instruction, you could say 1A and list your comments and then 1B list your comments. And so your comments are captured and then you would do a combined rating based on what you felt, you know, the evidence that I provided, what you felt the rating should be for that indicator. But what DESE is looking for is an overall rating in standard one, which is instructional leadership. So if as a district, you know, we're focusing in on two indicators, you provide the ratings for those indicators and then give an overall rating for the, entire the umbrella category of instructional leadership. So I actually think it's, I think you're saying the same thing. It's just being presented differently. And this is just the tool that Desi created. So your spreadsheet member, Graham, allowed the members to just go in and specifically target the eight indicators This one would show the other indicators, but they wouldn't be required to put ratings in. It's just showing the... Under category one, there were six indicators, but I think just looking above six, five, four, and then I think it's six again.

[Unidentified]: So it's... We would just be focusing in on eight and not all of them. It's like 21 total indicators.

[Jenny Graham]: But I think what member Hays was saying is that the only thing we're going to aggregate is the top four standards. That's it.

[Unidentified]: So I think the question then becomes like, The top four standards plus the goals, right above that, if- Right here, the standard, sorry, sorry to interrupt.

[Sharon Hays]: The standards, that's, yeah. When we do the aggregate, we take what each individual member has decided as their overall rating for just each of the standards. We don't go through and look at each of their ratings for each indicator.

[Unidentified]: We don't redo that.

[Sharon Hays]: We don't redo their, look at their indicators and decide what, how to put that together. They've, each individual member gets to do that themselves, decide what their overall rating for each standard is based on what they rated each of the indicators within that standard.

[Unidentified]: Um, okay. I mean, I, I don't like using a big complicated form for a very small number of things.

[Jenny Graham]: Um, because I think the simpler we make this, the easier it is on everybody, but I also want to make sure, like, I mean, I think the thing that we're going to lose in this process was a lot of really. healthy dialogue last year that happened in the weeds. And once everything is rolled up to this aggregated level, I just don't see that coming out. And I think that's really important feedback for all of us to hear from each other. I think it's important feedback for the superintendent. And I just think that will basically get lost in this process.

[Sharon Hays]: Can you clarify, I guess, what I'm recalling from last year's was we gave a number and we gave comments. So I'm not really sure what we're losing when all we're really, I mean, it's a different, obviously it's a different format than we had. And quite frankly, there was a lot of confusion at the end of the year when we did it as to how things got aggregated, how comments got put in or didn't get put in. But I mean, it's the same, it's a different format for the same information. And it has the words, which is what we agreed to, as opposed to using the numbers. But it still has the comment boxes, which is, again, that's my recollection, without looking back again, was that we gave a number rating and then gave comments. And of course, last year, the other thing that made it longer was that we hadn't chosen specific focus indicators. We were rating every single indicator.

[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, and I, well, I think the major difference, right, is you're not providing comments on each of, like, we've taken the time to say these things are our focus indicators that are really important. These are the things we all agree that we should be working on. We're not operating at that level of feedback because everyone is independently going to aggregate up to the four standards. So your comments are not even required if you rate proficient, encouraged of course, but to provide comments about an aggregate standard versus like the specific focus indicators rolls it all up a level, which is I think where we ultimately need to land and end up for, you know, to report to decimal. But I think the richness is if we all take the time to operate at the standard level of the 708 indicators that we focused on. And that may just be me. I just don't want to see this whole process be diluted so much that we're losing the meaningful feedback that should be happening in the process because this is our annual opportunity to tell everybody how we think the district is doing and specifically how the superintendent is doing. So I just think that's a really important thing that we don't dilute all this, dilute the conversation and the feedback. And I just think the potential is high using this model.

[Melanie McLaughlin]: Can I ask a question, member Hays?

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[Melanie McLaughlin]: So I guess I'm not really clear on the dilution piece. And maybe if there can be a little bit more explanation around that, it would be helpful. Because what I'm understanding, and forgive me, like I said, I'm in the car, so I'm not sitting right at my computer and looking at every, scrolling through all of it. But what I'm understanding is that Yeah, the data gets aggregated, but that we still have individual assessments that we are going to be submitting as public record that the superintendent will be saying that the community will be saying so that that data is still included. I mean, it's just that the form is aggregating it for us so that we're not having to do that separately. Or am I misunderstanding?

[Sharon Hays]: Well, the individual members would, again, they would, after filling all of this out, and I guess, you know, other than giving a proficient, I wouldn't understand why, I mean, we can always put it in the instructions to say specifically you need to comment on each of the indicators, but if you're needing to explain your rating, I would assume people would, give an explanation that would include their pros and cons for each of the individual indicators that have been selected, each of the focus indicators in terms of comment and explaining why they gave an exemplary or why they gave a needs improvement. But certainly we can always put that in the instructions if we felt like we needed it. I mean, I know there were some members who didn't give any comments at all last year. So I think that That can be a factor no matter what the form looks like. But yes, so then in terms of your question that you just asked, Member McLaughlin, once we each fill out, say, instructional leadership, whichever focus indicators, once we give the ratings and put the comments, then at the top, it would be up to each individual member for their own evaluation to then put those together you know, under here. So for instructional leadership, if there were two focus indicators to decide what their overall rating for instructional leadership based on their individual ratings of the focus indicators under that standard was. So, and then we, when we put it together for the total composite, we would just use what each individual member but for their rating here.

