[Jenny Graham]: Okay, so our meeting will come to order. Please be advised that on Thursday, June 1st, from 5 to 6 p.m., there will be an evaluation subcommittee meeting to be held through 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 by using the below following link or call a number. One of the mobile numbers is 1301-715-4205. 8, 5, 9, 2, and you can use the meeting ID 99101130546. The purpose of the meeting is as approved by the committee on February 1st. The evaluation subcommittee will need to review and develop the process for the 2022-2023 superintendent evaluation. Tonight's meeting is to finalize our composite evaluation. As approved on Monday, May 22nd, 2023, we will meet to, this is a continuation of our last meeting where we began the process of putting together a composite review for the superintendent. I'll call the roll. Member Hays? Here. Member McLaughlin?
[Unidentified]: Here.
[Jenny Graham]: and member Graham here. So three present, none absent. So for those who may be watching or listening in at the last meeting on the 20, sixth, I believe it was, or the 24th of May, we began the process of taking the seven independent reviews that were completed by each member of the school committee and starting to look at how to aggregate those reviews into a single review, because the individual reviews of each member is really just draft input. The final review of the superintendent has to be reviewed and blessed by the school committee. And there can be one review that goes in that represents the view of the committee, via a majority vote. So tonight, what today we're going to do is we're going to go through. the draft that member Hays put together to say what do we think this composite review should look like. So thank you member Hays for doing such a fabulous job of getting this put together because I am after reading it I am hopeful that we will be able to move quickly.
[Unidentified]: So I'm going to share my screen and OK, can you all see my screen? Yes, OK, great.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay, so this is the template that we have agreed to use that each and every one of the members used to fill out their draft comments that will help us make this ultimate composite. What you can see at the top in step one is that this is the summary of the three goals that were outlined and approved by the school committee in the fall. One is a professional practice goal, one is a student learning goal, and then one is a district improvement goal. The numbers that you see represent the actual evaluation rankings from all seven members of our school committee. So if you tally them across, they equal seven in all cases. And I believe what we need to do is determine our recommendation for what our committee-wide answer will be to each of these goals. So I think what you can see is that for each of the goals, the vast majority of feedback for the first one for professional practice, the vast majority of the committee felt like MET was the appropriate response, which is why it is in red. And I think what we maybe what we can do is go section by section and agree on the final composite for each the student learning goal. you'll see that, again, a majority of the committee felt like MET was the correct, was the correct, or the place where they put the superintendent's performance. And then in district improvement goals, there was a little bit more variety. There were three that identified significant progress, one that required, that identified MET as the ranking, and then one that identified exceeded. So I believe the draft-
[Melanie McLaughlin]: Um, you said one that did significant progress. Um, for district improvement goals. I just wanted to point of information credit. It's three. It's three.
[Jenny Graham]: Sorry. Sorry. Um, so the district improvement goal was three for significant progress, three for met and one for exceeded. And I believe the draft recommendation that we need to, um. weigh in on by consensus here is whether we agree that net is the right ranking for the committee's evaluation of the superintendent in all cases. So I will pause there and ask for comments.
[Melanie McLaughlin]: Um, yeah, I would comment. I would just say that I think Matt is, and I would, you know, hope that the superintendent will look at these numbers as well, which I'm sure, I know she will, just for others where there was some variation. But even for the one with the, you know, sort of significant progress for the district improvement goals, there was one exceeded. So it's really on the right side of Matt, if you will. So I would say that, personally, I feel that MET is where we're at for each of these goals with some outliers. Agree.
[Jenny Graham]: Do we want to take a quick roll call vote to make sure that we are all in agreement with that recommendation?
[Unidentified]: Sure. Sure. Member McLaughlin, can you make a motion?
[Melanie McLaughlin]: Oh, sorry, motion. I'm like, sure, go ahead. Motion to approve the progress toward goals as met for the summative evaluation report for the superintendent.
[Jenny Graham]: Second. Okay. All those in favor, oh, actually roll call. Member Hays. Yes. Member McLaughlin.
[Melanie McLaughlin]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Member Graham. Yes. So three in the affirmative, zero in the negative. MET is the recommended ranking that we'll bring forward to the school committee for step one for professional practice, student learning, and district improvement.
[Unidentified]: Oh, sorry. I went too fast here.
