First Board Meeting on Superintendent Search - March 25, 2025
This meeting ran an hour and that's because President Gina Topp is so good at running meetings. Agenda
Only Topp and Director Michelle Sarju were in person and the rest of the directors - Rankin, Mizrahi, Hersey, Clark and Briggs were virtual.
I am going to state upfront that this is an aggressive schedule that may not be able to happen as laid out. Some directors expressed this same thought and some of it is timing. This is NOT the time of year that district normally go looking for superintendents. Usually it starts in fall and ends in spring. So Seattle Schools may have missed that window for the best candidates and may get a line of candidates who were rejected by other districts. That doesn't mean they weren't good candidates but probably not a good fit for a certain district.
But I have also seen candidates who apply for post after post and not get selected. The Board may get some of those.
Topp said interested firms should have their applications to the Board by April 8th and THEN on April 9th, the Board would go over them and select three firms. That means, overnight, the directors have to give all their time to this effort to keep on track. This is not something that can be shifted to the Consent agenda.
Topp went on to say that there would be a special April board meeting to select the firm and then after that special meeting, there would be the regular Board meeting to vote to approve. To be clear, this would all happen in April 23rd.
Topp opened it for discussion and boy, was it fascinating and somewhat disturbing.
Director Evan Briggs started. She asked if only the search firm selected could find candidates and couldn't other "entities" like the Council for Great City Schools? I'm hoping they heard my NO from Arizona.
Look, the district does actual business with CGCS. It's not like the Alliance for Education or the NAACP;money changes hands between SPS and CGCS. I do not think they should be part of this and, because of that financial arrangement, they have an vested interest to find someone that fits THEIR profile.
Topp said they should use their networks and pointed out that Rankin was in Washington, DC for some kind of CGCS get-together and that Rankin had spread the word there. I have no problem with anyone - parent, teacher, administrator, "entities" - putting names out there. But no entity should have a bigger voice than anyone else.
Then Director Sarju spoke up, saying she said she wasn't on "her A game" but didn't explain. I guess she was coming after an illness but it was unclear.
She said, "As I look at timeline, it doesn’t seem realistic to me and we are behind the eight ball." And, that it wasn't a good time to recruit.
She doesn't feel it leaves enough room for public engagement and "we need to do that."
Then, she dropped something of a bomb - "I don't think this iteration of the School Board should choose the next superintendent because the majority of seats is up for election. It seems prudent and wise and fair. I don't support us making the final decision."
She also said she wasn't excited for a search firm and it might be a waste of dollars.
She seemed to think the search firm could find an interim.
She ended with, "Y'all gonna do what y'all are gonna do." It was unclear to me what she meant by that in context to this discussion.
Director Liza Rankin said the schedule seemed too fast. She said they should be prepared for it to take longer. She also pointed out - having done this before - that the search firm will definitely ask Board members if they know a good candidate. She said the process should be transparent. (Well, if you ask the CGCS and have major discussions with consultants like AJ Crabill, that's hardly going to be transparent.)
Director Brandon Hersey said he shared Sarju's concerns. He said it was "not a good time to be recruiting a good candidate." He also said he wasn't "stoked" for an interim. He said the Board should not "box" themselves into a corner.
He mentioned how difficult it could be for either a new permanent super or interim one with the teachers contract. Well, I'm confused because Jones WILL be here to work on that. He knows when school starts and knows it has to get done before that.
Director Joe Mizrahi wished the Superintendent the best. He said that he looked at the state directors' timeline suggestion and that this schedule is not so different from what they suggest except for time of year.
Director Sarah Clark, recovering from a knee operation, said she had concerns about the timeline and there should be "a robust community engagement process" with transparency.
Sarju came back in to say that she feels the Board officers should have a big role in the process.
The vote was taken and the motion passed.
SPS Procurement Manager Nick Ioanna came forward as some directors did not like the two minimum requirements for search firms and wanted to ask him about it. Sarju wanted to have clarity on what a "successful placement" looked like. She said when she got a hysterectomy "I asked questions." Poor Ionna was trying to look as serious as he could.
Staff said those were just minimums and the Board should look for firms that have more qualifications.
Legal Counsel Greg Narver came up to say that the Board will have outside counsel helping with the process especially around the contract negotiations. He said he is counsel to the district.
He also pointed out that it is good to have firms with experience but that there are smaller firms that may be very good but with less experience. He said they shouldn't discount them.
Analysis
A concern for me is the Board has a lot of VERY hard work ahead. Two directors could not find the wording for the motion to go forward. Directors need to read ALL the documentation. They need to come prepared. It does not look good when they are fumbling around and expect staff to come and point to a page for them.
I realize they have jobs and lives but this single thing is the MOST important work they can do.
No one took up on Sarju's suggestion to wait until after the fall elections. I have mixed feelings on this point. Sarju's point is valid. But waiting would mean an interim for possibly close to a year. Is that a good idea?
Hersey made a number of statements but offered no clear idea about where he stands.
To again state, the teachers' contract negotiations will start in, what?, June? And needs to get done before the start of school. Jones will be here that entire time.
Any thoughts?
Comments
Crisis Culture
1. This district is operating in bankruptcy.
The problem is not insufficient funds from the legislator, the problem is profligate spending on ridiculous pet projects driving out of control budgets that the board of governance doesn’t even deign to review at this point (finance committee much? /s). Meaning, any Executive worth her or his salt would understand there’s all bound to be a plethora of ugly surprises buried within the impenetrable and unshepherded budget. Who wants to adopt the world’s ugliest, most unhealthy baby? Not a lot of folks step forward for that one. It’s known as a career killer.
2- Crap product.
