At its Dec. 17 meeting the School Committee missed an opportunity to reestablish its credibility with the people who voted for the committee’s censure this fall. For those who may have forgotten, two of the three grievances listed on the citizens’ petition calling for the School Committee’s censure were related to the superintendent’s performance review. Citizens who signed the petition took issue with the committee for:
“1. Prematurely extending the superintendent’s contract without need or justification; 2. Providing an unwarranted positive annual performance review of the superintendent of Harvard’s Public Schools.”
During the public forum hosted by the School Committee Oct. 1, several speakers criticized the board’s process for evaluating the superintendent. There was discussion at that meeting about including in the superintendent’s goals objective measures by which to evaluate his performance. At least one committee member agreed this was a good idea.
Fast-forward to Dec. 17, when the School Committee reviewed—and approved—the superintendent’s goals for the coming year. These goals included verbiage such as, “Continue to develop and revise systems of internal communication … Support further development of a comprehensive three-tier intervention model to help meet the needs of all learners … Continue to provide expanded elective offerings…Examine the guidance program in light of current best practices… .”
What is the superintendent being held accountable for? Who can tell from these statements? There were no objective, quantifiable indicators provided. One resident attending the meeting pointed out this oversight to the committee, but it seems his concerns were not heard. The board had come to the meeting already prepared to vote on the goals that were presented. The committee could have regained some of the public confidence it had lost, had it stopped and taken action addressing this concern. But it didn’t.
Harvard students have MCAS—what is the standard of achievement for the superintendent of schools?