Welcome to the June 26, 2024 meeting of the Sharon School Committee.

This meeting will be conducted remotely over Zoom.

Attendance by board and commission members will be remote and remote attendance shall count towards a quorum.

The meeting will be broadcast live and recorded by Sharon TV. If you elect to enable your webcam, your image and background, maybe broadcast with or without sound, as is almost always our practice, we will begin the meeting with public comments.

I ask that everybody just keep their comments to two minutes.

Is there anyone on the committee? Adam, you've been doing a great job timekeeping right there on the screen. I think that helps us and the public who are speaking.

So, all right, without any further ado, I see Judith Weter is first.

Great.

Thank you for recognizing me.

Absolutely.

I continue to be deeply frustrated that as of yesterday, at least, we still didn't have written permission from DESE to graduate our seniors as currently scheduled on June 1st, which is two days earlier than state rules allow, and then just make up for that time by having them return to school for two days after graduation.

Dr. Patel has expressed that he believes this plan is not problematic, and I've been informed that he created the plan with DESE staffers.

But if we don't have a waiver or approval or whatever permission slip in writing from DESE, I'm worried that we're running the risk of jeopardizing the class of 2025's capstone moment for their time and share in public schools.

And this is basic CYA, so I don't understand why it hasn't been done yet. Even if I didn't have a child graduating next June, this would bother me. But in fact, I do have a child graduating next June.

And I will not forgive this school committee or this administration if we had the chance to get whatever air cover we needed to shield our kids and share in public schools from DESE's reprisals, and we failed to do so. If this plan was designed with DESE at the table, then getting its approval in writing should be easy as pie.

And if it ultimately won't sign off on the plan, learning that now gives us time to address it and adjust the calendar accordingly.

Now, I realize the calendar process has been challenging, but it'll be a walk in the park compared to the mea culpas you'll be dishing out to the hundreds of students and family members that are owed apologies if our graduation plans turn out to be a pipe dream. So please just get DESE's permission for our plan in writing as soon as possible.

If they support the plan to conduct the graduation ceremony and distribute diplomas two days earlier than the state rule allows, as Dr. Botello has asserted, then you should be able to get that documentation quickly and easily.

But if it is a problem, we need to know that right away.

This is not one of those times when it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission.

Thank you. All right, seeing no further hands, I'll throw it to Shauna Balinky.

to read correspondence.

Okay, thanks.

So the school committee has received 21 pieces of correspondence between May 22, 2024 at 9 a.m.

and June 26, 2024 at 9 a.m.

Over the course of the 23-24 school year, the school committee has recorded a total of 499 pieces of correspondence.

We have received or were copied on several pieces of correspondence from the town administrator, Fred Turkington and the town finance director, Krishan Gupta.

They shared the preliminary FY26 budget schedule and the 25 annual town meeting schedule, select board reorganization and new officers, confirmation of account setup for the 2024 annual town meeting appropriation of $365,000 for coerculum development, confirmation of the officers of the school committee subsequent to the reorganization on June 5th, 2024. A community member wrote with a suggestion that the district become part of the town of Sharon subscription page. The school committee received an invitation to attend Sharon's CPAC's making a difference awards scheduled for June 11th, 2024. We received a letter that expressed concerns over comments made by a community member during a recent public comment period of the school committee meeting. This letter asked that the school committee consider comments that are direct attacks on federally and state protected categories and that the disrespect and disrespect the code of conduct for the committee and our schools and students.

A teacher wrote to share their perspective on Chromebooks.

This letter focused on some challenges of Chromebooks and the limits that are created because the devices cannot always meet the demands of specific projects or programs for educators and students.

The teacher acknowledged that the issue does not have a short-term fix but hoped that the long-term solution could be explored to ensure that the district is providing the best possible opportunities for students.

We received the final 23-24 school year edition of the CHS library newsletter.

The newsletter included some statistics on library usage, acknowledged the student volunteers on the day of senior service, and highlighted the 24-7 digital access to library resources that are available over the summer. Several parents wrote about the graduation date for 2025. One letter raised concerns about a possible conflict with Shavuot.