[Melanie McLaughlin]: Right. And I guess I thought I had my understanding was that there would be. So that's the quantitative piece. And I understood my understanding was that there would also be a qualitative piece and that it would be collective. I mean, one of the things that stick, there's a lot different from this year and last year. And one of the things that's very different this year than last year is that, you know, there'll be a committee of the whole world be able to be talking about this in the process and the discussion of it, whatever. And I find a lot of rich data, frankly, in the qualitative. And I think it's important for that to be included. So I think that having that option is important. And some people, as you mentioned, member Hays, some people don't wanna do the qualitative data. They're more interested in the quantitative and just giving straight ratings without giving the narrative feedback. So I think it's good to have the option to do both. And I think that, Obviously, the aggregated data, which goes up to DESE, which does not include the narrative, because it doesn't need to, DESE's not really interested, but I would think that the community would be, and the superintendent would be, and the school committee would be, so that the individual disaggregated data will have that information, and that was a big part of why we were including raw data with the finished data as part of the whole process. So, is that right?

[Sharon Hays]: I just want to make sure I'm clear on when you say raw data. I mean, so each individual members, and we could talk at some point, obviously, about how this gets, whether it gets put on the website or I don't know. I mean, some districts that I looked at were very clear and straightforward about where you could find each of the individual members' ratings or this sheet and where you could find, well, it was all together and then there would be the aggregate one. And this same form would be the one we would use then to put all of them together into the composite. And yes, we would select, you know, in terms of data or in terms of the information given by each member, we would select the comments to put in each of the comment boxes. Again, looking at some of the other districts, some actually created a paragraph that was a compilation of all of the, you know, a summary of the individual members' comments and then put in a couple of quotes. Some actually just put quotes from each, didn't do a summary, just put quotes from each member. So there's a few different ways we could do that.

[Unidentified]: But always- Yeah, and I think that's one of the things, sorry.

[Sharon Hays]: Sorry, just again, always, all of it would be available. All of it should be publicly available. So if people wanted to be able to, if members of the community wanted to be able to go back and see, well, what did each individual member put in their comments? I'd like to see what their comments were and what their individual ratings were. That should be publicly available.

[Melanie McLaughlin]: Great, that's really what I'm interested in is sort of the transparency piece of it and make sure that, again, the community can access it, that they can see both the quantitative... We're losing you, Member McLaughlin.

[Unidentified]: Did we lose you completely? Melanie, you're breaking up.

[Melanie McLaughlin]: How is it now any better? Yeah, we missed the whole beginning of what you said, though. Yeah, no, sorry. I just said that's what is important to me is just sort of the, the transparency piece and that people can have access to the narrative, the, you know, what each member sort of reported and recorded, but also if they don't want to have that, you know, obviously they have the, the final aggregated data. And I think as a sub we can either as a subcommittee or the whole, it would probably be better. In my opinion, as a subcommittee to decide, well, maybe not. Let's leave that up to the committee of the whole, I guess, to decide how we want to do the qualitative, whether we want to do direct quotes from everything, or whether we want to do a summary or whatever. But I think we can talk about what that looks like. But I guess in summary, I'm saying I like. So in summary, I'm saying I like the whole form because I like that it shows sort of the overall and it reminds us that there are these other indicators that we can be looking at in the future. I like that we're using a sort of standardized form that won't change year to year based on, you know, who's in office and who isn't. I like that we can have both the aggregated data that the final data put together. for to be sent to DESE and the disaggregated data by individual members all made public. So I think those are all pros.

[Unidentified]: So I don't, do we?

[Melanie McLaughlin]: I guess I'm making a motion to use the form the DESE form with the qualitative and quantitative data, ensuring that all of the individual evaluations and combined evaluation is available and made public.

[Unidentified]: Okay, do we vote? We need a second and then we vote.

[Sharon Hays]: All right, I'll second. And I'll take a vote. So, Member Graham? No. Member Hays, yes. Member McLaughlin?

[Melanie McLaughlin]: Yes.

[Sharon Hays]: All right, so two in the affirmative, one in the negative. Motion passes.

[Unidentified]: Is that correct? Yeah. All right. All right.

[Sharon Hays]: So we'll use this form. Do we want to look through? We do. Let's see, we have six minutes. We do actually have another meeting. We kind of kept another date aside if we needed to finish up the form and or the instructions. I can open the instructions again or I could send them to each of you if we want to go ahead and keep that April 24th meeting and then go over them then. I'm open to.

[Melanie McLaughlin]: I would like to keep the April 24th meeting because I think, you know, just reviewing all of the material and the instructions and making sure that we're looking at the individual indicators that are very clear about, you know, again, the highlighting option and being very explicit with the instructions I think are important.

[Unidentified]: So I would ask that we keep that meeting as possible.

[Sharon Hays]: Okay. Am I able, since we've already looked at them here, is it okay to send them to you now in terms of any violations of sharing.

[Unidentified]: You can just include that in the minutes.

[Sharon Hays]: Okay. Got it.

[Melanie McLaughlin]: Right. We just can't collaborate on them until the public meeting, so we can look at them individually.

[Unidentified]: We just can't collaborate on them.

[Sharon Hays]: Okay. Okay. All right. Then I guess that's it for this meeting, unless anyone else has other questions or comments. Let's see. Do I have any

[Unidentified]: Emails, no.

[Melanie McLaughlin]: Motion to adjourn.

[Sharon Hays]: Second. Okay, so we take a vote. Member Graham?

[Melanie McLaughlin]: Yes.

[Sharon Hays]: Member Hays, yes. Member McLaughlin?

[Melanie McLaughlin]: Yes.

[Sharon Hays]: Meeting adjourned. We'll see you on April 24th. Thanks everyone.

[Melanie McLaughlin]: Good night everyone.