Tonight the Tech School Committee made public the Supt. evaluation using a similar format that the Lowell Committee used to evaluate Jean Franco only the Tech one was put out by DESE.
Supt. Santoro received an 83% Overall rating indicating a Meets or exceeds Expectations.
It was broken down as
Exceeds expectations 38.47%
Meets Expectations 44.64%
Fails to meet Expectations 15.5%
Not Rated 1.34%
on Many questions there are 2 or 3 items listed (A,B,C) some committee members broke down and scored each item, some gave just 1 overall grade which is why the total number for each individual member differs by 1 or 2.
Here is the quick and rough breakdown by each Member (I did this fast so I may have missed or been over) but you get the main idea.
Lenzi 17 exceeds 15 meets 0 fails
Morin 16 exceeds 17 meets 0 fails
Gitschier 1 exceeds 11 meets 19 fails 2 N/A
Olson 25 exceeds 7 meets 1 fails
O’Hare 21 exceeds 8 meets 0 fails
Bahou 1 exceeds 14 meets 17 fails
Tatseos 0 exceeds 24 meets 3 fails
Tully 15 exceeds 13 meets
Looking at the evaluations it appears that Tully, Morin,Tatseos and Lenzi seem very satisfied with the Supt, while O’Hare and Olson clearly think she is doing a great overall job.
I thought George Tatseos, Mike Lenzi and Paul Morin were all pretty balanced in their evaluations. Victor Olson may have given to many exceeds but he gave her 1 Fails to meet in his evaluation.
The scoring by Bahou and Gitschier certainly appear to indicate they view the Superintendent very differently then the other members.
Members get the opportunity to write comments about why they scored what they did and to submit a summary note or just make notes on each item. Some chose to do both or just one. I’ve attached a copy of the letters submitted by Mr. Moran, Mr. Tully and Mr. Bahou to explain their marks.
Both Mr. Tully and Mr. Moran point out a some fraction in the school that contributes to the moral issue and Morin calls for all members to move on for the sake of the school.
One thing that surprised me was the item on the evaluation that indicates the Supt. is held responsible to develop a process by which School committee members are informed and educated about THEIR Role as well as the role of the Superintendent.
Shouldn’t the members do that on their own?
Tomorrow: The Supt. responses to Fails to meet – Part of the new process allows the Superintendent to respond to those marks that indicate Fails to meet. I’ll have some of those responses posted.
PS: Tonight Erik Gitschier stopped the committee from going into what may have been an illegal executive session but the way he did it made himself look bad.
He stated he had copies and produced them of rulings by the State ethics commission and Atty General yet he also stated he just opened the School Committee package ‘last night” and didn’t have a chance to call the Chairman to inform him of the possible illegal Executive session. Guess he wants people to believe that it takes more time to make a phone call than it does to look up specific cases…LMAO how insincere can you be???