Another parent expressed their continued concerns about the possible conflict with the statute, which outlines the timing of the early release of high school seniors' graduation date in relationship to the last scheduled day of school. A community member wrote to express their opinion that the district should ensure that we do not support racism or anti-semitism and suggested that the existence of the DEIC page on the district website was in conflict with that goal.

We have received a number of updates from METCO via Millie's METCO newsletters.

Some highlights included a $150,000 grant received by METCO to support their summer school programs, recognition of the student workers who participated in METCO's district jobs program, the National History Summer Scholars awarded to METCO students, the June 19th holiday, reports from the Racial Inequity Advisory Council, which included several recommendations related to the METCO, to METCO focused on the expansion of the METCO program, and finally the METCO award of racial equity improvement grants, including a $15,000 grant to Sharon.

A community member wrote to inquire about the 24-25 schedule for school committee meetings, and finally a parent wrote to express their concerns regarding 11th grade opportunities for advanced placement courses.

Thanks, Donna. That was a great job, and now I will call on our student rep, Emily Zhang, who is here. Oh, I see you there, Emily.

Go ahead and unmute.

I think you're going to go. There you go. Perfect.

Hi, everyone.

I'm Emily. Hi, Emily. So the final days of the year ended on a very positive note, with exams running smoothly and the eighth grade step-up date being held with featured 70 student leaders volunteers for tours and panels where administration also introduced themselves, and thank you to the Sharon Middle School PTSO, which let the eighth graders enjoy Crescent Ridge ice cream at the lake before attending.

The counseling department also offered a post-secondary guide on Zoom for sophomores on June 12th to learn about Naviance and using career surveys to explore internships and activities to prepare for college, obviously.

And regarding some clubs, speech team members competed at the national tournament at the University of Iowa where one student advanced to the quarterfinals in his event, which was huge as more than a thousand schools from all 50 states participated.

And Key Club, a service club, is tending to the plot in our community garden and donating, donating vegetables to a local food pantry this summer. And of course, many other students are working hard, traveling, volunteering, and doing other internships this summer. That's all.

Awesome.

Thank you so much. And now to our superintendent, Dr. Botello for his general updates.

Thank you.

Thank you. So we are deeply in the midst of a hiring process that happens in the spring and summer.

I'll wait for the...

Some of these hires include a new athletic director, slash assistant principal in Mike Vitelli, Lisa Farrell, a veteran principal who's coming on to Heights with really great reception from the Heights screening committee and Heights faculty.

Crystal Laliberty is taking the place of Rebecca Smoller as the 6-12 ELA curriculum coordinator, as Rebecca's jumping back into the classroom full-time.

Sarah Godino is our K-12 EL coordinator.

And so a lot of exciting hires. We also have Ben Chafain has been hired as our new football coach, and we should have... We're very, very close to announcing a theater director for our theater program.

So that and along with a lot of teacher and IA positions are in the midst. We also hope to... I'll be making a recommendation for a new assistant superintendent for curriculum instruction administration and hope to have an announcement that soon.

General reminders is that elementary class placements will be sent out the first week of August.

Middle and high school schedules will be released the week before school begins.

If your student is leaving Sharon Public Schools, please remember to contact your school to complete the withdrawal process.

School hours can vary during the summer, so please check the school website. We recommend a phone call appointment to address any needs. There will be some times where, you know, administration and administrative staff are off, so make sure you check on that. And same thing with the central office. We're 8 to 3.30 in the summer and Fridays are half days, so we recommend making a phone call or making an appointment to address any needs. But someone will be in, you know, the great, great majority of the summer. Some of the summertime work, we get tons of... I've had a lot of people stopping by over the last few days and are somewhat surprised at how busy we are, but it's a great time for so much important work to get done. So we have a lot of reporting to the department, including financial reporting.

We're also closing out the FY24 year and reopening for FY25.

As I said, new hires are coming about in and in the buildings to do their interviews and then coming to central office when they're doing their kind of paperwork as they come in. Subur technology and software work is really important as well as facilities projects.

