The attempt to recruit a superintendent for Seattle public schools continues to spiral out of control, as the hysterically self-interested teacher unions have trashed the only qualified candidates with the active assistance of the local newspapers. The second of the four finalists withdrew her name from consideration today, writing that
increasing polarization of this process makes it difficult to accomplish a common vision for educational leadership.the school district's search consultant added that
all the candidates have been publicly humiliated and harassed. They felt the media coverage was very unprofessional.Indeed.
Now, the only candidates left standing are the very impressive former Cincinnati superintendent Dr. Steven Adamowski and the less capable (but union favorite) Dr. Evelyn Williams Castro.
While the only real opposition to the more qualified candidates has come from the unions, both the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the usually more responsible Seattle Times keep broadcasting the unions' objections without questioning whether it's even a good idea to give unions a de facto veto over the school board's executive hiring decisions. The Times has not published a single letter in support of any of the candidates, even though I sent them one myself the other day. I can only wonder how many others they're sitting on.
Three of the school board incumbents are up for re-election next month and are considered vulnerable. Two of them even trailed their challengers in the primary. Although the board has been searching for a superintendent for months, they are being urged to reject the finalists and wait for the new board to resume the search. This is a bad idea for any number of reasons, not least being that (a) the board has one very good candidate on the table, it is unlikely a new process will produce a better candidate. (b) a new search process will take months of time, leaving the troubled school system without executive leadership.
The board meets Tuesday evening to vote whether to hire one of the two remaining finalists or to try again. Even though there is political pressure on the board to postpone this decision for the new board, selecting one of the finalists is not only the right thing to do, but also the smarter political move for the vulnerable incumbents. Why?
a) If they fail to hire a superintendent, they not only will have failed, but it will look like they failed. That would easily hand the election to the challengers.
b) The only real opposition to the best candidate comes from the unions and the lunatic left, and they don't support the incumbents anyway.
c) If the board picks a superintendent and justifies the decision, then the responsible people in the community (e.g. the mayor, the Times) will have no choice but to rally behind the new superintendent, as they're not going to want to be the ones who are seen to be undermining the new school chief before he even starts. The board will look good only by making a good decision and giving a good explanation for it, even if it doesn't make everybody happy.
d) If the incumbent board members are vulnerable anyway, then they can at the very least ensure their legacy by making a difficult but necessary decision that will benefit the schools.
I wish the board well.
[My earlier postings on the superintendent search are here and here]
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 06, 2003 10:43 PM