See AI Disclaimer at Bottom
Click Below for Additional Meeting Resources:
Meeting Opening and Administrative Matters (Link: 00:01:00 – 00:04:00)
Chair Amy O’Connor called the Swampscott School Committee meeting to order on Thursday, November 6th at 6 PM at the high school. She noted that the student representatives were not present and that Vice Chair Glenn Paster was joining the meeting remotely.
O’Connor explained that this was an unexpected meeting, as a financial summit originally scheduled for that evening had to be postponed. She expressed that her counterparts Katie and Eric were equally upset by the postponement. The summit is planned to be rescheduled for the following week and will focus primarily on capital matters. O’Connor encouraged committee members to attend and indicated this would hopefully be the beginning of quarterly meetings between the parties involved.
There was a brief technical issue where Paster could not hear the proceedings, which was resolved when it was discovered that Swampscott TV had the audio muted. The committee then recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
O’Connor opened the floor for public comments, noting there was a guest present, but no one came forward to speak. She confirmed that no online participants had raised their hands to comment. The meeting then proceeded to committee comments, with O’Connor asking committee member Miguel Contreras to begin.
Committee Comments and Updates (Link: 00:04:00 – 00:09:00)
Contreras thanked the governor and representatives for securing funding for the district, specifically mentioning $35,000 received for track planning and funding for playground surface improvements. He also expressed gratitude to the team that prepared the budget for the upcoming cycle, with hopes of achieving under 1% growth again.
O’Connor mentioned seeing news coverage of Governor Maura Healey considering rolling back Proposition 2½, describing it as an interesting development given the financial struggles communities face. She also requested that the superintendent address the no social media initiative at the high school during his report, expressing enthusiasm for the program.
Giantis noted that Melrose had approved a $13 million Proposition 2½ override the previous day, primarily for schools and administrative services. He inquired about more details regarding the track funding mentioned by Contreras.
Wright clarified that the track project would cost significantly more than the $35,000 mentioned, estimating closer to one million dollars. She suggested the $35,000 might be for design work only and noted that Max would be present at the following Thursday’s summit to discuss capital projects in detail.
O’Connor praised the high school open house held the previous evening, expressing pride in the district based on the energy she witnessed and feedback she received through social media.
Paster apologized for attending remotely and echoed comments about Proposition 2½ potentially reaching the end of its usefulness. He reported attending the girls volleyball playoff game on Saturday in Southeastern Massachusetts, praising the enthusiasm of both the team and crowd despite Swampscott’s defeat. He thanked Kelly Wolfe and congratulated the coaches, noting the team’s youth and future potential. Paster also mentioned lasting four and a half days on the no social media initiative, which O’Connor acknowledged as an accomplishment for him. He concluded by announcing a Shore Diversity meeting scheduled for Tuesday, November 11, at First Church, encouraging community attendance.
Superintendent’s Report (Link: 00:09:00 – 00:15:00)
Superintendent Jason Calichman began by addressing the no social media November initiative, reporting that he had deleted his Instagram account for the month. He explained that Megan Ramirez spearheaded the initiative at the high school, with Ms. Zotto providing Polaroid cameras for students to use around the school. Calichman indicated that data and information about participation rates would be collected and shared with the committee after the initiative concludes.
Calichman discussed the broader context of screen time and social media use among students, noting the contradiction between telling students to get off their phones while having them use Chromebooks throughout the day. He referenced research showing connections between screen time and anxiety and depression in children, emphasizing the need to get students outside and engaged in more collaborative work. He acknowledged the challenges parents face regarding phone usage decisions and expressed hope that the initiative would be a step toward addressing these issues.
The superintendent praised the recent theater production, describing it as “unbelievable” and noting its intense, scary nature. He shared an anecdote about previously taking his seven-year-old to “Urinetown” based on Mr. Pearson’s recommendation, and how his child decided not to attend the Poe production, which turned out to be fortunate given its intensity. He commended the talent and production quality of the performance.
