Bill asked to pull the Student and Family Update from the consent agenda for discussion. He provided the board with background on the Mahmoud v. Taylor decision and explained that opt-out language had been added to the Student and Family Handbook in response to the ruling.

• Bill shared the section that was added to the handbook: Consistent with Massachusetts regulations, 603 CMR 26.05(1), Springfield Prep, through its curricula and materials, encourages respect for the human and civil rights of all individuals, regardless of race, color, sex, gender identity, religion, national origin or sexual orientation. In accordance with School guidelines, families may request information from the Chief Academic Officer on available accommodations related to curriculum content.
• Anne asked whether the school had received parental opt-out requests in the past. Bill noted that such requests have primarily related to Pride activities, but that this ruling may present new challenges because it focuses on curriculum content.
• Sally asked whether the ruling’s impact was limited to LGBTQ-related topics. Bill explained that its broader implications remain unclear at this time.
• LaShawna raised questions about how far this ruling could extend and what limits it might place on curriculum challenges.
• Anne requested that the board be kept informed of any parental opt-out requests that are submitted.
• Ron shared his concern about the potential impact this opt-out process could have on the student and family experience.

Bill presented the Executive Director Report. Sally asked that the board be notified of any future advocacy requests or opportunities to engage in these efforts. Bill also reiterated the need for all board members to complete their annual financial disclosure forms.

Jess presented the 2025 MCAS and Accountability Report, highlighting that Springfield Prep performed above the state average in ELA, math, and science. The school ranked among the top three performing schools in Springfield. Jess  noted that Springfield Prep continues to be an outlier for its strong results among schools with large percentages of low income students. She also noted the schools high student attendance and its success closing achievement gaps across subgroups.

Sally asked about pre-COVID baselines. Jess explained that the school was much smaller before COVID, with only two grade levels of students taking MCAS at that time, making direct comparisons difficult. Bill reiterated that the addition of new middle school grades also makes year-over-year comparisons challenging.

Sally asked whether the historical averages of other schools have persisted. Jess noted that Springfield Prep continues to perform above state averages and emphasized the school’s strong attendance rates compared to peer schools. Sally asked about the future funding of literacy support programs. Jess and Bill described how state funding supported these initiatives and discussed their long-term sustainability.

Jess shared that DESE provided access to samples of student writing for the first time, offering new opportunities to support student growth and instructional improvement. Amy congratulated the academic team for their strong results this year.

Amy presented on the Finance Committee’s recent work on the audit. The auditors reported a clean audit with clean federal, internal control, and compliance reports as well as a clean management letter with no significant deficiencies. They noted that the school is in a healthy financial position with strong liquidity and working capital.

She emphasized how positive this year’s audit was and shared that it was even stronger than last year’s. Amy mentioned that future Finance Committee meetings will include modeling of the New Market Tax Credit unwind and discussion of its financial implications.

Meghan then provided additional context on the audit, which was completed by the school’s existing auditors and received excellent feedback for its thoroughness and support. She noted that staying with the same audit firm has provided continuity and stability, while other schools that switched auditors have experienced disruptions. Meghan also highlighted the strength of the school’s financial structure and processes, which have contributed to a consistently positive fiscal position.

Bill postponed his fundraising update due to time limitations but shared that the school had recently secured a $100,000 grant from the Davis Foundation, bringing total fundraising to approximately $300,000 toward the $350,000 goal.

Anne reported that the board is midway through the succession planning process and that stakeholder engagement sessions have been held with the leadership team and team chairs. Trends so far show a strong desire for an internal candidate and concern that an external hire could disrupt the school’s culture. As an example, she shared an anecdote from one participant about how a leadership change at another school had negatively impacted its culture.

LaShawna emphasized the importance of selecting a leader with high emotional intelligence, and Sarah reflected on the potential risks an external candidate could pose to Springfield Prep’s collaborative environment. Next steps include conducting teacher and parent focus groups to gather additional feedback. Anne also noted that during these meetings, staff members shared appreciation for the opportunity to get to know the board better.  She requested that board members receive more invitations to school events in the future to help them experience school culture firsthand.

Bill and Meghan left the discussion at 7:15pm.  This discussion centered on the Executive Director evaluation process, which is an annual opportunity for the board to review performance, gather feedback, and inform future goals

The full board reviewed the Governance Committee’s findings, which had 100% board participation in this year’s evaluation process, up from 66% last year. Bill’s direct reports and staff were also invited to participate, resulting in detailed and comprehensive feedback. The board discussed the need to modify next year’s process to reduce the number of academic-focused questions, given the Executive Director’s limited role in that area.

Bill’s compensation was reviewed, with discussion of a potential 4.5–5% salary increase and bonus consideration. The board agreed to revisit the compensation discussion at the next in-person meeting. Ron expressed support for the process as conducted.