We'll also, you know, update some of our documents including handbooks and various things in preparation for the new year. We really dig into our district goals with our leadership team to plan for the 24-25 year to really make positive steps with respect to our key goals in the district.

This includes some really intensive work on July 22nd and 23rd with our leadership team, which includes our coordinators and administrators from throughout the district.

And also, I met with Kathy Turner just today and others to really plan for our new staff orientation as well as looking at other opening plans. So we have lots of administrators as well as teacher leaders throughout the district doing some incredibly important work this summer.

And at the end of the year, it really did, as Emily mentioned, end in a really important note with middle school at DC. Kids really working together with their peers at different age groups.

Lots of celebrations and performances.

So and then culminating obviously with our awesome graduation.

So the kids were awesome.

I mean, these this time of year is so much fun, but it makes it so much more enjoyable for everyone when kids are having a blast with the adults and really, you know, just behaving in a fun, exuberant way, but really knowing the line between like what is fun and what is inappropriate.

And our kids were awesome, both at graduation, but in all grade levels. They really had a great time time of the celebrations.

Sometimes that can be a little difficult for kids. They get so excited, but our kids did get really excited, but they also really had a blast. And the teachers were just, you know, just really joyous in the occasion too. And now we're all enjoying a little bit of summertime, but it's been, it was a great end to the year. Thanks, Dr. Botello.

Are there any questions from the table regarding the general updates?

All right. Seeing none, we'll move to our first discussion item. We've got windscreens, windscreens for Peckham Park. There's a discussion and a vote to approve.

Does everybody have an opportunity to look over the windscreens at Peckham Park proposal?

Does anybody need it put up on the screen or are we good? They may have any concerns, anything they need to discuss?

No. So this is regarding, go ahead, Sean.

Can we put it up just for the public to see? Because I think they're pretty great. Does somebody have them can screen here?

Go ahead. Julie raised her hand. I can get them in 30 seconds if you need them.

Julie, do you have them ready to go? I think Julie's in the same position, Jane. So if you can go ahead and just put them up, Jane, that would be great.

So for anybody who's unsure, this is for the naming rights of or for the naming of the baseball park at the high school.

And so these are, this is signage meant to commemorate naming Peckham Park. After a long time, Sharon educator and coach, Joel Peckham.

So you can see their windscreens.

If nobody has any questions or concerns, I would entertain a motion to approve the windscreens and the placement of them at Peckham Park. So moved.

Second.

Second.

All right.

Dan.

Yes.

Adam.

Yes.

Julie.

Yes.

Jeremy.

Yes.

Alan.

Yes.

Shauna.

Yes.

And I'm a yes.

Motion carries 7-0.

I know the baseball coach, Coach Yaffe is on this call. So congratulations to everyone associated with the baseball program and to the community.

I think this is a really nice way to have signage at the stadium there.

All right.

Next up, we've got the school committee 2024, 2025 meeting dates, the confirmation of calendar dates.

Has everybody seen the meeting schedule?

Go ahead, Adam. Adam. Yeah, thanks, Javi. So I did see the schedule.

I think there's one day that conflicts with a Jewish holiday of, I think it was Sukkot.

I think it was October 23rd.

Comfortable keeping that meeting if we want. I won't be able to attend, but, and I'm just one of seven, so there'll obviously still be a quorum, but wanted to raise that so folks were aware.

Dan?

Thanks, Adam, for noting it. It would cause a potential conflict for me as well, but even if it didn't, I think that's probably something we should get resolved, and for members of the public as well. So I would support addressing that however the committee feels fit. Sure. One solution I would throw out if people were comfortable with is, if I'm doing the math, right, the 30th would be the day before Halloween, and it would be a Wednesday.

So we could move the meeting.

There'd be a little bit of a longer gap between the meetings, but on the other hand, it would make for a shorter gap on the other side. And I agree that even if it didn't affect multiple members, but especially because it does, I think anytime we're down to five members, for religious reasons right off the bat, we're in a kind of a numbers crunch. Do folks feel comfortable changing it, changing that date from October 23 to October 30th? Were there any other dates folks saw conflict?

No. All right.