Calichman reported on meetings with Shore Diversity, explaining that he and Ms. Otto had met with the organization twice since the beginning of the school year. They are working to encourage various clubs to apply for RFP funding available through Shore Diversity. He mentioned the successful Black History Month door decorating contest at the middle school that has been running for five to six years, plans to bring a poet to the elementary school, and discussions about expanding Black History Month activities at the high school while ensuring recognition of other groups as well.
O’Connor interjected to remind Calichman about ensuring that the girls who had presented to the committee the previous year regarding an empowered girls forum apply for Shore Diversity funding. Calichman confirmed that information had been sent to all principals to share with their clubs. He also mentioned that Lisa Harris had been personally funding supplies for the door decorating contest and that Shore Diversity funding could help address this need.
Calichman described the previous evening’s high school open house as the best he had ever experienced. He detailed the event’s setup, which included Eddie Rovi leading the band playing Nirvana and the Killers in the atrium, Shore Diversity representatives, live TV streaming with student interviews, 40 clubs and sports teams in the cafeteria, and the chorus singing “Time After Time” as parents entered the auditorium. He reported receiving significant positive feedback about the energy and atmosphere of the event.
The superintendent clarified that the open house was primarily for rising eighth graders but was open to anyone considering the high school. He noted that between five and ten families currently attending private schools attended the event, with Ms. Otto believing they had successfully convinced these families to consider the public high school option.
School Calendar Amendment Discussion and Vote (Link: 00:15:00 – 00:17:00)
Calichman explained that there was an issue with the school calendar regarding a November 13th middle school night conference that had not been properly approved. He referenced a situation from the previous year where the committee had approved a calendar and then rescinded it weeks later, suggesting this may have caused confusion. The November 13th night conference was not included in the voted calendar, though he was uncertain about what had happened.
The superintendent explained that the district had added a second night conference option several years ago to provide more flexibility for working families, as the night conference slots had previously been in high demand like “concert tickets.” He requested approval to proceed with the November 13th middle school night conference as planned.
O’Connor asked whether the teachers’ union was supportive of this addition, and Calichman confirmed they were agreeable. When O’Connor inquired about any pushback regarding the last-minute nature of the request, Calichman indicated there had been some conversation but that most people expected the conference to occur. A committee member asked whether anything was being removed from the calendar or if this was simply an addition, and O’Connor clarified that nothing was being traded or negotiated away. The committee agreed this appeared to be an administrative error that had resulted in the conference being dropped from the official calendar.
O’Connor called for a motion to approve the amended 2024-25 school calendar. A committee member made the motion, and another seconded it. The committee conducted a roll call vote due to Paster participating remotely. All committee members voted yes, making the approval unanimous.
Superintendent Goals Discussion and Evaluation (Link: 00:18:00 – 01:08:00)
Calichman indicated he had incorporated feedback from the previous week’s discussion into slides and was willing to make adjustments based on committee preferences. He mentioned there had been some debate about formatting, such as having three night events versus one to four events, and stated he would do whatever the committee wanted.
Wright expressed appreciation for the table format but emphasized the need for measurable and SMART goals with clear evidence of achievement. She argued that goals stating “review” or “measure progress over three years” were too ambiguous and needed more specific first, second, and third-year objectives or clearer definitions of what progress would look like.
O’Connor raised concerns about ensuring goal posts don’t move for the superintendent, emphasizing the importance of clear expectations. Wright clarified that having definitive, measurable objectives would actually prevent moving goal posts and make evaluations more objective rather than subjective.
Giantis expressed concern about being too prescriptive with goals and measurements, worrying that the superintendent would spend excessive time documenting compliance with very specific requirements rather than focusing on leadership. He advocated for empowering the new superintendent to be successful without being burdened by overly detailed reporting requirements.