Sure, Seattle might be pro-education and pass levies, but have you noticed that this city is fourth in the nation in terms of families diverting their students to private schools? Any Executive, considering Seattle would do their due diligence and realize this statistical loan pretends rot in the foundation that is more than likely recalcitrant deep-seated rot. Seattle Liberals will pay for the dog chow. They just won’t eat the dog chow. That’s an excellent barometer to point out that the education sucks. Again, what Executive is looking to do an operational turnaround as well as a fiscal turnaround? Especially given that the flavor-of-the-month not evidence-based pedagogy is what carries the day for the last several boards. Forget about the ancient Seattle Times charge of a micromanaging board, how about a crazy board? Who wants to come here and have seven bosses who are crazy or spineless (and in some cases, literally dialing it in ) and can’t get along with each other? Again, nobody sane, excellent, or even good would want any part of that.
3. SPS results driven? Not so much. Data driven? LOL!?!
Effective executives need unbiased, timely, excellent and clean information to drive change into a crippled system to make it functional. SPS culture is allergic to facts and logic. They far prefer sound bites and theories, and wave the hand when they’re doing silly walks in the wrong direction,. The district does however has had a penchant for hiring consultants who take money and then leave. A proven futile exercise. No effective Executive wants any part of playing charades. But on the other hand, a charlatan looking together, two or three years of salary to pad their retirement, they’d be up for the challenge. We’ve had several of those over the last decade.
All I can say is if anybody good was to show up, all of their efforts would be cat-called by those in the cheap seats. Seattle is destined to fail. But from failure, maybe there will be an opportunity to do the right things the right way, and no longer mess around with rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
VOTE NO
Ps - Melissa thanks for running this blog. You provide a service. I truly wish things were better for kids and I know you do too, and when I say kids, I mean all kids. The deaf and hard of hearing kids. The gifted kids. The African-American male kids. The kids who school will inevitably be closed. The medically fragile kids. The kids who love math club. Or art. Or basketball. Or AP courses. Or Jazz. Or drill team. All kids.
Cmon
Why would you want the people that created a crisis to select a new superintendent?
To get out of a crisis, we need a new board and superintendent.
Lastly, I'm not thrilled about the possibility of AJ Crabhill teaming up with Rankin to find another superintendent.
I vote to wait until a new board is seated.
-Please
However, I do wish they would pick a 9 month interim. Jones will be here to see the teacher contract negotiations through and then we need a steady eddie as the Board does a search at the right time of year. They would have a new super by spring of '26. This all feels very rushed.
Vote No, you almost sound like you want a state takeover. That, too, may be an option that is forced on the district and watch the finger pointing then.
But good points - what quality candidate would WANT to come here?
I just don't know because there are so many issues.
Thanks for the pat on the back - my goal has always been for ALL kids in this district to see their needs met.
Please, TELL the Board this is what you think. If you stay silent, the Board will think they HAVE to do this NOW. They don't.
Oof. Well said and I'm glad Melissa kept it up even without a pseudonym.
One quibble: Seattle is actually #2 (not 4th) for private school enrollment nationwide.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattle-private-school-enrollment-spikes-ranks-no-2-among-big-cities/
I think a lot of these point you laid out argue for entering binding conditions with the fiscal overseer acting as "interim superintendent" and cutting everything back to basic requirements. Then, once the fiscal side is sorted out a decent candidate can be persuaded to take charge with the goal of increasing enrollment by virtue of making the district desirable.
This board and district are barely (or not at all) capable of overseeing one large decision, never mind two. They completely bungled school closures and now you want them to hire a new supe AND negotiate a new contract with SEA at the same time?!? Madness.
-popinfresh, An Angry Angry Parent
Did you hear about this? This happened two days ago. Not sure how or if SPS is communicating about this to the community.
https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/garfield-lockdown-robbery-grocery-outlet
AWOL Nepos
Seattle will be limited to: 1) SOFG consultants; 2) senior non-supt administrators in large districts in the SOFG orbit, looking for a promotion; and 3) fail-up superintendents of smaller districts using SOFG.
I'd add one nuance - they are not necessarily sitting superintendents - they might be Assistant Sups, Executive Directors, Chiefs of Nameyourdepartment.
The challenge I see in Seattle, where I've lived for 40 years now, is that there appears to be a preferred identity profile that will cause a candidate to pause (or even pass) on applying because of the markers that have been preferred most recently. Neither Juneau nor Jones had the leadership experience to equip them for this work, but they embodied other characteristics that stood out and were attractive to their Boards. Truthfully, because search firms play to the Board and not necessarily to what might really be most effective, those characteristics prevail. As a result, candidates who do not have the identity markers that are preferred will often not be fully considered.
I say this as an educator who has lived in Seattle for 40 years, and have worked under 11 different Superintendents in two neighboring districts. I am a veteran of these processes as teacher, building leader (elementary and high school), and district executive, and candidate. The candidates are out there - yea, even in this city! - but the board (and whoever they hire as a seacrh group) must be open to profiles outside of their current standard,
Insider62
I think it would be interesting to ask a candidate how COVID was handled in their district/state and lessons learned.
SPS passes its levies handily; I'm not sure that would mean much for any given candidate.
Insider62, maybe in another district you could think about people already in the district but not SPS. You pick some senior staffer at JSCEE and the building will sigh heavily and/or roll their eyes and say, "business as usual, I guess."
I will offer that the woman who was competing against Juneau,
Jeanice Kerr Swift, was absolutely my first pick. But, as usual, my pick lost out.
Yes, Juneau did end up having Tracy C-G run amok but she was also the one who exited TCG. For that, I was very appreciative. I have since learned that Hamilton Middle School is using TCG's Ethnic Studies program and that astonishes me.