Good morning, 

Here is an update on the questions we posed in our January 2025 message. 

1. We asked: Will the School Committee (SC) bring a Proposition 2 1/2 override request to this spring’s Town Meeting?

• Following the State of the Town presentation and SC budget workshop, we now know that the SC will not request a general override to fund the FY26 school budget. 

• The SC’s predicted $49.1MM “level services” FY26 budget request to Town Meeting (a 5.05% increase over this year’s budget) funds the same programs, services, and staffing as this year.

• To learn more and ask questions, attend the SC’s annual budget hearing THIS Thursday (2/27) at 6 pm in the MHS library and on zoom. 

2. We asked: How will the critical, long-overdue MHS roof work be funded?

• It is likely that the SC will fund the roof repairs through a debt-exclusion override request at Town Meeting in the neighborhood of $8.6MM, to include HVAC components. 

• This topic should also be addressed at the aforementioned budget hearing.

3. We asked: Will the SC stay in its lane when it comes to policy-making?

• The SC’s policy subcommittee has continued to focus exclusively on its controversial flag policy. 

• At an early February student forum (which was recorded but not as yet posted), MHS students expressed concern with the SC’s draft policy and presented one of their own, drafted with input from attorneys at GLAD Law.

• The SC is holding its first public forum on the flag policy THIS Wednesday (2/26) at 7 pm in the MHS library and on zoom. 

4. We asked: Will the SC hire Interim Superintendent John Robidoux as permanent superintendent without community input?

• There have been no updates since our last message.

• The topic of scheduling a “superintendent evaluation planning workshop” is on the agenda for this Thursday’s SC meeting. 

• We continue to ask: How and when will MPS educators and the community be given a meaningful voice in this process? Will Mr. Robidoux’s performance to-date and potential for long-term success be evaluated in a manner consistent with the critical task of selecting our district’s lead administrator? 

Sincerely, 

Marbleheaders for Change 

Good afternoon,

Since our last message on September 26, 2024, school district focus revolved around contract negotiations between the Marblehead Educators Association and the Marblehead Public Schools, culminating in a late-November 2024 agreement after a 10-day strike*. With that work landed, here are four questions we’re now asking:

1. Will the School Committee Bring an Override Request to Town Meeting?

During contract negotiations, a central question emerged: can Marblehead afford to offer our educators competitive compensation? The School Committee (SC) estimated the final agreement to cost $6.4 million over the next four years, creating a $3.17 million budget shortfall that may result in a Proposition 2 ½ general override.

We ask: does the SC plan to bring an override request to Town Meeting this spring? Dates of note:

• Tues. Jan 7: The SC’s budget subcommittee meeting offered scant insight into the district’s FY26 financial needs.

• Mon. Feb 3: Assistant Superintendent Mike Pfifferling is slated to present an initial school budget at the SC’s budget workshop. 

• Wed. Feb 5: The State of the Town presentation will include discussion of the town’s fiscal position and whether any override requests — from the Town or from the schools — may be presented to voters.

• Thurs. Mar 6: The SC is slated to hold a budget hearing, at which key fiscal decisions will be discussed.
  
  

• 
  

2. How Will the Critical, Long-Overdue MHS Roof Work Be Funded?

Since at least 2020, Marblehead High School’s roof has been actively and persistently leaking, resulting in falling ceiling tiles, event disruption, and health concerns for staff and students. 

• March ‘20: Capital needs audit identifies roof replacement as critical need, recommends HVAC replacement in 2023.

• May ‘22: Town Meeting approves $5.3 million for roof and some HVAC replacement.

• April - Sept ‘22: District unsuccessfully pursues MSBA grant for roof work.

• Sept ‘22 - Mar ‘24: Unexplained delay - minimal to no progress on the roof job. SC’s facilities subcommittee fails to meet for a full 15 months.

• April ‘24: Roof work planning begins in earnest (RFP issued for project manager). 

• Nov ‘24: Design firm proposal identifies need to replace HVAC systems alongside roof. Revised estimate exceeds $12M.

• Dec ‘24: Project manager weighs in, revised estimate exceeds $14M. No plan as of yet to cover $8.6M gap in funding.
  
  

Major questions persist: How will this urgent project proceed and with what funding? Will the SC accept responsibility for failures in planning and oversight? How will the SC assure voters that additional funding will be responsibly managed and deployed?