O’Connor agreed with Giantis about avoiding excessive detail in meeting frequency requirements, noting that such numbers should be based on the superintendent’s professional judgment about what employees and parents need. She referenced past experiences with cumbersome coding systems that became meaningless.
Wright disagreed, referencing how the former superintendent maintained a file of evidence throughout the year based on identified indicators, and noted that Calichman had shown them a spreadsheet for tracking his activities. She emphasized that the goal was to have data-driven evaluation criteria, not punishment, and stressed that goals need to be SMART with some objectivity rather than purely subjective assessment.
The discussion continued with Wright and O’Connor debating whether the school committee should specify indicators upfront or whether the superintendent should provide evidence of progress during evaluations. Wright argued for predetermined benchmarks while O’Connor suggested the professional should determine appropriate indicators.
Paster acknowledged both perspectives but emphasized wanting broad goals for a first-year superintendent, suggesting more specific goals could be appropriate in years two through ten. He expressed concern about potential burnout and wanted the superintendent to focus on what’s most important during the initial period.
O’Connor stated she didn’t see the positions as dramatically different and noted that burnout happens regardless of goal structure. She emphasized that they were discussing the CEO of an organization, not a lower-level employee who would be measured by meeting attendance.
Wright strongly disagreed with suggestions to go easier on a first-year superintendent, stating it was offensive to suggest different standards and emphasizing these were the superintendent’s own goals for district improvement. She argued for treating this as standard employee management with clear performance evaluation criteria.
The committee engaged in extensive debate about the balance between measurable objectives and flexibility for a new superintendent. Wright used Goal One as an example, pointing out that it stated “measures over a three year period” without specific annual benchmarks, making it difficult to evaluate progress consistently among committee members.
Calichman offered to revise goals to focus on one-year timeframes rather than three-year periods, noting he had assumed the committee wanted three-year goals. Wright clarified that three-year goals were acceptable but needed to be broken down into annual components with specific expectations for each year.
The discussion revealed philosophical differences among committee members about evaluation approaches, with some favoring detailed milestones and others preferring broader assessments with regular check-ins. Wright emphasized the need for consistent evaluation standards among all committee members.
Calichman noted that Goals Two and Three already contained specific measurable elements like “100% of leadership meetings documented” and “100% of administrators completing evaluation system training.” Wright agreed that only Goals One and Four lacked sufficient measurable components.
After extensive discussion, O’Connor asked Calichman to add deliverables to help define success for Goal One. Wright clarified she wasn’t seeking approval authority over his methods but wanted measurable components added to make goals truly SMART.
Paster made a motion to accept the goals as written, which Contreras seconded. During the vote, Paster, Contreras, Giantis, and O’Connor voted yes, while Wright voted no. Wright explained she couldn’t vote for a plan she had argued needed changes, though she expressed no ill will about the outcome. The motion passed 4-1, approving the superintendent’s goals as presented.
Consent Agenda and Meeting Adjournment (Link: 01:09:00 – 01:11:00)
Contreras made a motion to include actions and votes A and B as part of the consent agenda. Giantis seconded the motion. O’Connor called for a vote to approve these actions and votes, which included the regular session subcommittee meeting of the whole minutes from October 23rd and the regular session minutes from October 23rd. Four committee members voted yes, though there was some confusion about Paster’s vote due to his remote participation.
There was brief confusion about the voting procedure, with Wright initially thinking they had made a consensus vote. O’Connor clarified that the motion was to put both items on the consent agenda and approve them in one vote. With four affirmative votes, the motion was approved.
Wright made a motion to end the meeting, which Giantis seconded. O’Connor called for all in favor to say aye, and the meeting was adjourned at 7:10 PM.
All About Town provides all information in a good faith effort to improve community engagement and awareness. However, text is generated by artificial intelligence, and we make no representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability, or completeness of any information provided herein. Use of the site and reliance on any information on the site is solely at each individual’s own risk.