Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 12/22/2021
SPRINGFIELD – After boycotting the district’s superintendent evaluation of Daniel Warwick on Dec. 9, at-large committee members Denise Hurst and Latonia Naylor and District 2 committee member Barbara Gresham expressed their misgivings with the evaluation process.
The trio articulated their initial reasoning in a joint press release before the meeting, highlighting a variety of factors driving their shared decision. Reminder Publishing spoke to Hurst, Naylor and Gresham about their united decision.
For Hurst, a central issue was the lack of awareness and access to the evaluation process. “For nearly two years now, our constituents were only able to access our meetings digitally,” said Hurst, who pointed out that both the evaluation and the Nov. 16 meeting reviewing the superintendent’s progress were not televised via Focus Springfield or accessible via a Zoom link.
Gresham and Naylor also expressed that concern. “It wasn’t transparent enough. It wasn’t televised. People in the community weren’t aware that it was happening, there wasn’t a link provided to see the process of how the superintendent is evaluated. The public did not know they could come to the meeting and be in the audience. With the pandemic still going on, people were not aware of that,” said Gresham.
“We were just under the impression that being in a pandemic, people could only attend via Zoom,” said Naylor, who said she raised similar concerns during last year’s overlooked evaluation period, but her issues were not addressed with this year’s process. “Often times we make suggestions to make things go more smoothly, do better for our public and be more transparent, and it’s not being heard.”
While the lack of transparency was a problem for Naylor, the committee member’s biggest concern connected to the unresolved negotiations for paraprofessionals, who have continued to seek a raise via public speakout sessions of School Committee meetings. Due to their exposure to COVID-19’s impacts and low wages, Naylor expressed her belief that paraprofessionals should be properly compensated.
“How can we not give a contract to our paraprofessionals, who make $16.83 an hour, and we’re giving a raise to somebody who makes $284,000 this year. That doesn’t make sense to me,” said Naylor.
Hurst also raised her concerns with providing a raise for the superintendent amidst paraprofessionals’ ongoing efforts.
“It did not feel right to move forward on giving the highest-paid city official a raise without the public having access to that information and being privy to that discussion,” said Hurst.
The three committee members also showcased perspectives that were not highlighted during the Dec. 9 meeting regarding the evaluation itself.
Gresham said the district still needs to make progress in learning proficiency.
“When students improve in an area by 1 or 2 precent that’s not enough, they should be learning to be proficient in their education,” said Gresham.
Naylor acknowledged that the district has made great progress over the last decade, but stressed that the evaluation should be focused on a single year.
“We’re suppose to do this assessment based on the last year, not the last 10 years,” said Naylor. She stressed that family engagement is an area where the district needs more connectivity, highlighting engagement efforts like the virtual town halls that took place in 2020 as an essential tool to reach the public.
“We have to let families feel that they are heard and have a voice. When I bring things to the table, I am not saying it because I want to complain, I am saying ‘we have to do better’” said Naylor.
Hurst and Gresham zeroed in on the district’s lack of progress in diversifying staff, with Hurst revealing that the district did not improve their diversity by a single percent over the evaluated year. “One of the deliverables was to increase diversity amongst staff … we didn’t even move one percent,” said Hurst.
Gresham highlighted the necessity of having a more diversified staff in the school district. “Students being taught by people that look like them have a higher rate of learning,” said Gresham.
While Warwick received an exemplary score in the summative review, the review itself showcased a more divided process. For Instructional Leadership and Management and Operations, the committee split 43 percent for “Needs Improvement,” and “Exemplary,” with 14 percent also giving a “Proficient” rating.
In the Family and Community Engagement category, 28 percent scored “Exemplary,” 28 percent ranked the superintendent as “Proficient,” 28 percent believed his efforts “Needs Improvement” and 14 percent decided that progress was “Unsatisfactory.” As far as the Professional Culture category goes, 28 percent felt that he was “Proficient” and “Needs Improvement,” while 43 percent felt his efforts were “Exemplary.”
“Even though the majority of the School Committee did not find that [the superintendent] exceeded expectations throughout the whole evaluation, the mayor still gave the superintendent a high impact and exemplary evaluation,” said Hurst, who said the superintendent himself admitted to not meeting certain goals.
Reminder Publishing reached out to Warwick for comment, but did not receive a response as of press time.