My observation is that districts who use school board associations for superintendent searches (Evanston used ISBE, DeKalb used GSBA) are more likely to do the secretive interviews/final solo candidate. Districts who use private search firms are more likely to have more public processes. Ann Arbor, MI, which reminds me of Evanston in some ways, is interviewing for a new superintendent, led by a private firm, and had public interviews with the top 7 candidates this weekend. It was all experienced folks who interviewed- they know the drill.
My other observation is that the state board associations produce lower quantities of candidates and it may be correlated with recommendations to keep information about the pool private.
We had another district in Georgia, Chatham-Savannah- who has a lot of challenges and they had a ton more candidates than DeKalb, the 29th largest school district in the country. They used a private firm. Private firms have more resources and a larger geographical reach, but the whole process is more complex and nuanced. I do think it is fair to say you get what you pay for.
Tom, on the secretive process your article says the "Board will argue that this process is required in order to protect the confidentiality of the applicants."
This is not a criticism of you since the Board doesn't respond to your questions, but I am aghast at why the Roundtable or Evanston Now doesn't press the board on the process. As you say the board "will argue". Have they ACTUALLY argued this point this time around?
They did claim this the last time and they explicitly lied about it, with Board President Suni Kartha issuing a statement saying "We are thoughtfully considering opportunities to obtain additional input while respecting the confidentiality requested by the candidates in order to remain in our search process."
Horton was a finalist at this time and he was flying all around the country participating in public searches. So we are supposed to believe that he "requested confidentiality" from Evanston to remain in their process?
The argument at the time was that you get a better pool of candidates when the search is secret, yet the guy they chose was actively and publicly looking to leave his job.
You can only draw two logical conclusions from that argument:
1. We didn't get a good pool of candidates and had to hire a weak candidate who was actively (and unsuccessfully) looking for a new job.
2. We liked the guy we hired and having a public search actually doesn't dissuade good candidates from applying.
If someone had asked Sergio, "why aren't you having a public process" and he said, "we want to get the best candidates," the obvious followup question is "Well, Horton was a public candidate in other searches. Was he not a good candidate?"
I think the obvious answer to the follow up is "No. He was inexperienced and left the District in a financial mess." I doubt Sergio would admit this.
If he says "Horton was great. We want Horton 2.0." The follow-up is "Well , apparently you CAN get great candidates with a public search. Why didn't you do it in an open and transparent way this time?"
If he admits that Horton was bad, the follow-up is "Why don't you change up the process and make it open and transparent so you can engage stakeholders to make a better decision this time around?"
Chicanery. Bamboozleration. This city gets what it deserves because no one votes. If any of these assholes stand for re-election and win, I’ll just laugh. All the way to the bank. Where I withdraw money for increased property tax and tuition. Two things I should not have to be paying for.
It’s difficult to not interpret another completely closed process as outright contempt for Evanston families.
My observation is that districts who use school board associations for superintendent searches (Evanston used ISBE, DeKalb used GSBA) are more likely to do the secretive interviews/final solo candidate. Districts who use private search firms are more likely to have more public processes. Ann Arbor, MI, which reminds me of Evanston in some ways, is interviewing for a new superintendent, led by a private firm, and had public interviews with the top 7 candidates this weekend. It was all experienced folks who interviewed- they know the drill.
My other observation is that the state board associations produce lower quantities of candidates and it may be correlated with recommendations to keep information about the pool private.
We had another district in Georgia, Chatham-Savannah- who has a lot of challenges and they had a ton more candidates than DeKalb, the 29th largest school district in the country. They used a private firm. Private firms have more resources and a larger geographical reach, but the whole process is more complex and nuanced. I do think it is fair to say you get what you pay for.
Again, just my observations.
My money is on Dr. Turner —though at this point I’m not certain why anyone would want this job. Cleaning up the Horton 💩show? No thank you.
We all knew this was going to happen.
What's wrong with this Board? Someone's gotta be a relative or friend.
Tom, on the secretive process your article says the "Board will argue that this process is required in order to protect the confidentiality of the applicants."
This is not a criticism of you since the Board doesn't respond to your questions, but I am aghast at why the Roundtable or Evanston Now doesn't press the board on the process. As you say the board "will argue". Have they ACTUALLY argued this point this time around?
They did claim this the last time and they explicitly lied about it, with Board President Suni Kartha issuing a statement saying "We are thoughtfully considering opportunities to obtain additional input while respecting the confidentiality requested by the candidates in order to remain in our search process."
https://dailynorthwestern.com/2019/11/12/city/district-65-narrows-search-for-superintendent/
Horton was a finalist at this time and he was flying all around the country participating in public searches. So we are supposed to believe that he "requested confidentiality" from Evanston to remain in their process?
The argument at the time was that you get a better pool of candidates when the search is secret, yet the guy they chose was actively and publicly looking to leave his job.
You can only draw two logical conclusions from that argument:
1. We didn't get a good pool of candidates and had to hire a weak candidate who was actively (and unsuccessfully) looking for a new job.
2. We liked the guy we hired and having a public search actually doesn't dissuade good candidates from applying.
If someone had asked Sergio, "why aren't you having a public process" and he said, "we want to get the best candidates," the obvious followup question is "Well, Horton was a public candidate in other searches. Was he not a good candidate?"
I think the obvious answer to the follow up is "No. He was inexperienced and left the District in a financial mess." I doubt Sergio would admit this.
If he says "Horton was great. We want Horton 2.0." The follow-up is "Well , apparently you CAN get great candidates with a public search. Why didn't you do it in an open and transparent way this time?"
If he admits that Horton was bad, the follow-up is "Why don't you change up the process and make it open and transparent so you can engage stakeholders to make a better decision this time around?"
Chicanery. Bamboozleration. This city gets what it deserves because no one votes. If any of these assholes stand for re-election and win, I’ll just laugh. All the way to the bank. Where I withdraw money for increased property tax and tuition. Two things I should not have to be paying for.
To be in this position the person would have to be a resident and pay taxes along with the rest of us. Why make an exception?