The perils of a public superintendent search
Boston's search for a new superintendent is turning into a cautionary tale about the perils of public scrutiny in the search process. SFUSD would be wise to pay close attention as we rev up our own recruiting process.
To recap, Boston's popular, successful superintendent, Thomas Payzant, retired after more than a decade of service. His plans have been known for more than a year, allowing plenty of time to recruit his replacement. I'm not fully versed on the structure of the Boston school district, but I belive the superintendent and the BOE are appointed by the mayor. This should make the hiring process easy to plan and execute — or at least easier than it will be here where BOE electoral politics figures prominently into the equation. Boston's search committee allegedly produced a short list of final candidates that was leaked to the press. These final candidates were then expected to face a public review process. And that's when things have apparently fallen apart.
We've noted that Arlene Ackerman was on the leaked short list. She quickly withdrew her name from consideration. Turns out she is not alone. The list of five candidates is now down to two. The Globe reports:
It's hard to imagine that SFUSD will A) be allowed to conduct a discreet, private search process, and B) be able to shield the most desirable candidates from these pitfalls of public scrutiny. Perhaps the district can learn from Boston's situation and devise a way for diverse community voices to participate in a discreet, closed-door recruiting process that protects the privacy of the candidates. Maybe. But I'm doubtful.
From where I sit, Superintendent Chan is looking better and better. She has proven herself under difficult circumstances in her first year. Before embarking on a treacherous search process we ought to take stock of Gwen Chan and ask if we really think we can do better. This district is faced with many immediate, critical needs. Gwen Chan knows the players, knows the issues, knows the district, and has demonstrated tact and leadership. Can we expect to find anyone better and more qualified? Can we afford to wait and to risk the near term uncertainty?
To recap, Boston's popular, successful superintendent, Thomas Payzant, retired after more than a decade of service. His plans have been known for more than a year, allowing plenty of time to recruit his replacement. I'm not fully versed on the structure of the Boston school district, but I belive the superintendent and the BOE are appointed by the mayor. This should make the hiring process easy to plan and execute — or at least easier than it will be here where BOE electoral politics figures prominently into the equation. Boston's search committee allegedly produced a short list of final candidates that was leaked to the press. These final candidates were then expected to face a public review process. And that's when things have apparently fallen apart.
We've noted that Arlene Ackerman was on the leaked short list. She quickly withdrew her name from consideration. Turns out she is not alone. The list of five candidates is now down to two. The Globe reports:
Both Reilinger [co chairwoman of the search committee] and Mayor Thomas M. Menino pointed yesterday to two factors in the withdrawals: the public disclosure of the candidates for the post and a reluctance among candidates to take part in a public interview process long promised to parents and community groups.Compounding the mess for Boston is the fact that any additional candidates that might be added to the search will be tainted—not to mention snubbed—for having not made the original short list. It is a mess, and all because of the public involvement in the process—both the unintended leak and the planned public interviews.
The thinking is that top-flight candidates would not want to suffer the embarrassment of being rejected after such a public process. In the case of Superintendent Manuel J. Rivera of Rochester, N.Y. , whom many considered the front-runner, that could also have meant returning to his present system after openly flirting with another job.
It's hard to imagine that SFUSD will A) be allowed to conduct a discreet, private search process, and B) be able to shield the most desirable candidates from these pitfalls of public scrutiny. Perhaps the district can learn from Boston's situation and devise a way for diverse community voices to participate in a discreet, closed-door recruiting process that protects the privacy of the candidates. Maybe. But I'm doubtful.
From where I sit, Superintendent Chan is looking better and better. She has proven herself under difficult circumstances in her first year. Before embarking on a treacherous search process we ought to take stock of Gwen Chan and ask if we really think we can do better. This district is faced with many immediate, critical needs. Gwen Chan knows the players, knows the issues, knows the district, and has demonstrated tact and leadership. Can we expect to find anyone better and more qualified? Can we afford to wait and to risk the near term uncertainty?
Labels: SFUSD Politics
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home