There was no vote on. So Jane, I don't need a vote here. This is just a confirmation of the dates. Yeah. You don't need it. You guys have never historically voted for it. It's just, you reach consensus and I publish.

I assumed, I know you, if there's no vote on there, I assumed we didn't need one. I just figured I'd... All right. Next up, the superintendent evaluation process overview.

Julie had some slides she was going to show us. She promises she can keep it to two minutes and then we'll go to the superintendent evaluation, the summit of evaluation, a discussion and hopefully they vote to approve.

Adam, you have something for me? Yeah. Sorry.

I just wanted to note on the topic of meeting dates.

I'm still interested in finding out if the committee wants to hold some form of retreat over the summer.

I think that's something the committees used to do pre-COVID.

We haven't done it since then. So literally no one on the committee has experienced them. But I would imagine something that is really focused just on the committee getting to know itself a little bit, our goals as school committee members, kind of hopes and dreams, so to speak.

So nothing too crazy, maybe some team building sort of activities.

I think it'd be nice.

I don't know what people's summer schedules look like, especially given that there are three new members on the committee.

Sure. Julie?

I totally agree with Adam and I'm happy to work with Adam to come up with something that is reasonably fun and interesting.

Dan?

Just registering my agreement.

I think that sounds great and I'd like to hear more about it. Yeah. Adam and Julie and Dan, I agree with you guys. I think we haven't had something like that since I've been on the committee, but we have talked about it and we've had probably the closest to that has just been because, you know, when I was, when I joined the committee, I was fortunate to be part of like sort of five new members.

And because of that, I think we did sort of have some stuff where like I'm imagining during this retreat, also possibly an opportunity to bring in our council.

I'd had a conversation actually with our council who does come into districts and help the entire group as a whole, just to go over some of the basics around, you know, how we can work together in ways that are, what is appropriate, what's not, what kinds of communications are okay, what aren't, those kinds of things. So I think, you know, this is, it might be an opportunity to pair some team building, some discussion, but also maybe even bring MASC in for a refresher for all, you know, for those who are here and also kill two birds with one stone, have our three new members go through charting the course all together. I think that was something that was sort of team building for the previous group, the opportunity to go through all that. And I know Julie has been pushing for that since the new group joined.

So I think maybe if Julie, if everybody else is comfortable with it, maybe if Julie and Adam want to sort of put some ideas together and then communicate and find a date that works for everybody.

Everybody good with that? All right.

Moving to the overview of the evaluation.

Julie, the floor is yours for exactly two minutes.

Okay. Thank you, Avi. And I just wanted to do this for the good of the order. We don't have, no one was able to, none of the new members were able to attend the June 22nd charting the course.

So I thought it would be valuable for them to hear a little bit about the process and also for the public consumption.

So the superintendent evaluation, the most important thing is that this is not like a corporate evaluation.

You don't like kind of sit down privately and, you know, do coaching.

It's actually very, very structured and our role is governance, not management.

So the goal driven process is aligned to agreed upon focus indicators.

So this is all coming from the board of education, DESI, and they want, they, they set out the goals. You have a practice, professional practice goals.

They have focus indicators.

This is all decided.

There are four smart goals, three areas that you pick from, and they're smart because they're strategic, specific, measurable, action oriented, rigorous, realistic.

And then they're timed and tracked.

So this is, this is sort of the, a framework that we use when we go through the evaluation process.

There's also focus indicators.

There's 21 of them. Obviously we, you know, aren't expecting 21 focus indicators, usually pick about six to eight of these.

The school committee also, we evaluate the superintendent process progress throughout the year. So this is from a school committee meeting in November where we, where this is Dr. Patello's slide from them. And this is where we talk about establishing the goals, focus indicators.

We have progress updates.

We have a lot of discussion.

I think for most of us, we've been here all year.

This, nothing was a surprise on this, this thing.

So we are supplied artifacts to support the conclusions.

So we can request that the district collect certain information, information, but we're not allowed to collect that information.

And I think that's a very important point because last week or last meeting, somebody talked about getting a teacher survey.

We are not allowed to do that. We can ask the administration to ask the union to do that, but we are not allowed to do that.

