The School Committee held a special afternoon session Tuesday, May 17, to decide whether or not to formally evaluate Superintendent Thomas Jefferson’s job performance over the past year. The issue arose at the committee’s last regular meeting on May 9, but discussion was cut short because the matter had not appeared on the agenda, as required by the Open Meeting Law. Jefferson, who has only a handful of working days remaining in Harvard, was not present.
According to School Committee Chairman Keith Cheveralls, Jefferson and the committee agreed on the goals and standards for the performance review last fall. Under that agreement, each member was to submit a separate review and discuss it individually with the superintendent. All the reviews would then become public, as required by state law.
Two factors brought those review plans into question. First, in recent years the review has been completed before town elections, so that committee members who had served during the previous year could participate, and the committee missed that date. Second, with Jefferson departing as of June 30, some committee members questioned the usefulness of a performance review at this point.
Committee member Piali De argued fervently that the superintendent’s evaluation is one of the School Committee’s central responsibilities and should be a routine matter every year. “It’s frustrating that we spend meeting after meeting on how to evaluate the superintendent,” she said. “This does not happen in the corporate world.”
Committee members Kirsten Wright and SusanMary Redinger expressed doubts about the usefulness of a performance review at this point. Wright noted that the committee has to establish priorities and plans for the upcoming year, as well as undertaking a search for a permanent superintendent. “We have a lot of things we want to accomplish, and we have a finite amount of time,” she said.
Redinger noted that she had given the matter a lot of thought since the previous meeting. “I’m no longer convinced that the evaluation is important to the town. What value do we get out of it?” she asked. “In the business world, if you are leaving, you don’t get a performance review. You get a thank-you and a handshake.”
Member Patricia Wenger put the issue in terms of an evaluation of the School Committee itself. “Are we doing our jobs well? Are we reviewing superintendents as we should be? I’m not sure we can judge that without having something written.”
Wenger’s comment appeared to resonate with other members. Wright agreed that the real benefit of an evaluation would be to see how the district is doing. Cheveralls also supported this argument, saying, “We are charged with making our superintendent successful. This would be a building tool going forward.”
A motion to proceed with the evaluation passed unanimously. The matter will appear again on the School Committee agenda for its June 13 meeting, when the individually completed forms are expected to become part of the public record.
De noted that it would be in accord with past practice to ask Virginia Justicz, who served on the School Committee up to April but did not run for reelection, and Maureen Babcock, who represents Devens on the committee, to take part in the evaluation. A motion to do so passed unanimously.
The committee then voted to do a self-evaluation, based on the district goals and following the same form as the superintendent’s evaluation, to be on the agenda for June 27. This motion passed, with Redinger abstaining.
