Subcommittee recommends chair, vice chair and superintendent set year‑one evaluation goals; DESE format to be used

The Springfield School Committee Legislative and Contract Subcommittee on June 18 agreed to recommend that the chair, the vice chair and the superintendent set the superintendent’s year‑one evaluation goals and follow the DESE end‑of‑cycle summative evaluation framework, and to return to the full committee with a finalized timeline in August.

Attorney Melissa Murray, School Committee counsel, opened the discussion by outlining the district’s obligation to evaluate the superintendent after year one and by describing the DESE framework the contract references. "One of the things we wanted to talk about today was the superintendent's evaluation," Murray said, noting the need to identify specific goals that will form the basis for the review.

The subcommittee debated timing and what evidence the evaluation should rely on. Several members said MCAS test results are a standard statewide measure and should be considered; Murray and others noted that districts also use alternative standardized measures and that recent changes to competency‑determination rules may affect which MCAS results are appropriate to include. Murray described the typical sequence used in prior cycles: the superintendent presents evidence at a public meeting, committee members complete individual evaluation tools, and those individual reports are compiled into a single composite report for public discussion. She added that the Attorney General has advised designating a non‑member — commonly the executive or administrative assistant — to aggregate individual evaluations into a master document to avoid potential open‑meeting issues.

Board members expressed concern that setting goals late could delay the evaluation and any compensation tied to it. "If we don't set the superintendent's goals, then we can't give her a raise and we don't want that to happen," said Mr. Collins, a subcommittee member. To avoid that risk, the subcommittee agreed it would be practical to authorize a small group to set the goals quickly rather than attempt to convene the full seven‑member committee on short notice.

By consensus the subcommittee agreed to recommend that the chair, the vice chair and the superintendent develop the goals for this round, with the expectation that the group act expeditiously and report back to the full committee. Members asked staff to schedule a working session on the school‑committee calendar (the committee’s August 21 meeting was mentioned) so the body could set definitive dates for the public presentation, the period for committee members to complete evaluation tools (historically 10 days), and the date for compiling and presenting the composite report.

The subcommittee also discussed who should compile the individual evaluation reports. Murray said the task need not be performed by outside counsel and that an executive assistant, an in‑house counsel, or another designee could serve as the compiler. Members agreed they would finalize that designation when they set the detailed timeline.

No formal vote on a final, fully detailed evaluation calendar was recorded in the subcommittee discussion; members instead approved, by consensus, the narrower recommendation that the chair, vice chair and superintendent set the goals promptly and that the committee use a DESE‑aligned format and process this year. The subcommittee indicated it will forward that recommendation to the full school committee and revisit the timetable and the compilation designee at upcoming meetings.

The subcommittee convened after determining there was no quorum for the Budget and Finance Subcommittee and moved the matter under the Legislative and Contract Subcommittee agenda. The meeting ended with a motion and roll‑call to adjourn.