In his first year, Superintendent Evan Bishop met his goals and earned a “proficient” rating by the School Committee during his annual formal evaluation.

At this past Thursday’s School Committee meeting, Bishop explained that his goals were in four areas: data-informed decision making, fiscal systems, communication and development of a shared vision.

“My work has been grounded in listening and learning and trying to build a strong foundation for the work ahead,” Bishop said.

Bishop said his focus specifically has been on pre-kindergarten to Grade 8 because he spent 20 years at the high school and had more familiarity with that level.

The superintendent said he took time to strengthen relationships across the system and community by being visible in the buildings and having an open-door policy for families and key groups such as the Special Education Parents Advisory Council (SEPAC), Hopkinton Teachers Association (HTA) and Hopkinton Parent Teacher Organization (HPTO).

For each goal, the superintendent presented “indicators,” or evidence of the actions taken to accomplish what he set out to do.

For example, to build understanding of the district and use data in decision making, Bishop created an entry plan, went on listening tours, worked with a mentor and more.

The committee was tasked with rating Bishop as unsatisfactory, needs improvements, proficient or exemplary. Member Jamie Wronka initially said she was “hung up” on training she received that emphasized the “proficient” rating should be something high to aspire to and very difficult to achieve during a superintendent’s first year. Member Chris Masters agreed that was the message at the training.

Member Nancy Cavanaugh said the message at the Massachusetts Association of School Committee (MASC) conference was to explain what would be necessary to achieve proficiency if the rating was lower.

Cavanaugh said it also was fine for members to use their own judgment during the evaluation.

“The bottom line,” added vice chair Susan Stephenson, “is that his performance overall, I think, was good.”

“ ‘Needs improvement’ does not match his actual performance,” said chair Kyla McSweeney.

Wronka said she did not understand why the two-hour training she received sent a different message before deciding to move on.

For a goal about communication, members thought Bishop did a good job — pointing out the superintendent used social media, newsletters and in-person meetings with people to hear their concerns.

“People in the community, I believe, felt more in touch, and he did an outstanding job,” Stephenson said.

While Bishop received a “proficient” rating for his handling of the budget, Masters said the superintendent was “even edging toward exemplary.”

Cavanaugh pointed out how quickly the superintendent had to “pivot” when high insurance costs had the town come back and require cuts to the budget. Prior to that happening, she said, it was the smoothest budget process she experienced as a board member.

The superintendent also was praised for creating a budget flipbook and having transparency throughout the budget process.

Bishop also was deemed “proficient” at building trust and communication throughout the district.

McSweeney said some teachers were skeptical about Bishop’s appointment because he had never been a superintendent before. Now, she has heard positive feedback about the way he is doing the job.

McSweeney said his ability to attract high-level people to fill important roles in the district is further evidence of his proficiency.

Bishop’s goal of constructing a shared vision was more suitable as a two-year effort, Cavanaugh said.

“There is still some work to be done,” agreed Bishop. The superintendent said now that his entry report was completed, this summer he would be working on a strategic plan.

Members said the superintendent had made “significant progress,” but more time was needed to accomplish this goal.

Stephenson noted, “I think he has a solid vision of where the district is going with specific things he wants to see occur.”

Wronka said crossing out “needs improvement” and putting “developing” in its place seemed more appropriate. While other members thought a “proficient” ranking worked here, Wronka said she preferred to get clarification about the evaluation process, given the apparently conflicting training she received.