On the same topic, we're not allowed to collect any extra information from, you know, anonymous surveys.

We're not allowed to just bring up evidence that hasn't been mentioned before in the school committee meeting, if it isn't part of the evidence that's presented.

And most importantly, if a member has some evidence that would like to be discussed, it needs to be presented in writing 14 days in advance.

So the superintendent can evaluate it and discuss it and come up with a response.

So we create the performance rating for the goals and the standards, and we present the overall summative evaluation, which we're going to have in a minute.

And here are some resources for our members and for also for anyone interested.

So thank you very much.

That's it. I know it wasn't two minutes, but I tried.

Sorry. You did a great job. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Does anybody have any questions, concerns, et cetera, before we move to the summit of evaluation or the superintendent evaluation, summit evaluation discussion, vote to approve. All right, Dr. Botella, back to the evaluation we go. Has everybody had an opportunity to look at the summit of evaluation?

I'd asked Adam if he could take the floor at this point, be able to put this up on screen.

Just ask if anybody had any specific concerns, questions, points of disagreement on this before I would entertain a motion to vote. Thanks, Javi.

So I think everyone has seen this.

This is the summit of evaluation.

We can scroll through quickly to say effectively there was both an overall evaluation as well as performance ratings across each of the standards as well as each of the goals.

And you can see their notes reflected under each. I've basically created this by trying to condense and consolidate and summarize the statements and feedback that people had given. In some cases, things were not like in some cases, things were very cut and dry. Everyone was very much in agreement.

In other cases, a little bit less so. And so I tried to find the blend of where the committee seemed to stand, but I'm very open to and interested in hearing feedback.

And this is something that we can discuss and edit if necessary.

So I guess I'll open up the floor and ask, is there any feedback?

Are there any areas for discussion?

Jeremy?

Jeremy?

I would recommend that we move standard three to needs improvement.

I think that just looking at the comments and the notes and kind of feedback from the community, this is an area where improvement is needed.

I don't think it's meeting the bar of proficient.

And, you know, I think that there are a few examples highlighted in the notes.

OK. So this is, we can see, this is just the standard as it was written.

And then just for the purposes of showing the public, make sure we're on the same page. Here are the notes that people can read. Any other thoughts or comments, either regarding standard three or overall?

Yeah, Alan.

I just wanted to go on record. I think each member of the committee needs to make their own decisions. And I respect everybody's opinion on this. For me, as someone who works in HR, I'm going to abstain on the vote or any comment with regard to this evaluation.

I was not a participant in the overwhelming majority of the period of evaluation.

And I think nobody deserves to be evaluated by someone who's had such limited interaction and no personal interaction, just what we see on the screen.

So I look forward to participating next year, but I'm going to abstain from both comment and voting this year. Thanks. Thanks.

Thank you, Alan.

Dan.

I just have a brief meta comment while we're on the topic of standard three.

I did read through this document and I'm not offering an opinion, mind you, right now, but I did notice that the write-up, I questioned how the write-up supported the rating.

So I saw a write-up that mentioned what I viewed as deficient areas or areas for improvement, whatever you want to call it. But the rating was a variation of proficient.

So it read more to me like needs improvement.

But then when I saw the rating, it was within the category of proficient.

So I'm not giving an opinion one way or another.

I just, for the purpose of discussion, you know, if we ended up on proficient, to be fair to Dr. Botello, I would hope to include more of the, what got us there, sort of a more balanced write-up.

And if we went the opposite way, I would just want that to match as well. So that's my only comment right now. Thank you, Dan. Just to clarify and summarize, you're saying if it maintains a proficient minus rating that we would want to just supplement with some additional kind of positive notes in the note.

Correct.

Thank you. Yeah, Jeremy.

Yeah, I strongly disagree with Alan's comment on new committee members not participating in the evaluation, abstaining.

For most of these categories, there's not that much material that is privy to just the school committee.

And I think that running, we learned a lot about how the community felt about the communications from Dr. Botello and how he's been performing there. And it's our duty to serve the community.

And if they feel that communication is something that's judged by the community, the methods here are, how is the community receiving this feedback? And it's something I heard over and over that it's an area that really needs improvement.

