Madison renaming committee begins scoring 55 proposals for LVM, sets June 29 and July 6 deadlines

The Madison Metropolitan School District naming committee began independent scoring of 55 proposed new names for LVM Elementary School at a virtual meeting, with staff laying out an evaluation rubric, research support and firm deadlines for members to submit scores.

Chelsea Tubs, the committee staff lead, opened the meeting by explaining the process and tools members would use to evaluate proposals, saying the group would ‘‘go into scoring tonight’’ and walked members through a four-point rubric that covers who/what is proposed (people, places, or ideas) and the proposal’s connection to district educational goals and the local community. She asked members to use the Google form provided to submit scores and notes for each proposal.

The rubric is split into two scored sections — one assessing the nominee’s prominence and relevance, the other probing the nominee’s specific connection and educational value to Madison schools — with an optional notes field where members can record practical concerns such as name similarity or potential confusion. ‘‘If for you that’s limited because that is that concern you could then score that a one and then you would put in the notes and reasons exactly what you just stated,’’ Tubs told members during a Q&A about how to capture subjective but practical issues.

Research staff are supporting the committee. Gail, the committee’s researcher, said she has ‘‘finished research on almost all the names’’ and has compiled links, PDFs and short background summaries for members to consult while scoring. Members can flag items that need further research or that appear to contain errors; Chelsea instructed the group to skip any flagged proposal until the researcher confirms corrected language.

To balance transparency with privacy, Tubs said the district had worked with legal counsel on how submission data would be handled under Wisconsin open-records rules: scores will be submitted through a coded Google form intended to provide a level of confidentiality while allowing the district to comply with records requests as required by law.

The committee set firm deadlines to meet the project’s timeline. Dan (staff) said batch one — proposals 1 through 28 — should be completed by Monday, June 29 to allow staff time to review scores. Chelsea said all 55 proposals must be scored by Friday, July 6 at 9:00 a.m.; she and the chairs will meet that afternoon at 1:00 p.m. to determine which names require further discussion at the next committee meeting.

Chelsea ran the group through two live practice examples during the meeting (Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Reggie White) so members could see how to enter a proposal number, choose the category and add flags or research requests. She also described a new research column in the shared spreadsheet that consolidates Gail’s work so members can access background sources quickly.

Chelsea cautioned members to use the optional notes field if they have practical concerns that the rubric’s objective criteria may not capture — for example, when two proposed names sound confusingly similar — and she said flagged items will be picked up by staff for follow-up. Gail flagged one proposal for which she could not confirm a geographic term used in the submitter’s language; Tubs instructed members not to score that item until the language is corrected.

Next steps: members were released to begin scoring during the meeting’s work time and told to complete at least the first batch by June 29; Chelsea will email the committee when any proposal language is updated or when additional research is appended. Staff emphasized that the form requires members’ names and proposal numbers and that the district will handle open-records questions through legal counsel.

The committee will reconvene for any items staff and the chairs determine need discussion after reviewing the submitted scores.