3. Will the SC Hire John Robidoux as Permanent Superintendent Without Community Input? 

In the spring of 2024, the SC followed a rushed process to hire John Robidoux as interim superintendent, which lacked typical confidentiality for applicants and excluded input from teachers, administrators, parents, and community members.

Now, just six months into his two-year interim contract, the SC is discussing promoting Mr. Robidoux to Superintendent. 

How and when will MPS educators and the community be given a meaningful voice in this process? Will Mr. Robidoux’s performance to-date and potential for long-term success be evaluated in a manner consistent with the critical task of selecting our district’s lead administrator? 

4. Will the SC Stay in its Lane on Writing Policies?

The SC’s policy subcommittee met for the first time in six months on January 15 and re-opened discussion of its controversial flag policy and a potential recess policy. On both issues, the SC is in danger of acting outside its areas of responsibility and interfering in district operations, which are the purview of the superintendent and his team. As these issues move forward, we ask: 

• Will the SC respect its defined role in developing district policies? 

• Will the SC consult with and listen to the subject-matter experts on the impacts flags and recess have (or do not have) on teaching and learning? 

• Will the SC trust the superintendent to make difficult operational decisions on behalf of the district, rather than co-opting that power for itself under the guise of policy?
  
  

Across the board, we ask the SC to institute a transparent decision-making process and invite meaningful public input.

At the September 19 school committee meeting, the School Committee’s (SC) bargaining subcommittee - Jenn Schaeffner, Sarah Fox, and Thatcher Kezer - gave the first public update since negotiations with the Marblehead Educators Association (MEA) began in March. The subcommittee’s presentation made clear that the two sides remain far apart.

Given Marblehead's fiscal realities, it’s difficult to see how the parties will find common ground on a contract that fairly compensates our teachers and staff. Information from the MEA is circulated to the community regularly. But without substantive updates from the SC it is impossible to develop a balanced perspective and understand both sides of the coin.

Here are some things we need to see in future SC communications:

• How do the MEA’s wage proposals compare to other districts? The MEA has consistently said that Marblehead educators are underpaid when compared to other districts. Does the SC agree? Where would compensation stand relative to other communities if the SC agrees to the MEA’s wage requests? 

• What is the SC offering for compensation? In Thursday’s presentation, the SC editorialized on the MEA’s wage proposals, but offered the public little information about the SC’s proposals. The SC reportedly made a wage proposal to the MEA this Monday that would give staff between a 6% and 9% pay increase over the next three years. The SC certainly needs to protect its bargaining position but, with personnel compensation accounting for 80% of the school budget, the SC must be transparent about what it is offering the MEA and how those offers will impact school and town finances.

• The MEA contends that our schools are understaffed, compounding student safety issues for staff members.  The SC has indicated that staff cuts could be necessary to fund the MEA’s wage proposals. Does the SC disagree with the MEA on staffing levels in our schools? What should staffing levels be and why?

• The SC chose to compare Marblehead’s tax levy and new growth to four other communities: Wayland, Andover, Hingham and Swampscott. How does Marblehead compare to these towns on educational metrics such as school performance, class size, and teacher and staff compensations?

Without relevant information, distributed to the community regularly, a lack of confidence in the school committee will remain. Communication could be done through more comprehensive public updates by the bargaining subcommittee - such as this video or this social post shared during Salem’s recent bargaining process. Others advocate for opening the negotiations to the public.

What do you think?  Would you like more regular, substantive updates on the school committee’s negotiating position? How would you prefer to receive these updates? Email the school committee at schoolcommittee@marbleheadschools.org.

Dear Marbleheaders for Change followers: 

As we anticipate the beginning of the school year, here’s an update on three key school committee issues.

👍 -- SC’s Collective Bargaining Team Adds Experience
Town Administrator Thatcher Keezer is now a full member of the SC’s bargaining team, negotiating across the table from the MEA (Marblehead Education Association). 

HOWEVER:

• Unless progress is made quickly, the school year will begin with our district’s teachers, paraprofessionals, and custodial staff working without a contract. 

• This is bad for teacher morale, distracts from classroom instruction, and interferes with the cohesive forward progress our district needs this coming year. 

• Both sides need to work to resolve the MEA’s issues while recognizing the town’s financial realities.

