The Curious Case Of the Push to Keep Superintendent Nyland

There's an op-ed at Crosscut from the president of SEA, Phyllis Campano, and the president of the principals' association, Paula Montgomery about the issue of the superintendent search.

Apparently there are still people that think the Board will suddenly collectively slap their foreheads and say, "I coulda have a V8."  (Older parents will get the reference but basically, it's "Hey, we're doing idiots.")

Is the process selected feel truncated and somewhat rushed? Yes.  However, here is my reply to the op-ed and I think I have some valid reasoning.

And I have to wonder about those who want to upend a process that is way down the line, with money spent on a search firm and candidates waiting to be interviewed.  What would that look like to district detractors for the Board to do that?  But maybe that's the point.  To undermine the Board.

Here's my reply to the op-ed:

There are two key issues that this opinion piece seems to overlook.

One, Superintendent Nyland came out of retirement to be an interim superintendent and stayed on for another year. He is a great guy, a seasoned administrator, but he is not a leader at this point. We don't need a caretaker now, we need a leader. It doesn't have to be someone flashy or brash but we need someone who inspires both staff and parents (and even students).

Here's an example about Superintendent Nyland's leadership; go ask a random 20 SPS parents to tell you anything about the district's Strategic Plan. You know, the guiding plan for the district. You will probably get a shrug or a puzzled look and that's the problem.

I do find it curious that there is an idea that he is better positioned to work during the teacher contract negotiation. He was the one on the job when the district had its first strike in years. One that dragged on and on.

Two is about the role of the School Board in this process. When people run for School Board there's always a discussion of "what is the role of the school board director?' and you can get varying ideas.

But one idea, the main one, the legal one is that the Board's number one job is to find, hire and oversee the work of the superintendent. Job One.

The previous Board and now this Board are doing their jobs in determining that a new superintendent is needed (indeed, Nyland said at his first press conference that he didn't want to stay longer than a couple of years).

Is the current process perfect? No, it certainly could have been handled better.

But what is the unhappiness? The Board faces the same challenges as most government entities - the clamor for attention for all sides. My understanding is that some communities were upset that they were not part of the search firm's focus groups. I'm not sure it's possible to bring in and hear every single group and that's why the work is broadly-based.

I think the Board IS listening. They have created opportunities for anyone to give their input. They had a survey. They have a direct email for input (of any kind). The Board has encouraged the public to come to them at the community director meetings.

What the Board isn't doing is giving out daily updates on what they hear. But that's okay because that's not their job. Their job is to take input from as many interested parties as possible.

And as to who they really should listen to - it's not outside communities; it's the communities at the schools they serve. First and foremost, that's who they should listen to. And that includes teachers and principals.

I do agree that the work could have come sooner and there could have been more community meetings. But again, there is no perfect process. I was astonished at a Board committee meeting that one community leader suggested that they could "slow down" and keep looking and hire someone in six months.

There is an absolute hiring season for superintendents and that time is now. To wait is to say it's okay to hire someone that many other districts - who were hiring during the season - rejected. No thanks.

"But how do we know that the candidates are right for our community when so many voices have been left out? What are the criteria that the Board is using to make the decision, and what is that based on?"

Let's take the last question first. The criteria they are using is available and they did ask, in the survey, to rank what is important. I am a parent who did put two sons thru Seattle Public Schools and was a long-time PTA officer with my last stint as co-president of the Roosevelt High School PTSA. I offer from my experience that most parents have many of the same hopes and dreams for their children.

How we get there is certainly open for discussion and it absolutely important to get input from many communities. But that's not how you find a superintendent; that's the work of the superintendent.

Everyone will be able to Google the candidates and there will be opportunities to hear them. During the superintendent search where we ultimately ended up with the late Maria Goodloe-Johnson, the Board had interview sessions that were televised live. I'm sure that can be done again.

As for "being left out," I close how I started - the selection of a superintendent is the number one job of the School Board and it's why we elect them. We elect them for their judgment, not to oversee a multitude of forums and meetings.