Thank you, Jeremy.

Julie.

Thanks, Adam.

I can actually answer this for both Alan and Jeremy.

New members who were not here all year do not vote on this.

That is in principle and in practice.

We do not vote. My first year in the school committee, I got elected.

I did not vote. Adam did not vote. I checked the minutes today from that meeting.

We both abstained.

So I do believe it is totally inappropriate for a new member who has collected information that nobody was privy to, that was not presented in writing 14 days in advance, and is not part of the evaluation.

That is why I gave this overview of the evaluation, because I know you guys didn't have a chance to go to, and there's not going to be another chance to for charting the course until September.

That is why I put that together, specifically so that we don't understand that. So you're saying that this could be totally based? Not on anything we've heard from any members. Point of order, please raise your hand. Adam, you're welcome to chair this portion, but we're not going to get into just open crosstalk.

Agreed.

We'll go to Shauna and then Jeremy will come back. Can I finish my sentence? Oh, yes. I'm sorry, Julie. I didn't know you. That's okay. Before I was rudely interrupted, I was saying that the whole point of my presentation was to explain that we have a very straightforward, clearly defined process that comes from the Department of Education, and we cannot violate it. We have to go with what we did. We set out the things that Dr. Patel is going to be evaluated on. We discussed that in November.

We get updates on that throughout the year, and that is what he gets evaluated on. If you would like to add something that was not there, then you need to submit it 14 days in advance in writing as per our own policy, and that is how it is. All right.

So I'm going to ask, and Shauna will come to you in one second, but I'm going to ask that we try to kind of simmer down the temperature a little bit. I know there are strong feelings about evaluations and otherwise.

Let's try to keep this as much about the evaluation, and Julie, I think to your point, we do have a policy. There are contractual obligations, and I think that should be noted and reflected.

Let's try to maintain a sense of decorum.

Shauna.

Thanks.

I was just going on to say that I too didn't vote my first year, and it served as like an opportunity to listen and learn, and then ask questions, and then become more involved in the process in year two and now year three.

So, Julie, I know that you noted that you and Adam didn't do that, but I just wanted to put it out there too.

Thank you, Shauna. Jeremy? Yeah. I mean, back to the evidence presented, like, where is this aggregation of evidence?

Like, I didn't see any evidence presented around unintentional harm done to different communities.

Like, where's the written submission of that 14 days in advance?

I mean, all of these things are things that we've watched happen, right?

So I think it's fair to evaluate on district communications as a member of the district, whether or not I was on the school committee at the time.

Thank you, Jeremy.

And I'm going to jump in and just note that I think there were likely communications.

I know I sent communication to the superintendent kind of in advance related to, more in real time, related to some of those things noted.

So I think feedback was given to the superintendent.

And I think that's what effectively has to happen for our policies.

So just so that you know, and I don't think there's any way you would know of this previously because you weren't on the committee. And honestly, if these were individual conversations or emails, committee members wouldn't necessarily be privy.

But I think as they're including evidence or notes or reflecting those in their evaluations, something should have been presented to Dr. Patel beforehand.

So I think the goal there is really, there shouldn't be any surprises or gotchas at the time of the evaluation that has not been shared in advance with Dr. Patel.

Alan?

Alan Patel I just want to say, I mean, I think, you know, reasonable people can disagree about this, but I certainly ran because there were things I believed that needed to be maintained.

I ran because there were things I certainly believed needed to be strengthened and improved.

And I feel fortunate to have been elected because a number of people in this community thought that my views and my approach was the right one. And I'm not suggesting that I don't have an opinion about Dr. Patel's performance, but I also understand that we're judging the performance of a human being and an employee of this district.

I don't think there's an individual out there who in their working world and their working life would want to be evaluated by someone who's only known them over a TV screen or Zoom screen, hasn't met with them personally and hasn't really observed the interpersonal interactions over the course of the year for which they're being evaluated.

And so while I have a myriad of opinions about what's going on over the last year, I think we have to remember that this is a very specific human resources driven process.

And it's not electoral process.