👎 -- The SC’s Flag Policy, Unearthed

After months of inaction, the SC has produced yet another version of a flag policy without adequate opportunity for the school community to weigh in and ask questions. 

• The new draft policy, deemed “pretty straightforward” by SC Chair Jenn Schaeffner, inappropriately gives the SC sole authority to determine which flags will be displayed in school buildings, and does not include any provision for groups wishing to petition the SC for permission to display other flags. 

• Determining the mission, vision and values that should be reflected by flag displays in school buildings is arguably the SC's purview. But decisions about whether specific flags reflect the mission, vision, and values are operational in nature, fall outside the SC's purview, and should be left to the superintendent and building administrators.

• The SC claims a commitment to transparency, yet this new policy inexplicably disregards Marblehead High School students’ perspective on the issue, as communicated throughout last year in open forums, written letters, public comment and in this recent social post.

• One of three required public readings of this policy took place on July 26th. A second is scheduled forthe August 14th SC retreat, at which there is no scheduled public comment and no zoom option for participation. 

• If SC members believe that this policy is appropriate and in the best interest of our district, they should not shy away from discussing and voting it in full public view. Rather than pushing this policy through under the cover of summer vacation, the SC should ensure the two remaining readings take place at well-publicized SC meetings, held at times when the community and students can readily participate in public comment.

• If you agree, please email schoolcommittee@marbleheadschools.org. (Suggested wording below.)

🙏 -- High Five to Marblehead’s Finance Committee... Now Looking at You, SC

FinCom is beginning work with town departments to get granular with data and look at budgets in terms of salaries, insurance/benefits, pensions, and other expenses.

• This process stands in contrast to the SC’s confusing budget deliberations last spring that included last-minute use of reserve funds to pay for recurring positions. 

• Unlike its distracting foray into flags, an orderly FY26 budget process must be a top SC priority, working in partnership with administrators and the town. When will that work begin?

Suggested email wording: 

Dear Marblehead School Committee: 

Please hold the final two readings of the draft flag policy at well-publicized SC meetings which are scheduled following the start of school, at times when the community and students can readily participate in public comment. 

Additionally, please ensure that public comment is taken into account when revising this policy.

Sincerely, 

YOUR NAME HERE

As the school year ends, here is an update on several School Committee items:

Kezer & Collective Bargaining

Town Administrator Thatcher Kezer was included in the June 11 bargaining session between the SC and the MEA and SC Chair Sarah Fox has indicated that he will be invited to future bargaining sessions. We trust that those invitations will be issued with ample notice to ensure Mr. Kezer’s schedule allows him to attend. 

Thanks for asking the SC to include Mr. Kezer at the table. Your voices had an impact!

SC Survey Analysis: Accurate?

At the June 4 SC meeting, Alison Taylor and Brian Ota presented their findings from their recent communications survey. The meeting recording is here (1:25:45), and here are screenshots of the survey presentation slides. 

To better understand the SC’s assessment, we obtained the full survey results through a records request and then used a free, readily accessible tool (Chat GPT) to run an unbiased sentiment analysis. Its conclusion was:

“Overall, the sentiment analysis reveals a community deeply dissatisfied with the current state of the school committee, with urgent calls for increased transparency, better communication, and more effective leadership. While there are some positive remarks acknowledging the committee's efforts, the dominant tone is one of frustration and a desire for substantial change.”

Our summary: This SC survey was meant to address communication issues but the data it revealed was not rigorously analyzed by the SC or fully reported to the community. Once again, the SC needs to do better if it is to be trusted.

Is SC Leadership Changing?

Traditionally, the SC decides its Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary at its first meeting following the June town elections. That meeting is scheduled for Thursday, June 20. 

This winter we gave current SC leadership a failing grade. Between contract negotiations, the need to hire a permanent superintendent, and a possible override, the challenges ahead are greater than ever. 

Do we need a change in leadership? Email your thoughts to: schoolcommittee@marbleheadschools.org

Enjoy summer and stay tuned for updates.

UPDATE: Facts, Not False Information

After yesterday’s Marbleheaders for Change message (#8), several people reached out to the SC to request that Thatcher Kezer be at the table in bargaining sessions with the Marblehead Educators Association (MEA). 

In response to some queries, Sarah Fox replied: “Thatcher is and has been part of the negotiations. I am unsure how the false information that he is not part of the process has been disseminated but it continues to be concerning how much incorrect information is being stated as fact.”

