Letter: Look for Facts in Bias Incidents

Letter to the EditorPrint Story | Email Story

To the Editor:

The May 13, 2024, article entitled "'The Roof is Caving In': Mount Greylock School Committee Hears Details of Bias Incidents." If reported accurately, and if I interpreted the article correctly, Mr. Dravis brought to light some extremely troublesome issues. If prejudice is occurring routinely in our schools and elsewhere in town, especially in those institutions under the auspice of town governance, a clearly reasoned plan must be created and implemented.

Also troubling in the article was "… the meeting also features some of the most frank commentary to date from district administrators about the shortcomings of the preK-12 district's efforts to address the problem." There are other quotes from the district leadership that indicated that as Superintendent McCandless said, "We are really just trying to find mechanisms that actually work. We have invested a great deal of money into this work, and as evidenced tonight by the things people didn't want to be saying because they're living in pain at home-the things we're doing aren't working."

Was any conclusion reached that indicated the next step? It seemed that some believed adding additional DEI efforts were in order. It seemed that others believed we should rethink the whole DEI movement.

Might the next step in addressing the prejudice "crisis" be to look for facts? Narratives are extremely important, and should be taken very seriously, but a closer investigation that values the facts of the alleged incidents might reveal different and/or additional perspectives.



Is there anyone who can argue that DEI is not a controversial approach to combatting intolerance? Is there anyone who can argue it has not furthered divisions in our community? It is difficult to judge because so many people are silent. How do we know what the community thinks? What they value?

Might we use our current confusion and frustration to revisit how DEI was introduced to the town? Was there an attempt to calmly encourage discussion with townspeople who questioned (not even challenged) the principles and strategies inherent in DEI before those principles were put into place ? Were there clearly stated MEASURABLE goals shared with townsfolk that could serve as a basis now as to how we should go forward? Taxpayers are, after all, are expected to pay the bills.

No question that mistakes have been made and by many people on all sides of the tolerance issue. Let us try to correct those mistakes and move on to create a tolerant and flourishing community.

Donna Wied
Williamstown, Mass.

 

 

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Mount Greylock School Committee Moving Superintendent Evaluation to Fall

By Stephen DravisiBerkshires Staff
WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass.—The Mount Greylock Regional School Committee this month discussed moving its evaluation of the superintendent from the spring to the fall starting in 2027.
 
Chair Julia Bowen brought the idea to the table as part of her proposed calendar for the committee's work during the 2026-27 academic year, saying that a move to the autumn will allow the committee to factor data from the preceding year into its evaluation.
 
"To the extent that [Superintendent Joseph Bergeron's] goals are tied to school performance and, specifically, MCAS [scores], we don't get that or other end of school year summative information until the fall," Bowen said. "Many schools I've worked with and know of actually moved their school leader evaluation to the fall so they can take advantage of all the data that's actually available, rather than doing it in the June time frame.
 
"The other point on that is, as it is, we otherwise vote for Joe's goals in September/October and evaluate him in May, and that's not a year. If we can do it fall to fall, we actually get a full year of work from when we agree on the goals."
 
The committee's most experienced member, Carolyn Greene, raised a concern about breaking with the practice of completing the evaluation process in May and June.
 
"It feels natural to evaluate a superintendent at the close of a school year, not the beginning of a school year," Greene said. "We're still in it in May and June. We're still in it in terms of our mindsets. Sometimes we don't meet in July. We come back in August and do a ‘retreat.' We're now meant to hit the ground running with an evaluation in September based on the work of the previous school year. And the reason is we don't get all the data from the previous school year until September.
 
"The rhythm is off for me. But it could just be that I'm so used to the previous rhythm. I don't want to oppose it. I just do have some reservations about it."
 
View Full Story

More Williamstown Stories