This is why Secret Superintendent Search 2.0 was so egregious. If we had a competent board--or one with any semblance of responsibility or shame, they would have said last year: "We messed up with hiring Horton. We didn't think that his lack of experience or the fact that he couldn't keep his personal finances straight would impact his j…
This is why Secret Superintendent Search 2.0 was so egregious. If we had a competent board--or one with any semblance of responsibility or shame, they would have said last year: "We messed up with hiring Horton. We didn't think that his lack of experience or the fact that he couldn't keep his personal finances straight would impact his job performance. This time we are going back to precedent by having a public, open search and we are going to prioritize bringing in candidates with a proven track record in managing a district turnaround."
Of course they did the opposite: another closed search that wound up hiring another inexperienced person with a problematic record (e.g. "Do Not Hire" Turner).
This is why Secret Superintendent Search 2.0 was so egregious. If we had a competent board--or one with any semblance of responsibility or shame, they would have said last year: "We messed up with hiring Horton. We didn't think that his lack of experience or the fact that he couldn't keep his personal finances straight would impact his job performance. This time we are going back to precedent by having a public, open search and we are going to prioritize bringing in candidates with a proven track record in managing a district turnaround."
Of course they did the opposite: another closed search that wound up hiring another inexperienced person with a problematic record (e.g. "Do Not Hire" Turner).