There is a difference between being “part of the process” and negotiating at the table.

• FACT: When asked on May 21, Mr. Kezer responded that he has been invited into the executive sessions of the school committee to discuss negotiation strategy. Mr. Kezer also confirmed that he has been asked by the SC to be available via phone for any calls if the negotiating subcommittee needs a caucus session during a negotiation meeting. And ultimately, he is one of six votes to ratify a contract with the MEA.

• FACT: Mr. Kezer has NOT been invited to sit on the negotiating subcommittee or participate in actual negotiations with MEA union representatives. His knowledge and years of experience negotiating contracts need to be resources at the table, where the rubber hits the road in achieving best outcomes for the schools/town and teachers.

• FACT: While the decisions about who actively participates at the bargaining table are within the discretion of the SC chair, it is the responsibility of Ms. Fox and her SC colleagues to put the best interests of the town and teachers first by including Mr. Kezer’s professional experience at the bargaining table.

• FACT: Last night, at the League of Women Voters candidate forum, Select Board candidates were asked if Mr. Kezer should be at the table to negotiate with the MEA. Their consensus answer? Yes, he should be. (To watch, click here and forward to 1:27:21)

Again, we ask you to join us in asking the SC to take a vote in open session to have Town Administrator Thatcher Kezer serve as a member of the negotiating subcommittee and be included at the table in bargaining sessions with the Marblehead Education Association.

Signed,

Seth Gummere, Christine Nuccio, Kate Haesche Thomson, and Kate Schmeckpeper

Suggested wording to email the school committee:

To the School Committee:

Please add to your next agenda and take a vote of the full school committee to make Town Administrator Thatcher Kezer a member of the negotiating subcommittee and be included at the table in bargaining sessions with the Marblehead Education Association.

schoolcommittee@marbleheadschools.org

Want Success? Add a Professional to the Bargaining Table

With Town Meeting in the rearview mirror, town government will turn its attention to long-range financial planning. Looming over Marblehead’s financial landscape is how the town (represented by the School Committee) and the Marblehead Education Association will settle the current teachers’ contract, which expires on August 30, 2024.

So far the schools/town negotiating subcommittee team has consisted of school committee members Sarah Fox and Jenn Schaeffner, plus the SC’s attorney, Liz Valerio. But best practices would include the superintendent of schools (if we knew who that was going to be) and the town administrator: in other words, professionals with knowledge and experience in negotiations.

Town Administrator Thatcher Kezer has years of experience negotiating union contracts, including teacher contracts. His perspective and experience are critical to reaching the common goal of settling a fair contract with our Marblehead educators that the town can support. Please join us in asking the SC to take a vote in open session to have Town Administrator Thatcher Kezer serve as a member of the negotiating subcommittee, at the table in bargaining sessions with the Marblehead Education Association.

Signed,

Seth Gummere and Kate Haesche Thomson

Suggested wording to email the school committee:

To the School Committee:

Please add to your next agenda and take a vote of the full school committee to make Town Administrator Thatcher Kezer a member of the negotiating subcommittee, at the table in bargaining sessions with the Marblehead Education Association. 

schoolcommittee@marbleheadschools.org

Throughout this spring’s budget season, the School Committee (SC) considered two options:

1. a level services budget of $47,423,851 that would require additional funding through a general override or other procedural maneuvering

2. a reduced services budget of $45,592,667 that would not require additional funding but would require significant cuts of staffing and services for the next school year (FY25).

Marblehead Public Schools receive funding from a range of sources including Marblehead property taxes, state and federal aid, grants, and fees for services like full-day kindergarten (one example of a revolving fund). A significant portion of the school’s budget is allocated by the town from its general fund.

Ultimately, through collaboration with the Finance Committee, the SC moved forward with a compromise budget of $46,759,110 that doesn’t require a general override or the level of significant cuts in staffing and programming presented at its February’s budget hearing.

Crying wolf: deficit or surplus?

• Why didn’t the SC begin the budget process with a common understanding of the full scope of funds available to the schools and the circumstances under which those funds would be used? Instead, administrators were forced to plan significant staff and programming cuts and the SC dangled the idea of seeking additional funding through a general override or asking the town for more money before realizing there were sufficient funds available for FY25. Moving forward, the SC must establish guidelines for the use of balances in its revolving funds so FinCom and the public can understand when and how those funds will be used.