And that's why I think it's appropriate for me as a new member to abstain.

I do respect that if other members feel differently, I don't know what the policies are. That's not my my rationale here.

But I just think as a matter of prudent HR, we shouldn't be voting. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Alan. Avi.

Thanks, Adam. I have a couple of points. I think, you know, one of the things Jeremy said, I think makes a lot of sense, which is that there are, in fact, other deviations within within our commentary and notes that perhaps are outside of data that was provided in writing to the superintendent.

Um, I think that the I think they're legitimate comments because they're, they're things that the committee members who spoke them were personally involved in, as you yourself gave an example of Adam, you know, conversations, communication with Dr. Patello. But I do think that's a very fair point being made by Jeremy.

For me, I do just want to stress that the we represent the public and that there's no doubt that that's our role. We represent the public. But the evaluation process is not an evaluation of the superintendent by the public. I know that a lot of times, you know, a lot of feedback is shared with us. And I think the purpose of our policy that that actually does the only tiny thing I would disagree a little bit with Julie's presentation would just be to say, in looking at that policy, actually, the school committee can use any data, um, any real any data source it wants, but so long as it reduces it in writing to the superintendent 14 days prior to his evaluation.

So I do think that that there are opportunities here to be a little bit more regimented in our evaluation process, um, and to be a little bit more direct, but I also think that the, or a little bit more directly tying to the process and the policy.

I also do though, think that, that, you know, that policy exists for a reason. Uh, Dr. Patello's contract has language in it that ties to that policy for a reason. And, you know, this is a very, um, somewhat sterile process with strict guidelines and rules.

Putting all that aside, I do want to say that for me, a proficient minus reflects my feelings.

Um, you know, we, we had a conversation about some of the communication concerns we had at the last meeting, but we haven't had a fully robust conversation about all the communication that has been a positive and to be frank has been a real growth area in the time that I've been here as both a committee member and specifically as chair. Um, you know, one thing I want to point out is we have language in there. Um, and again, this sort of supports Dan's point that the, perhaps the language with the, within the no cease to change, we mentioned the kindergarten fees. Um, you know, again, like this is an area that I think would clearly show the difference between sort of someone who was in the public at that time versus someone on the committee.

And, and specifically for me as chair, I was, I was privy to, uh, conversations with Dr. Patello where he indicated to me that the rock and hard place around the kindergarten fee communication was that that having come from the table, there were still things that not only needed to be figured out, but also questions about what the ramifications were going to be. Here's an example.

Was there going to be half day kindergarten?

And was there going to be AM PM or was there only going to be AM as the district ended up doing and finding that solution? Because again, there were other budget dominoes that fell and operational dominoes that fell. And that's a good example of like where the school committee had authority and exercised it and our operational lead and educational lead and our superintendent had to then react to that. But there were, there were things I think in play that prevented communication, uh, from going through.

And personally, I would advocate that it is a good communicator who chooses not to put information out that is going to then have to change, you know, for example, not to like turn the knife on us, myself very much included, but I think the, the calendar situation, um, which was solely on the committee and not on our administration is, is an area where, you know, the, the, the over communicating, it has been shown to perhaps not be the best way to go and spin people around a little, I can point to other examples.

Um, you know, I know it's sort of vaguely addressed in these notes, but clearly we're talking about the speaker that was invited and there were real divides in our community.

It was a very divisive situation.

Was I happy with all the communication that went out from Dr. Patel? Personally, I wasn't, but professionally in my capacity, as school committee chair, I was able to see that Dr. Patel did what I don't think every superintendent does. He met with groups of parents, um, and had real sit down conversations.

He met with school committee members and had real in-depth conversations.

So to me, if we're evaluating in an HR capacity, as Alan mentioned, our superintendent, I would have a really hard time saying that Dr. Patel in his communication deserves what I view as a score that sends a real message to me, a needs improvement on a superintendent evaluation is a message is a, is a statement.

It is something that often is reported on. And to me, there are times where that's necessary.

In this case, I think it was less than ideal and less than proficient.

