What are the Board’s critical needs in its hiring process for a new superintendent?

The item below was written in September of 2007. Since then some interesting developments have occurred. At the October 25 meeting, Board members discussed a plan to discuss a process for dealing with Board issues, including the procedures for selecting a new superintendent. If the process is discussed in late November, it does not seem possible that the position description and advertisement will be out earlier than mid-December. This probably pushes a search and interviews well into 2007. Is this the timetable that other districts have followed? Do districts that start late have a more difficult time finding the right person to hire? More to follow on that question….

An additional issue is raised by the possibility of retaining an interim superintendent for a second year. When it hired the current interim Superintendent, the Board made a decision among several candidates, one an African American woman who actually served as interim superintendent. Because the position is temporary, the Board was not obligated to make sure its EEO policies were followed. Superintendents keep their jobs, on national average, about three years. Hiring one for two years, even while calling it an interim position, effectively sidesteps EEO policies.

The Washington State School Directors’ Association provides a service to help districts interview the right people. Here is their manual on how to search for a new superintendent.

The last hire of a Superintendent turned out to be a very bad experience. The District was not well run, lots of people were alienated, and the half million dollar severance package could have purchased something of lasting value. The Board needs to dramatically improve its hiring process this time around.

Early signs are not encouraging. People attending the Board meetings where the use of a search firm was discussed report that the Board members apparently did not know that several such firms exist, and some are better than others when it comes to experience relevant to Tacoma. At another Board meeting, one Member (Kurt Miller) suggested to the Board that they find a management consultant to help them get a tight fix on what they want, and how to get it, in this new hiring process. Board Chair Rickman said they would “take it under advisement,” but the next day in the News Tribune a reporter who interviewed her said she rejected the idea altogether. (Read the story here.) This is not a good sign, where the Board in charge of learning does not seem to be learning.

People I have talked to worry that the Board does not know how to distinguish good from bad data. We need reliable means of gauging what is really going on, and making better sense of the emotional content that the data generates. For example, in the last hiring process more than three-fourths of the public comment sheets about candidates favored the person the Board hired—the one that was such a bad hire. Will the Board make a similar mistake again?

The Board needs to assess what really happened in current and former places candidates worked. This is not easy to do, and a plan to get such information needs to be carefully constructed. During the last hiring process members of Tacoma teacher organizations talked to their peers in the district led by our recent Superintendent—and the reports were positive. As it turns out, they wanted him out, and were willing to mislead Tacoma teachers toward that end. The Board apparently cancelled a site visit to that district, and hired a Superintendent without adequately checking his record.