• Why didn’t the SC know until the 11th hour that FY24 funds would be available to pre-pay certain FY25 expenses? In past years, the Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Administration gave periodic reports on current-year spending, but those reports were stopped when Sarah Fox became chair. Why? The full SC and the public would benefit from in-real-time reporting on school spending.

What’s next?

• The MPS FY25 budget of $46,759,110 will be voted at Town Meeting (Monday evening, May 6) as part of the full town’s balanced budget. No separate vote at Town Meeting or at the ballot box will be required for the current budget approved by the SC and recommended by FinCom.

• The SC’s last-minute stop-gap solutions this year are a short-term fix to a long-term problem. Revolving-fund balances and budget surpluses are NOT going to be available every year and should NOT be relied upon as a solution to the ongoing fiscal challenges faced by the schools and the town as a whole.

• The SC must prove its competency: establish transparent budgetary planning practices, stabilize district leadership, and settle a new contract with Marblehead teachers. Without solving these issues, the community can have no confidence in this SC’s leadership.

It’s been two months since the “no confidence” letter asked the School Committee to address key issues in its areas of responsibility. Here’s a review of some SC steps in the right direction but also lingering questions.

COMMUNICATION

• The SC has participated in two Q&A forums – a “conversation” on February 29 and the League of Women Voters forum on March 27. Thank you to the League and Moderator Elizabeth Foster-Nolan for facilitating the latter. On February 29, Brian Ota proposed surveying the community re: communication preferences. At its April 1 meeting, the SC formed a communications subcommittee tasked with fine-tuning Mr. Ota’s survey draft. 

• NOW WHAT? Q&A forums and a survey are starting points, but what’s really needed is active communication from the SC now. Marblehead’s school administrators, principals and teachers communicate through websites, newsletters, coffees, and newspapers. The SC should take their lead and use these channels to disseminate information, both to help people understand issues in real time, and to start regaining credibility.

BUDGET

• At its meeting on April 1, the SC appeared to make progress on minimizing cuts in the FY25 budget without additional funding (a general override or other source). The senior administrative team, the SC budget subcommittee, and FinCom worked hard to get to this point.

• NOW WHAT? The district is finding ways to support the schools’ FY25 needs. But addressing chronic underfunding will require comprehensive strategic planning. The current District Plan for Success was developed by a committee of 25 stakeholders (SC including Chair Fox, MEA, SEPAC, METCO, students, parents and more) with robust community input, led by a DESE facilitator. Will the SC build off of this work or start from scratch? As Chair Fox noted at the April 1 meeting, this planning needs to begin immediately. How will the public be included and informed about this process?

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

• The SC is negotiating a new contract with the MPS teachers union (MEA), which is represented in the negotiations by the state teacher’s union (MTA). 

• NOW WHAT? Right now, the SC is represented at the bargaining table by Sarah Fox and Jenn Schaeffner, plus legal counsel. But best practices for successful negotiations would also include the town administrator and the superintendent at the bargaining table. Why isn’t this the case for these negotiations? 

The SC has a full plate: bringing a fiscally responsible budget to Town Meeting, negotiating a contract that fairly compensates our teachers and staff while remaining affordable for taxpayers, long-term collaborative planning to adequately fund our schools, and communicating effectively about all of it starting now. 

The community must continue watching and hold our elected SC accountable.

Amy Drinker and David Harris  

To the editor: 

During Thursday’s School Committee budget hearing, teachers and parents requested the School Committee “fully fund” the Marblehead Public Schools. Chair Sarah Fox stated that she will not stop fighting until our schools are fully funded. The elephant in the room was, and remains, what does it mean to “fully fund” our schools?

It’s easy to get parents and teachers on board with the idea that our schools need more funding after years of level-service budgets and when facing a second consecutive year of big budget cuts. But fleshing out what “fully funded” schools look like, need and cost takes work and planning. The “level services” budget presented Thursday night — which will require an additional $2.5 million in funding — will not give us “fully funded” schools.

Sure, we’ll avoid some incredibly painful cuts in staffing, but neither of the budgets presented on Thursday night (“level services” and “level funded”) will restore the positions cut in the fiscal year 2023 budget or address the numerous unfunded needs in our schools; nor will they fix the underlying structural deficit that will put us in this exact same position next year. After listening to educator after educator say that what our schools have right now is inadequate, the School Committee cannot possibly believe that a level services budget for FY 25 “fully funds” our schools.

