Seattle Press on Line - SHAREYOURTHOUGHTS: Superintendent Search

SHAREYOURTHOUGHTS: Superintendent Search

Oct 07, 2003 --

AFTER MONTHS of searching for a new superintendent, Seattle has been left with none. The top four candidates—Steven Admowski, Evelyn Williams Castro, Libia Socorro Gil and Joan Kowal—have withdrawn from consideration, citing the lack of broad support among teachers, parents, taxpayers, business and minority groups. Insiders say Seattle, after the failed search, will find it difficult (if not impossible) to attract new candidates. What went wrong? What should be done right? Is there a lesson to be learned here? Share your thoughts to editor@seattlepress.com.

Reader Comments

Discuss this article in the forums!


Charlie Mas	Oct 10, 2003	Seattle	Financial Advisor
The Board mismanaged the process in three ways. They rushed it, they tried to create the illusion of a public process without actually having a public process, and they couldn't deal with the public input they solicited. Their first mistake was rushing things. In their haste they created a profile and ran ads for the job before their hand-picked Superintendent Search Advisory Committee even met. If an organization wants to do public engagement they need to involve the public as early as possible in the process and they have to allow a lot of time. Democracy is slow and messy. So the Board's haste left the Committee feeling insulted even before their first meeting. The Board's undue haste also led them to include Joan Kowal among their finalists. They didn't wait until the background checks were complete. The search consultants, PROACT, really botched this. Anyone with internet access could have Googled her and got the story of how she was cashed out of two contracts in the past five years. They would have seen the story of the 93% no confidence vote and the FBI investigation. PROACT also accepted Steve Adamowski's claims that he implemented a pay-for-performance plan for teachers in Cincinnati. The plan wasn't implemented because the teachers rejected it with a 96% "NO" vote. Adamowski's claim of raising test scores has also been discredited. So haste and an incompentent consultant caused the Board to throw the whole selection process into doubt. Then can the Board's attempt to create the illusion of a public process. They sought advise, but they had no intention of following it. They did community meetings in which they solicited people's ideas for what characteristics we should seek in the next Superintendent. The overwhelming answers were: an educator, a communicator who builds consensus, and an experienced manager of a large organization. They had a web site asking the same questions. They allowed their hand-picked Committee to advise on the screening criteria. In the end, the four finalists were educators with experience in urban schools. Three of them were top-down managers who supported charter schools, and the other had no financial management experience. In short, the final choices didn't fit the profile that the people had set. So right away the people realized that their advice wasn't heeded. The Board, in their haste and as part of the effort to create the illusion of a public process without having actually public input, kept the finalist's name secret until Sunday, wanted to offer the public a chance to meet them on Monday and Tuesday evening, and then vote on Wednesday before anyone had a real chance to learn anything about these people or submit any advice on the selection. Well that didn't fly. People saw right through that as well. Finally, the Board wasn't really prepared to handle the public input they got. That's understandable since they have almost no experience with public input. They have been denying it and ignoring it for years. So when it came they had no systems in place to process it. Board President Nancy Waldman didn't know for two days that Dr. Gil had withdrawn her name from consideration because her email inbox was so full she hadn't gotten to that message yet. Organizations more experienced with public input know how to manage it. This Board, however, gave anti-democratic quotes to the press in which they blamed the public for scaring the candidates off. In fact, the candidates quit citing the mismanagement of the process. They saw what losers the Board were and didn't want to be tainted by association. In the end, the Board made a decision which contradicted all of their previous statements. They said that the decision was the highest priority, but they made the default choice and they made it quickly. They said that they wanted an educator who is an effective communicator and has experience leading an urban district, raising test scores and closing gaps, but they hired someone who doesn't match any of that profile. And they said that they would make the choice with lots of public input, but in the end they made the choice with absolutely no public input whatsoever. So what should be learned? Three lessons: 1. Authentic public engagement takes a lot of time and must be part of the plan from the very beginning. 2. Authentic public engagement can't be faked. The people are not that stupid or inattentive. 3. Democracy is like barbeque - it's slow, it's messy, and it's low-brow, but when it's done right there ain't nothin' better. If you're going to have barbeque, be ready for it. Do it outdoors and have plenty of napkins on hand. Don't invite 100 folks when you only have food for 25. Only a fool would serve it in a room with a white carpet. Same goes for democracy. If you're going to try it, be ready for it. Don't invite people to speak their minds and then get angry when they say things you don't like. Don't invite people to a participatory event and then not give them an opportunity to participate. Only a fool would ask someone for their opinion when they don't care what it is.