By DAN TOMASELLO
LYNNFIELD — The School Committee engaged in a spirited and at times contentious debate on Oct. 7 over finishing a series of goals that have currently been put on hold.
School Committee member Kim Baker Donahue said she requested that the panel discuss the goals that the committee began working on during two summer workshops.
“My question really is around what is our plan for our School Committee goals,” said Baker Donahue. “We had a summer workshop on June 18, where we spent a good amount of time having a discussion about the fact we would like to get started on that process and coming up with three or four goals that we wanted to focus on.”
Baker Donahue said the School Committee held another workshop on Aug. 11, where she said all five members “presented initial drafts of the goals.”
“We began a discussion about that with the intent that we would meet again,” said Baker Donahue.
According to the minutes from the School Committee’s Aug. 11 workshop, the committee reviewed four draft goals pertaining to the strategic plan initiative that Superintendent Tom Geary is working on, a communication goal, a budget goal and an inclusion goal.
Policy BA, which is the School Committee Operational Goals Policy, states in part that the panel will be “periodically setting performance objectives for the School Committee itself and evaluating their accomplishment” as well as “conducting a concrete and periodic review” of the goals that were established.
While prior School Committees did not codify the panel’s goals in previous years, former school boards established a wide variety of goals pertaining to areas such as increasing STEM education in the district, expanding the health/wellness curriculum, adding world languages into the elementary schools, communication, increasing Lynnfield High School’s SAT scores and establishing a mechanism to ensure the district’s curriculum was aligned with the Common Core State Standards.
Baker Donahue said School Committee Chair Kristen Grieco Elworthy and Geary “made the decision to forgo working on the goals.”
“I didn’t make that decision with Tom,” said Elworthy in response. “I had a discussion with Tom that I shared with all of you about the timing of the goals. I don’t think anyone is forgoing working on the goals. My suggestion was that we revisit them in January or February when we have some more data and feedback into the strategic plan, which will inform our district for the next three years. Because of the way that the scheduling was starting to bump us out, by the time we would have gotten the goals together would have been Novemberish. We would then have been walking into the strategic plan about two months later. When he and I talked, I shared that perspective with you all in an email. Since we were having a bit of trouble scheduling the next workshop, I did want to close the loop on that workshop and shared that conversation and feedback. Obviously you had a question about it, so it is on the agenda tonight.”
Baker Donahue said in response, “that was not clear what you just stated in your email.”
“What I read was that we are tabling it for now and we were going to wait for the strategic plan, which to me means the end of the year,” said Baker Donahue. “You did not mention anything about which months. My follow up to that is why wait. I understand that we want them to align with the strategic plan. I think they can even guide some of the conversation, but they are not necessarily entwined with each other.”
Baker Donahue said she agrees with the Massachusetts Association of School Committees (MASC) viewpoint that
“School Committee goals are a best practice.” She said School Committee goals can be aligned with district goals, superintendent goals and administrator goals.
“We are sort of at the top of the hierarchy, and it very much sets the tone for the district about what we want to accomplish and also holds us accountable about what we are doing,” said Baker Donahue.
While Elworthy said she “started the process in June for the same reasons as you stated,” she felt that the School Committee needed to get more information about the strategic plan. She also said trying to schedule the workshop has been a challenge due to committee members’ lives being busy.
“I think a lot of the things we put in the goals align with what Tom is doing in his superintendent goals and the district’s goals,” said Elworthy.
School Committee Vice Chair Jim Dillon said the previous boards he served on “never had School Committee goals.”
“It’s something we can do,” added Dillon.
Dillon recalled that Geary established four superintendent goals this year that pertain to developing the strategic plan, increasing communication around the budget development process, school culture, and reviewing and assessing the district’s social studies and visual arts curriculum for grades K-12. He said the School Committee has already been working on its communication and budget goals, and said the board should hold off on finalizing the goals until the strategic plan is developed.
“This is going to define district priorities,” said Dillon.
In response to a question from Dillon, Geary said the Strategic Planning Stakeholders Group includes 37 members comprised of students, parents, community members, educators, administrators and School Committee members.
“That is a very broad and comprehensive group of people along with a facilitator,” said Dillon. “I want to value and respect what that committee is doing and what they come up with as we move forward and say these are School Committee goals. It is a highly focused district since you have taken over Tom. Since the initiatives about communication and budget are happening anyway, I think it would be putting the cart before the horse because we see what this is going to do.”
School Committee member Jamie Hayman pushed back on Dillon’s viewpoint.
“With all due respect Jim, this was important enough that I had to take half a day off from work to come and plan all of this,” said Hayman. “We have known about the strategic plan well before that second session happened on Aug. 11. The strategic plan is going to take the entire year. Yes the strategic plan will impact how School Committees go forward in future years. We did it at the summer workshop in the middle of the summer. I don’t think we are being honest here.”
Elworthy said she “was sorry you feel I was not being honest.”
“I was having a very hard time scheduling the session and as it got pushed out further, Tom and I had a conversation about the timing of things,” said Elworthy. “At that point, if we are approving goals in November or December, it starts push out further.”
Hayman said he did not believe Elworthy was being dishonest.
“I think you made a very, very good attempt to try and get this scheduled,” said Hayman.
While Baker Donahue said she agreed with Dillon that the superintendent’s goals “need to guide the district,” she said “School Committee goals are what is going to guide us.”
“If we put goals in place and the (Strategic Planning Stakeholders Group) has different opinions, there is no reason we can’t go back and tweak them,” said Baker Donahue. “You mentioned three of the four goals we discussed, but you did not mention that we were trying to put together a commitment to inclusivity. That is something that is extremely important.”
Dillon said, “the district is moving in that direction.”
Dillon said developing the strategic plan is a “major project that is going to define the district’s priorities.”
“It is being done now and will be finished relatively soon,” said Dillon. “That is really the driver here, not whatever whims the School Committee members have. That is going to be the driver.”
School Committee member Kate DePrizio said she agreed with Dillon that the goals should be put on hold until the strategic plan is developed.
“I am seeing this as a pause and while we haven’t codified these, I am seeing them show up in all of that we are doing,” said DePrizio. “I think there is no lack of accountability. I think it is just looking a little bit different than a formalized goal at this point.”
While Elworthy said she was trying to have the goals finalized in September, she said scheduling issues was the reason why they were delayed.
“I can try to get us in a room together if folks would like,” said Elworthy. “I was just giving my best.”
Baker Donahue said, “I am not saying you weren’t.”
“I also appreciate your effort to try and get us together,” said Baker Donahue. “As Jim said, we are working on moving the budget along faster, we are working on communication and all of those things. If we are doing them anyway, why not codify them into goals? It doesn’t make sense to not codify these things.”
Baker Donahue also stressed that the School Committee should be following Policy BA.
Elworthy said Policy BA does not “have a timeline on there.”
“We are not in violation of a bylaw by going at the exact pace as I ideally would have like to go as well,” said Elworthy.
Baker Donahue disagreed.
“That is semantics,” said Baker Donahue. “That is an excuse.”
Elworthy asked if the School Committee wanted to revisit the goals either sometime this fall or early next year.
Baker Donahue and Hayman preferred revisiting the goals this fall. Dillon and DePrizio preferred waiting to the spring.
“That is good information to have,” said Elworthy. “Let me look at our meeting schedule to figure out what we can do.”