Members of our School Committee talk a lot about unfunded needs and the status quo being unacceptable. So why didn’t they come to the table ready to talk about what those needs are and what funding them will cost? On the one hand, School Committee members postured that they don’t have to operate within the confines of the budget number FinCom gives them and that they have an obligation to come to Town Meeting and advocate for the funding that the schools need. But on the other hand, they said that the school administration only prepared level-funded and level-service budgets for FY 25 because that’s all FinCom asked for. The School Committee cannot have this both ways.

Our current School Committee members are not responsible for the financial problems facing the town of Marblehead. They are responsible, however, for advocating for the funding our schools need. That advocacy cannot be all talk — true advocacy would have meant planning and preparation to show what it takes to “fully fund” the schools.

Given this lack of planning and preparation, the School Committee needs to stop posturing about overrides and antics on the floor of Town Meeting. School Committee members: listen to your FinCom liaisons and dig into your revolving funds to find as much money as you possibly can to defray budget cuts in a responsible way; demonstrate a willingness to be flexible and collaborative during a time when financial pressures are impacting all town departments; take steps now to stabilize our district leadership; and roll up your sleeves and get to work planning for FY 26.

Cindy Schieffer, Beach Street

Kate Schmeckpeper, Chestnut Street

Julie Duggan, Dodge Road

The goal of our emails is to keep you informed about Marblehead Public Schools (MPS) issues and to help you decide how you’ll make your voice heard. Our questions are intended to assist the School Committee in finding solutions to the challenges facing our schools and our town.

Last week we raised timely questions about the interim superintendent search.

This week’s focus is collective bargaining between the school committee (SC) and Marblehead teachers, represented by their union, the Marblehead Education Association (MEA). 

In collective bargaining the SC acts as the employer of record for district employees. According to MA law, compensation rates must be set by the consent of Marblehead taxpayers because our tax dollars are used to pay district employees. The SC is the elected body representing Marblehead residents. 

At the first collective bargaining session last Thursday, the MEA asked for open (public) bargaining sessions and the SC refused. Both sides have their reasons for their positions. Other MEA issues on the table include fair compensation and safe physical working conditions in MPS buildings. 

Our concerns and questions are as follows:

1) This year, the SC and FinCom directed school administrators to prepare two FY25 budgets:

 >>“level services” - funds existing programs and people but does not add new staff or initiatives, which requires more funding than FY24 due to rising cost

 >>"level funded” - funds the schools at FY24 budget levels, which requires a painful $2.5m in cuts to existing programs and people

The MEA is asking the SC to "fully fund" the district, which neither of these budgets will do. The SC will present its budgets to the community at the budget hearing on Thursday, March 21st (7 pm at the Veterans School PAC). How will the SC address the union’s demands while recognizing the fiscal realities facing Marblehead? If the SC has developed a third, fully funded budget for FY25, when will it be shared with the public?

2) For months, MHS teachers have been concerned about building conditions; this is one of the core issues of concern for the MEA. The custodial staff is excellent but can only be expected to do so much with limited resources (there are only three custodians and there should be a minimum of six). The SC’s facilities subcommittee, which generally meets monthly and is led by Chair Sarah Fox and member Alison Taylor, has not met since September 21st, 2023, and there are no minutes from that meeting. Why hasn’t this subcommittee been meeting? Is there a plan to address the teachers’ concerns re: safety in MHS building issues? Where is the capital plan for maintaining/repairing MPS facilities?

3) How will this SC communicate to the residents it serves about the collective bargaining process, goals, and progress? Here are examples of collective bargaining communications from the Weston, Salem, and Hingham school committees. 

We have sent these questions to the SC and look forward to them being answered at their next meeting (Thursday, March 21st), or during the upcoming public forum hosted by the League of Women Voters of Marblehead. 

Sincerely, 

Seth Gummere and Christine Nuccio

You are receiving this email because you signed the "no confidence" letter to the school committee in mid-February, or the related petition, and indicated that you wanted to receive ongoing updates on the issues. You may unsubscribe to stop receiving our emails.

