Enough to notice they have faced turmoil in their school district. Their school superintendent just “retired” (or so it was called) after only two years on the job.
Their 5-member school board has struggled with how to replace the superintendent. They used a “national search” to find him in 2011. Three of the board wanted to forgo a national search and hire one of seven people on a “list” of potential superintendents. The other two preferred to conduct a national search and appoint an interim superintendent in the mean time.
The “compromise” solution was to hire a superintendent and give her six months to a year to “prove herself” and in the meantime conduct a nationwide search. Even though their decision was unanimous, the board appears “split” on what it actually approved. Some say the person selected is an interim superintendent; others say no, she is the superintendent. Some say they won’t start the search until after six months so they can see how the new superintendent is doing. Others say no, we agreed to start a national search right now; she is welcome to apply.
Within this background, a high school principal in a district next door accepted the position under these “conflicting” conditions. She apparently was a finalist in the 2011 search.
As I’ve followed this “case,” I’ve wondered whether the board itself is dysfunctional? Or, have they just failed to hire the right person to be superintendent.
Meanwhile, I’m wondering whether the school board has any idea about how long it takes a new CEO to “get adjusted” to the new position. When I hired staff and/or executive directors, my rule of thumb was six months before I really expected the person to be ready to start making a contribution.
Finally, I’m wondering “would you accept a CEO position” if the association or nonprofit board laid out similar conditions?