The School Board will soon have to make a decision about hiring a superintendent. They have two basic options:
- They could offer a contract (of one to three years) to Dr. Enfield.
- They could seek (either locally or nationally) other applicants the job.
There are arguments to be made for each option and for variations within each option. There are costs and risks associated with each option.
Those who support offering a contract to Dr. Enfield generally contend that Dr. Enfield's performance has been acceptable and that the costs and risks of seeking other applicants is not justified.
Those who support seeking other applicants for the job generally believe either:
- Dr. Enfield's work has been unacceptable, and she should not continue in the role, or
- Dr. Enfield's work has been good enough, but there may be someone better available
These folks contend that the potential upside of opening the position for applicants outweighs the costs and risks.
There are a number of unknowns.
- Would Dr. Enfield accept the position if it were offered to her?
- Would Dr. Enfield apply for the position if it were thrown open?
- Would we attract highly qualified applicants?
- Would the Board make a sound hiring decision?
- Could we possibly both lose Dr. Enfield and fail to attract or sign a qualified applicant?
- How long would it take a new superintendent to gain traction?
Finally, and I just can't resist the delicious irony of this, shouldn't we do a search - if only to broaden the candidate pool? Last I heard, the superintendent and the Board believed that the District and the students are best served by the greatest possible hiring pool. That would suggest that we should open the position to other applicants. The superintendent didn't see anything wrong with expecting teachers who already had a contract with the District to apply for our teaching jobs along side applicants from outside the District. She shouldn't see anything wrong with it when the shoe is on her foot.