Mark your calendars for Wednesday, March 27. The League of Women Voters will run a moderated forum for the public to ask the School Committee questions. Thank you to all who requested that the School Committee (SC) honor its commitment to scheduling this forum in March - more info to come when it’s available.

Update on the superintendent search (on the SC agenda for Thursday night):

At its February 29 meeting, the SC discussed finally moving forward with a search for a transitional superintendent. (For history on this topic, scroll to the bottom.)

After weeks of disagreement over which two members would serve on a screening committee, the SC decided that the full SC will conduct the entire search. 

Having been involved in prior superintendent searches, our questions are as follows: 

1) What is the status and scope of work with MASC to conduct a transitional superintendent search?

The Executive Director of the MA Association of School Committees (MASC) issued the attached strongly-worded memo to the SC on February 15 recommending that the SC table its permanent search and instead hire a “transitional team” (with a 1-2 year superintendent). MASC submitted a proposal to assist the SC with this search at no cost, and there has been some interaction between the parties since, but what is MASC’s specific scope of work, which pieces will the SC handle, and will the SC heed MASC’s guidance about the search process?

2) Why has the SC chosen to eliminate using a screening committee for the initial phase of the superintendent search?

The SC’s current plan calls for superintendent candidates to apply and be evaluated in public. Make no mistake: the search for a transitional superintendent benefits from a screening committee. Only a screening committee, composed of community members and up to two SC members, can maintain confidentiality for applicants and provide an opportunity for candid discussion about candidates.The SC’s nod to “transparency” by holding this initial phase in open session endangers the process if qualified candidates do not apply.  

3) If the SC values community input, how and when will it commit to engaging constituency groups (school administrators, staff, parents/PTOs, community, SEPAC, METCO) in the superintendent search process?

Focus groups and surveys soliciting community input are basic first steps and results should be made publicly available to help reestablish trust with the community. Ideally, a diverse screening committee would then use these tools to evaluate candidates. As the process moves along, communication like this and this would help the community stay informed.

HOW CAN YOU HELP?

• If you have 5 minutes: Read the attached memo from MASC executive director Glenn Koocher, peruse the links in this email and forward this to friends. 

• If you have 10 minutes: Email the school committee at schoolcommittee@marbleheadschools.org and ask it to answer these questions on Thursday night. Feel free to add your thoughts!

• If you have 30 minutes: Come to the school committee meeting this Thursday, March 7th @ 7pm and, during public comment, voice your support for a robust search process with authentic transparency where it helps, not hinders, the process.

Friends who would like to be added to this email distribution list should email marbleheadersforchange@gmail.com.

Sincerely,

Amy Drinker 

Marblehead School Committee, 2004 to 2010 (three years as Chair)

David Harris

Marblehead School Committee, 2015 to 2022

Marblehead Finance Committee, 2000 to 2012 (four years as Chair)

August, 2023: The school committee (SC) forced Dr. Buckey to resign.

October, 2023: Dr. McGuinness was hired as the interim superintendent. She shared that she hoped to stay on as the permanent superintendent. 

January 2, 2024: Dr. McGuinness reversed course and announced that she would no longer pursue permanent employment. We do not know her reasons.

January 2, 2024: The SC had not begun a legitimate search for a permanent superintendent. 

January, 2024: Following Dr. McGuinness’ announcement, the SC decided to pursue a permanent search without the help of a consultant (utilizing a consultant is best practice). Instead, it decided to task the district’s HR director with running the search. The process stalled, however, when the committee couldn’t agree on which member(s) would serve on the search committee. 

Around February 10, 2024: After the letter/petition expressing no confidence, the SC was encouraged by its counsel to attend an intervention with the Massachusetts Association for School Committees (MASC), in which the SC was encouraged to table the permanent search and instead establish a “transitional team” with a 1-2 year transitional superintendent. The Executive Director of MASC reiterated this recommendation in the attached strongly-worded memo to the SC on 2/15 (this was discussed here, around minute 16). 

Around February 15, 2024: The MASC submitted a proposal to consult on the search for free, but the SC has not formally confirmed that MASC’s services will be utilized.

February 26, 2024, SC meeting:  The SC discussed whether to have the full committee participate in the transitional superintendent search or have a subset of committee members serve on a search committee. There was no decision until the February 29th meeting, when the SC decided to have the full committee participate in the search. As a result, every meeting will need to be posted 48 hours in advance, be convenient to all of their schedules, and happen in public in order to comply with the Open Meeting Law.

