The minutes were not attached to the Agenda so must be voted on next meeting.

David says he wants to see templates (nothing filled out!), for better tracking of evidence as Brett accomplishes his goals. He also offered other suggested evidence examples in the Head of School Goals document (Job postings, memos, meeting agendas, etc...). 

Maggie asks about Goal #2 (increase diversity in workforce), and particularly about going beyond the hiring process and look at retention as well. David asks if Maggie wants to add language to the document. She suggests "PVPA will create a process to track retention as a way of understanding tracking process towards goal of diversification." David adds it to the doc. 

Question to consider (from Maggie?): What is our definition of diversity and how publicly trackable is it? David checks the SAP to see what he can figure out. 

Ben asks: perhaps wording the question as "when we use the term 'diversity', what demographics are we/can we focus on?

David suggests asking Brent. 

Maggie says the tracking doesn't have to be public facing, but just available for review when needed (or that someone can report on trends, etc...).

Maggie voices concern with the goal (#3) related to changing the grading system at PVPA. Discussion about whether the goal itself is outside the scope of HoSSEC. Ben wonders "why" the change is happening - is it for teachers to have an easier time to communicate grades/progress or is it for ease of students to have a richer understanding of their progress? Is the end result of this goal for the teachers or the students? David isn't sure that's the correct binary viewpoint. He thinks its about making communication more effective and timely, but not necessarily richer. Is there a way to simplify and make the goal more clear? Maggie notes that if we're all confused about the "whys" of the goal, perhaps it needs to be written in a different way. She also wonders if other options were indeed considered or if this end goal was the only one considered. 

Maggie wonders: What steps are being taken to ensure all stakeholders have opportunities to be a part of big decisions like changing the way grades are communicated. Will this only come from admin or will teachers have a chance to explain why a change away from standard base grading would be helpful for teachers (beyond student/parent benefits). 

David says its clear we need more input from Brent on this. 

We can't even discuss having a midyear check in, because we haven't gotten the goals fully solidified. We need to have another discussion with Brent to discuss process aspects of Goal #3 as well as the evidence aspects for all goals. 

Maggie says that just as important as a midyear check in is ensuring that evidence gets uploaded as it's happening so we can see that there's movement with the goals. We don't want to micromanage the movement, but want to at least see it happening. Also, the goals shouldn't be something that get done quickly at the end of the year, but rather being worked toward all year long (as evidenced by regular uploads).

Avital asks if Brent can begin uploading evidence for Goals *now* versus waiting until later, so we can see if there are issues, and also to see if we need more of a discussion with goal #3 once he uploads files. Can we let Brent know we need some evidence by our Jan 8th meeting. 

What part of the SAP pertains to us? Can we check anything off it based on our committee? We need to clearly connect dots between SAP and the goals. 

David: If the process isn't good, we're not going to be happy with the outcome. It's in all of our interest to "double up" where there is overlap between SAP and goals. This will require Brent being more thoughtful and descriptive in his self-evaluation, to see where everything fits.