[Jenny Graham]: In step two, this is again a summary and this is a roll up of not just what seven members thought of the performance of the superintendent across these four pillars that Dessie requires us to evaluate her on, but we did go through each of those pillars and or performance standards and identify what we call focus indicators. Those are pre-selected by the committee and the committee evaluated, made these rankings and evaluations based on those particular focus indicators. So step two, instructional leadership had all seven members in agreement that proficient was the correct ranking. For management operations, we had two folks who said needs improvement and five who said proficient. In family and community engagement, we had one individual who said needs improvement and six who said proficient. And for standard number four, professional culture, we had one who said needs improvement and six who said proficient.
[Melanie McLaughlin]: Um, is there a motion make a motion to make a motion to accept for sufficient as, um. The performance on standards for standards one, two and four are the superintendent.
[Jenny Graham]: So the motion is to accept proficient as the standard for all four of the standards in step two as proficient, and we'll do a roll call. So member Hays? Yes. Member McLaughlin? Yes. Member Graham? Yes. Three in the affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes. So I'm just going to scroll down. This is the next section. These are evaluation comments that are intended, oh, sorry, step three is based on all of the things that we just agreed to in step one and step two. What is our overall summative performance ranking for the superintendent? And by unanimous opinion, proficient is the ranking that will go to DESE, provided that there is agreement on that on Monday night. I don't believe we need a vote because there was really no distribution here. Is everyone okay with that? Are we? Yes, that's fine. Okay. Um, for step four, this is where the committee has an opportunity to provide comments. So these comments are overall comments. And I'm just going to give you all a minute or two to read them. What member Hays did was go through all of the seven reviews and pull out what she believed to be some of the salient comments. So that does not mean these are all the comments, but that means they are the salient comments that she is recommending that we bring forward as part of the official comments on the final review from the school committee. So I'll just give you guys a minute to read. Member McLaughlin, let me know when you're done.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thanks. I am done, done. Okay.
[Jenny Graham]: Are there any questions, comments, or suggested edits on this form, on this set of feedback?
[Melanie McLaughlin]: I have a question.
[Unidentified]: Sure.
[Melanie McLaughlin]: So, um, I was curious about the process. I didn't, I know that we had discussed, um, sort of, uh, having a narrative and I'm wondering if this is the form in which we're having the narrative, um, it, which I think could be fine. Um, I don't know if it's too long. I'm getting some echo. I don't know if you want to mute member Graham while I'm talking. I don't know if that will help. Um, thank you. Um, So yeah, I don't know what the process is in terms of what we're gonna do. Are we doing a narrative or are we suggesting just to take what's here? Obviously we haven't seen the rest, so we can maybe look at the rest and then come back and have that discussion if that's okay.
[Unidentified]: Um, we can do that.
[Jenny Graham]: Um, I think this is sort of the draft recommendation. So this would serve as the composite. Um, and, um, let's do that. Let's go through it. We'll go through the rest of the comments throughout, and then we can make a determination if there are any changes we'd like to make, um, to any of them.
[Unidentified]: Um, okay, so... Um...
[Jenny Graham]: The comments for instructional leadership are at the bottom of the page here. And throughout, you can see the distribution that has been of how the members evaluated the superintendent on the various focus indicators, which are in yellow. But the comments are at the bottom there for standard one instructional leadership.
[Unidentified]: Member Graham.
[Melanie McLaughlin]: Yes, are you able to see more than just the 2 because I'm only seeing 2 and on the previous one, I only saw 3. That I believe that is all that is there. Okay. All right. Thank you.
[Marice Edouard-Vincent]: Yeah, I can just chime in. So, if, if a, if a committee member made a comment, I put it in. So, if there's only 2 or 3 comments, that means only 2 or 3 members made a comment on that particular area.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. I'm finished with that part, thank you.
[Jenny Graham]: Now you can see standard two. which is management and operations. There were comments from four members on this section. And I think as a reminder to folks, comments are required according to DESE's guidelines if anything but proficient is selected. So those folks who selected proficient are not required to, although encouraged to provide comments.
[Unidentified]: Any chance you can make this bigger? I can. Thank you. Is that better? Yes, thank you. I have completed section. I. Standard 3 is for family and community engagements. Thank you. This is professional culture.
[Melanie McLaughlin]: I'm going to make it a little bit bigger because this one got smaller for some reason. This is managing conflict, isn't it?
[Jenny Graham]: Correct.
[Unidentified]: So the two focus indicators were cultural proficiency and managing conflict. And let me just move this so it doesn't I got. Thank you. Okay, so I'm going to go back to the top.
[Jenny Graham]: So these are the comments about the overall performance, which we have agreed is proficient. I think the question is, are there any edits or changes that we would want to make to any of these comments?
