Wellesley School Committee votes 3-2 to enter negotiations for extending Supt. Lussier’s contract

Leading up to Thursday night’s Wellesley School Committee meeting, which included discussion of Superintendent Dr. David Lussier’s evaluation and a possible contract extension, public calls for a change in district leadership grew more visible. The Wellesley Educators Association (WEA) issued a press release, World of Wellesley encouraged members of the public to make their voices heard, and emails, surveys, and social media posts highlighted reasons for WPS to part ways with Lussier when his contract expires next summer.

We were told that there was “a revolt” happening, and the drumbeat continued at the start of the meeting during citizen speak, as WEA President Karen Pekowitz laid out the union’s case and ended with “the WPS community deserves an open, honest, and collaborative opportunity to select a vision for all students and families.”

School Committee members acknowledged the feedback they’ve been receiving from parents, educators, and others—enough so that new members Bob Sullivan and Dr. Costas Panagopoulos voted against entering negotiations to extend Lussier’s contract. Member Illana Nissenbaum spoke of being kept up at night wrestling in her mind over the decision, but in the end sided with Linda Chow and Niki Ofenloch by voting in favor of entering negotiations to extend the superintendent’s contact, which was last renewed in 2022. The superintendent, hired in 2012, has indicated he would like to stay beyond mid-2027.

Before discussing whether or not to enter into contract extension negotiations, the School Committee reviewed and voted on Lussier’s annual evaluation. This always awkward public process—Lussier was sitting right there during a live meeting with the committee—is required of the School Committee and Chair Ofenloch described it as “one of the most important roles” of the elected body. The evaluation is part of a long process that entails goal setting for the school leadership team and Lussier individually. The evaluation rates the superintendent based on instructional leadership, operations and management, family and community engagement, and professional culture. New this year were metrics-based learning goals. The superintendent’s overall performance was rated as “proficient,” with “unsatisfactory,” “needs improvement,” and “exemplary” being the other choices.

Ofenloch summarized a school year marked by a new goal-setting process, a new cellphone policy, the launch of an artificial intelligence steering committee, assorted facilities projects, negotiations with the educators’ union, and more planned and unplanned matters. Areas for improvement cited include the math curriculum at the middle school, opportunities for more people to be heard during decision making processes, and the need for a dashboard to put district performance in better perspective. As for the new metrics-based learning goals requested by the School Committee entering the new school year, Ofenloch said there were challenges both in the processes and results.

During discussion, member Sullivan raised concerns about members needing to meet with the superintendent about their reviews of him before those reviews were rolled into the combined evaluation. He said this process makes it uncomfortable to provide honest feedback. Ofenloch countered that the process allows committee members to provide direct feedback to the superintendent, though Sullivan replied that he didn’t know why that couldn’t be done after the evaluation was issued. On the final evaluation, Sullivan said it could be improved within the text portions (beyond the ratings) to clarify dissenting views. As it is, he said the evaluation did not capture his views very well, such as on the learning goals results, and as a result of these and other concerns, he voted against approving the evaluation report.

Panagopoulos agreed that parts of the overall evaluation could be challenging to understand in that different ratings within it are based on different categories (say the “proficient” etc. ratings vs. “Did not meet,” “some progress,”etc. in other parts of it). The most important goal in the report, in his opinion, was student learning goals, and the rating from the committee on this was “some progress,” the second lowest of five rating choices. The committee’s finding here remains a strong statement, he said.

Chow noted that the School Committee is using a state template for the evaluation, but could amend it going forward. Panagopoulos added that the narrative sections of the evaluation can also be used to elaborate on the ratings and provide more context on any diversity of views by committee members.

The School Committee approved the evaluation by a vote of 4-1, with Sullivan dissenting.  Supt. Lussier had no speaking role through this discussion, though did comment after the vote to share credit for the administration’s accomplishments with his colleagues.

The committee then moved on to the agenda item about whether to enter negotiations to extend the superintendent’s contract. In 2022, the School Committee voted unanimously to do so, but that was not the case this time around.

Sullivan said he was against this motion, citing the emails and other feedback from various parties in the community opposed to renewing Lussier’s contract. He pointed to the parents “voting with their feet” by sending kids to private schools, as indicated by the relatively low 73% of students in town attending the public school system. “The feedback for me has not been surprising, it’s been overwhelming,” he said, noting that he’d heard this while campaigning in the spring for his eventual seat on the committee. Sullivan articulated his respect for the work and dedication Lussier has put into his job, but said “there are times for a change, there are times where you need new energy, where you need to have the community’s confidence. What I’ve heard over and over is that we’ve lost that confidence and that we need new leadership to regain that confidence,” he said.

Chow said she has appreciated the diverse feedback received in recent weeks about the administration that was shaped by each individual’s experiences. She said it’s been difficult to draw conclusions based on the use of different metrics, and suggested that a standard climate survey to be conducted next year could provide a better opportunity for assessment.

Chow acknowledged the complexities of leading a school system with such high expectations and the existing achievement gaps, but said Lussier and his team have weathered many changes and continued to deliver a high performing district. She expressed optimism that the current strategic plan and new tools put in place bode well for continued improvement, including for individual students. She said with longtime Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Operations Cindy Mahr leaving this summer and successor David Jordan starting, there is value in the continuity of retaining Lussier as superintendent.

School Committee member Nissenbaum emphasized that she has been listening carefully to community feedback, including from those who feel unheard, about school leadership. This has “weighed heavily” on her as she’s tried to understand the full picture, she said.

Nissenbaum said meaningful work can result from addressing mistakes and shortcomings in the months to come under current leadership, and that this can give the town town adequate time to prepare for what it might want in a future superintendent search. “I think we have a pretty amazing school system here and I think we tend to get tunnel vision because we live in this bubble of excellence,” she said.

Panagopoulos spoke to the difficulty of the decision, and has studied available evidence and community feedback. While acknowledging the strength of the school district, he also expressed disappointment at school performance based on the latest data. “There is no reason why in Wellesley 50% of our schools should not be proficient in English, no reason why we should not be more proficient in math and science… we have the best teachers in the state,” he said.

“It is not that we don’t appreciate Dr. Lussier or his strengths and talents. We appreciated him so much that we have given him 14 years in this role to do better,” he said. “It is not that we are not doing well, it’s that we are not doing better…”

Panagopoulos said he trusts his own judgment on what he’s seen, but also takes to heart the feedback from hundreds of people in the community that he said has been “almost exclusively critical.” While these voices may not be representative of the community, he said he felt that the feedback would make it difficult for Lussier to do his job going forward.

“I don’t see how anyone can continue to be effective in this role with this level of lack of confidence across key stakeholder groups in this community,” he said, in explaining his vote against renewal.

Chair Ofenloch stated that students are foremost in her mind in considering this decision, and said that “we seemingly disagree on what the data shows. Last week, 92% of our K-3 students are meeting benchmarks in DIBELS [Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills] scores…that’s an amazing result that our educators have achieved.”

She pointed to impressive results for students on MCAS, AP, ACT, and SAT tests, and cited progress among lower performing students. “We’re not going to close achievement gaps overnight,” Ofenloch said.

“So when I look at our data and I think of our students and I think of the transitions that our district is facing, I think the most important thing for our students is the level of continuity, which is why I support entering negotiations,” she concluded before asking for a motion about entering contract negotiations.

The next step will be for the committee to meet in executive session to discuss strategy for negotiations.

See Wellesley Media recording of June 18 School Committee for full discussion.

Please consider making a tax-deductible donation to support Swellesley’s work