One key item to note from the editorial (and remember for later on down the road if she is chosen):
When it comes to talking and listening, she's more likely to do the latter.
They even spend time writing about Enoch even though they state that he withdrew. So why bother?
He is well-read and steeped in the latest pedagogical research. But Enoch's track record of doing is more mixed. He has the least experience working with urban students and when he left one school district, it was essentially broke. His withdrawal was probably a good decision.
Not very nice (Enoch explained the financial issue) and not necessary unless you really wanted to back up the weak decision that is their endorsement for Husk.
They end by saying there will be "large money requests" to the public - oh, you mean the billion dollars worth of levies?
They also mention "the district's central office will rightfully remain under scrutiny for management and accounting weaknesses." Oh, you mean accounting issues like the Board about to approve an MOU with the Alliance for Education for services that will give the Alliance a profit and should be sent out for a bid? Or is that about not being able to oversee principals and their actions (see Lowell and Van Asselt)?
I do want to take this point to say that whoever gets selected is going to hear from me the same lines I have said to our last four superintendents when I met them:
Welcome to our district. What can I do to help?