[Melanie McLaughlin]: May I? Sure. I would say no. I actually like seeing the comments and contacts and seeing the variety in the comments. And I appreciate Member Hays thoughtfully putting these all together. So I would recommend that they stay as is throughout, frankly. and I'm happy to make a motion for that if folks want, but I think that this is helpful and gives some background. I particularly appreciate when colleagues use specific examples. And I think I could even do that a little bit more in future evaluations. And I think Member Hays was particularly good at that. So I appreciate that. And also I think Member Kreatz did that as well. That was helpful to just do. It's a good opportunity to really review all those things that have been done. Because I think all too often we're talking about things that haven't been done, but I think it's important to take the opportunity to talk about what has been done. So I think it's good. Having all these here and I would elect for them to remain.
[Jenny Graham]: I, I, I agree. I think that. Some of what is nice about seeing the variety is a recognition that we all have different perspectives on what we see. So even though the goal of this review is for us to have one voice, like that one voice comes through majority votes. And that means that there are seven of us who all may have something different in the experience that they had or observed or different areas of focus that make them particularly interested in certain things. So I did not think that any of the comments didn't belong. I thought they were all appropriate and I would be happy to second that motion if you'd like to make it.
[Melanie McLaughlin]: comments. Great I'd make a motion to lead the evaluator comments as compiled by member Hays, as is with the very variation that currently
[Jenny Graham]: So the motion second, the motion on the floor is to accept the draft comments as written throughout the entirety of the evaluation and roll call. Member McLaughlin?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Member Hays? Yes. And Member Graham? Yes. Three in the affirmative, zero in the negative, the motion passes. So I believe what that means is that we have agreed to all of the components of this review as written. And I think we probably just need to make a motion to recommend that the committee accept and support the review as written. And then we will discuss this at our meeting on Monday night.
[Melanie McLaughlin]: Member Graham. Yes, I just like to make a comment or two if I could. Sure. So, first I would just wanted to say that the process as it's been laid out I think was particularly helpful. thinking about this and how it could be done in using apples to apples using the DESI form and then just working with the DESI form to modify it so that it was personalized for our district I think was particularly helpful. I think it keeps a standard a certain standard again I think it's comparing apples to apples across districts so I think that this is a really good example of an evaluative process. And I wanted to point that out. And then I just also wanted to I know the superintendent's here and I just wanted to ask if it was appropriate if she had, you know, if she just had anything that she wanted to say, I don't want to leave you out and act like you're not here. Dr. Eby, not that you have to say anything, I don't want to put you on the spot either, but I just wanted to acknowledge, you know, that you're here and I know that we'll talk about this on Monday and just wondered if you had any thoughts, I guess, perhaps on the process as compared to the past.
[Unidentified]: Maybe we can stop sharing now. Yes.
[Marice Edouard-Vincent]: Are you able to hear me? Yes. Yes. Okay. Because I'm on the phone, so I have been juggling the telephone. In terms of the process, I feel the process was clear, and it provided me with an opportunity to send feedback. make some revisions and send additional data if necessary. And you have the process to, you know, you have the opportunity to send the information. And so I wasn't able to because I was using the phone today as a device, I couldn't, you know, closely read. But I will, you know, look more carefully at what is but I feel that this process is clear. And the committee is working collaboratively. So, you know, I'll look at the feedback more closely once I receive it and, you know, be better prepared to respond on Monday.
[Melanie McLaughlin]: Thank you. Member Graham, I'd like to make a motion that we accept the superintendent evaluation as the committee has prepared it tonight to move forward to the committee of the whole on Monday.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay, and I will second that motion. So the motion on the floor is to accept the evaluation that we've just reviewed in its entirety and recommend that the committee do the same in our meeting next week. And the motion was by Member McLaughlin, seconded by me. Roll call. Member Hays? Yes. Member McLaughlin?
[Melanie McLaughlin]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: And member Graham, yes. Green the affirmative, zero in the negative. The review will be submitted for consideration by the committee. Motion to adjourn. Motion adjourned by member Hays. Second, seconded by me. Roll call, member Hays. Yes. Member McLaughlin. Yes. And member Graham, yes. Record time. Thank you, everybody.
[Unidentified]: Bye, everyone.
[Jenny Graham]: Good night. Thank you, Jenny, for running the meeting. Yeah, no problem. No problem. Bye.
|
total time: 13.18 minutes total words: 1065 |
total time: 4.88 minutes total words: 512 |
||