Good evening, 

Thank you for being one of almost 800 signers on the recent letter and/or petition to the Marblehead School Committee. You are receiving this note because you requested follow-up communications on the issues. 

As a direct result of our collective message, the School Committee participated in a “transitional training” with the Executive Director of the Massachusetts Association for School Committees (MASC). MASC’s subsequent memo stated, "the School Committee must immediately take steps to make meetings collegial and [provide] vehicles for informing and educating the community."

At the School Committee meeting on February 15, Marblehead's nonpartisan League of Women Voters offered to host a moderated forum at which the School Committee could openly address the community's concerns. The format will protect both groups and drive fair and meaningful discourse. A key provision will be an experienced moderator who will ensure a respectful environment for both the School Committee and the public. 

Last night, while the School Committee and the League met to plan the forum, the School Committee scheduled a separate, self-moderated “conversation” for this Thursday night. Hopefully some good dialogue will take place, but with such short notice, a conflicting event in town (acknowledged by the School Committee), and a format over which the School Committee’s own legal counsel voiced concerns, this “conversation” is not a neutral format for the community to engage with the School Committee.

Regardless of what happens this Thursday, the School Committee must follow through on its commitment to participate in the League-hosted forum. If you agree, please join us in asking the School Committee to schedule this forum before the end of March (sample language below). schoolcommittee@marbleheadschools.org

Please forward this message to others who might be interested. 

Sincerely, 

Kate Schmeckpeper and Mark Libon, two original signers of the letter and petition

To the editor:

This is an open letter to the Marblehead School Committee.

We’ve lost confidence in your leadership. Your failure to prioritize our schools’ most pressing needs is hurting our students’ education. Your inability to manage increasingly scarce town resources is hobbling our schools. What happens in our schools impacts all of us, including local businesses and our home values.

Our report card for this committee is an F, across your most basic areas of responsibility:

1. Reviewing and approving the school budget: FAIL
2. Setting policy: FAIL
3. Hiring, firing and managing the superintendent: FAIL
4. Leadership conduct: FAIL

Failure: Budget leadership
● After the 2023 override failed, 33 school staff positions were eliminated. Next year’s school budget will include more staff/program cuts. And yet, instead of focusing resources on classroom instruction, you’ve diverted hundreds of thousands of dollars to administrator severance packages, legal fees, stipends and searches for new administrators. Why?

● The Select Board has identified uses for the Coffin School property to bring new revenue to the town. Despite prior agreements to return this unused, deteriorating property, you have chosen to retain it at substantial cost and risk to taxpayers. Will Eveleth School be added to this list of missed opportunities and continuing costs after it’s vacated by Abbot Library this spring? Why?

● We don’t have confidence in your ability to negotiate a new contract with Marblehead’s teachers this spring, which will be a major budget driver for years to come.

Failure: Policy leadership

● Your job is to develop district policies, not implement them. Policy implementation is the responsibility of school administrators, not you.

● You should be conducting basic, comprehensive policy review; instead your policy focus has been around which flags should be displayed in schools and decreeing yourselves the arbiters.

Failure: Hiring the next superintendent

● You ended Dr. Buckey’s employment in July, but you’re just starting the superintendent search now without hiring an experienced consultant, as is best practice. In this highly competitive market, how will you attract and vet quality candidates?

● After two months as interim Superintendent, Dr. Theresa McGuinness has withdrawn her name from consideration for the permanent superintendent position. Why?

● Four recent departures/resignations of senior administrators (including the assistant superintendent of finance and operations) have further destabilized the district. What’s your plan?

Failure: Leadership conduct

● Unbecoming behavior degrades our school community and tarnishes the town’s reputation.

● Distrust was sown from a failure to disclose conflicts of interest prior to the June 2023 elections.

● Bullying tactics and hostility towards opposing or critical viewpoints is intimidation.

● Unlawful noncompliance with records retention policies, and repeated suspected open meeting law violations.

● Lack of transparency around spending, decision making, and strategic priorities hurts our students, our schools and our town and further erodes trust.

The clock’s ticking. We’re calling on you to demonstrate to all Marbleheaders how you’ll tackle these issues and improve your performance.

Community members: If you’re in agreement, please add your name to our petition HERE.

Signed,

142 residents (click here for full list of names)