And that's why the proficient minus is, is there. But I have a, I would have a very, very hard time voting for and supporting a summative evaluation that put a needs improvement on our superintendent after a year that I view as a year of growth for our superintendent.

Thank you, Avi.

Julie.

Julie.

I think Avi said everything really, really well.

And I agree with what you said.

I will say that my understanding of needs improvement, and I didn't put this in my presentation because I couldn't find it. Um, but my understanding is needs improvement is not like what you give your fifth graders, like, for their handwriting needs improvement or something like that. It's a, it's a really serious.

Um, it's, it's very serious.

And I do think that it needs improvement, uh, should be discussed with the superintendent before it's given in a school committee meeting, because it is important.

Um, that's my understanding, um, from talking to, I believe it was Veronica who told me this, but I could not, I couldn't find that anywhere, but I, I, I do believe that that's a good policy, even if it's not a policy.

Thank you, Julie. Shana.

Um, so Julie, just to piggyback off you, um, I think it's a matter of professional courtesy, um, specifically, uh, for the superintendent, that if there was an area of needs improvement, that it would be, um, shared with him prior to the meeting.

And I know that last meeting, I personally had, um, some reservations about the, um, the ratings.

And I know that I had brought that up, um, in the meeting regarding the profession, uh, the proficient plus proficient minus ratings.

Um, and I, I leaned more towards the needs improvement myself.

Um, however, I do think that it's important that wherever we land with, um, the indicator that we develop actionable steps together as a committee and with Dr. Botello to see how do we continue to help support him, um, and subsequently us grow as a district, right?

Um, his area of his need of communication and things that we are asking for as a district from him, um, as long as they're clearly defined, um, it's, it's important for us as a district to then be able to hold him accountable to that. Um, but outside of that, I think that the, um, two instances that were noted in the evaluation are, um, important, um, but also, um, can help guide us moving forward.

Thank you, Shana.

Um, all right.

So I'm gonna, I'm gonna bring it back, um, for a second.

Uh, I, you know, I think regardless of where, where things land, that the point was made that we could have included more, uh, kind of positive or, or supportive feedback.

Um, I didn't, and that was my oversight.

Um, that was actually, as I was reading through, um, one of my takeaways as well. And so, um, I have some texts that I think maybe I'd actually, it's interesting that people brought this up because maybe that they would agree, uh, or demonstrate some degree of consensus.

Um, but I, I have those prepared, so I'm gonna include them. Um, and then we can see if we agree or disagree as we're kind of changing on the fly. Um, but so I had prepared kind of those, those two, two sentences.

Um, and so I think there's kind of two questions here. One, um, do we have general consensus on those sentences, um, as being reflective of, of the evaluation?

Um, and we can change them, uh, if not, and then after that, uh, we can discuss the rating itself.

So, uh, folks can read that for a second, but let me just ask, is that, does the committee kind of feel that these additional sentences kind of reflect some of the positive that was brought forward in the evaluation last meeting?

Um, um, or we can also edit those.

I think it looks fine.

I'm seeing nods.

Okay. Um, yeah, Jeremy.

Yeah. I would ask for which written evidence supports those lines, since that's a requirement.

Uh, this was a kind of summary of the statements made in the last meeting.

And again, like if we're using the standard of written requirements needed for this evaluation that have to be shared, like, I would like to see those before saying, I agree with this or not agree with this.

I'm sorry, I'm not following a hundred percent.

So, so like I said, these sentences are drawn from the meeting, uh, from our last school committee meeting.

Um, we can reflect the, the actual, like looking through the availability to kind of different parents, community groups, and district staff.

Um, or we can note the, like the committee complimented the weekly dispatch.

I'm just not sure exactly what evidence you're looking for. Jeremy Grantham, Right. I mean, that's the point to Julie Rose prior comments, right?

This is not based on like this curated set of evidence.

It's based on things that we've observed.

Um, but I agree. I've heard good things about the weekly dispatch.

Jeremy Grantham, I think the, the notes, that Julie was making and I apologize, Julie, I'll, I'll call on you. Let me know if I'm not getting this right. Um, but, but my takeaway at least for me, for that policy is if you are going to bring forth evidence.