Yet another Times' editorial on the superintendent search

Sunday's Times has yet another expression of the editorial board's unhappiness with the superintendent search. This one is a bit confusing because on the one hand, they complain that the Board kept a tight rein on the process (last time, you'll remember, they called it a circus). Then, they say the public interview process was by invitation-only. But it was on tv - live - and replayed. What would have happened (or what different questions would have been asked) if 500 people had showed up (and frankly, I don't think it would have reached 100). Then, they moan over the lack of opportunity to ask questions privately. Well, that would be the Board's job - it is the main job they have as a Board. I'm assuming the Times wanted private meetings with the candidates for editorial boards. But which editorial boards?

They claim they wanted to hear an articulated vision for the city. Both the candidates, wisely, stated that they would need to come in and get the lay of the land (my words). Go out to schools, talk to principals and staff, talk to parents. I would be wary of any person coming in with a "vision" when they have no real sense of our district.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Their comment Board President Cheryl Chow gripped the reins of the process so tightly that at the end of the allotted 45 minutes with the media, one candidate asked Chow's permission to go off script and say goodbye to the audience. was right on though. I think there could have been a happy medium between 2003 and 2007 processes.

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Why the Majority of the Board Needs to be Filled with New Faces

Who Is A. J. Crabill (and why should you care)?