Letter From a Member on the Principal Selection Committee

I was a community member on the principal search committee.  Below I am sharing my personal opinion and experiences on the committee.

This is why it should be somewhat of a rubber stamp.  The board’s job is not to micromanage, and it is troubling to me that for the board to step in and apparently micromanage in such an arbitrary manner at the last hour when they set no criteria at the beginning.  In any case, the board often delegates duties.  In some cases, the board certainly has greater perspective and more knowledge than those to whom they delegate.   This is not the case with a principal search.  Here is why (this is going to be long, please be patient)—

The board interviewed the final candidates only once.  The board only saw the resumes of the final two candidates.  Yes, I completely agree with all of you who say that the resumes of these two final candidates might not be as impressive as you would have liked to have seen.  We can quibble over what kind of experience is relevant and how much.  Again, no criteria were set by the board.  We were not charged with finding a person with a specific type or length of experience.  I think that would have narrowed the search and might have led us to miss an outstanding candidate who was ready and eager to become principal. Plus, I think that almost everyone can agree that there are more to people than their resumes.  This is why the board generally trusts the search committee and the process.

 I am not going to share anything specific about particular applicants.  Remember, that with all 44 applicants, they are human beings with lives and careers at stake.  This is why much of the information is kept confidential.  While the board only saw the resumes and did one interview, this is what the search committee saw—

I should start by saying that at the beginning of the process we were told that each piece of information and each experience with an applicant was part of the overall selection process.  Principals deal with lots of different types of people in lots of different ways.  They must be able to communicate with different types of people in different ways, so each interaction we had or witnessed with an applicant was to be considered.  I described it to my kids as feeling like I was a judge on a reality tv show.

The board read the resumes of the finalists.  We read 44 resumes, cover letters, transcripts, and letters of recommendation.   Of course, you can bet all 44 had good letters of recommendation.  The letters or recommendation are revealing in the specifics experiences and stories that people relay and also some of the specific personality traits that people may describe.  They are also revealing in what is not included.  For example, if most candidates have a letter of recommendation from a student and one candidate does not, what does that mean?  Does this candidate not value students?  Do students not like this candidate? 

There was one candidate who I thought had an incredible resume.  If I could have hired this candidate based on the resume alone, I would have done so.  However, there was something in a recommendation letter from a parent that was just a little bit odd.  It kept nagging at me.  I did a google search and found this candidate had his own fan page on facebook.  Hmmm.  I read through an entire year’s worth of postings and came to the realization that this candidate was not a good fit.  This candidate did not make the first round.  In our committee meetings, we discussed these types of things. Other committee also did google searches on candidates for various reasons—red flags in cover letters, to verify something on a resume, etc…

We also interviewed the candidates more than once, and we were sent correspondence that the candidates sent to the Superintendent thanking the committee for interviews,  proposing topics for second round interviews, even correspondence relating to our site visits.  We judged and discussed all of this.

Once the we had finalists and they had made let their current districts know they were finalists, the committee was asked to find out what we could about the candidates from people we may know. If we knew of anyone on their districts or former districts, we were to ask them about these candidates.

We visited their schools.  Before going, we were told how revealing this could be.  Someone I know who was on a previous search committee told me to keep my eyes open and that when she had done a site visit before she had learned some troubling things about a candidate.  

At our site visits, we met with their current supervisors, interviewed parents, teachers, school board members, and students.  Again, you can bet that the people we met said very nice things about each candidate.  And, again, we were looking deeper than that.  We were listening and evaluating to their stories, to their funny, triumphant, and sad experiences.  We were evaluating for fit with our district.  I was very moved by the people we met with at each site visit who were very generous with their time and with sharing these experiences with us. 

In addition to these interviews, we toured each school.  Why check out their schools?  The culture and atmosphere can tell you a lot about a candidate.  Plus, a candidates interaction with students in the hallway, teachers, cafeteria workers are all very revealing.

The candidates also each spent a day at our school.  They were interviewed by students.  They also met with other administrators in the district.

Then, there was the community tea.  Yes, the format may not have been ideal for the community members.  I have been to a couple of these teas as a plain clothes community before, and this is how they are structured.  Someone asked me at the tea if we could have the candidates sit down and answer questions. I told this person that this was the format that the candidates were given, and I didn’t think it would be fair to change it on the fly.  For the next search, perhaps?  However, for those of us on the search committee this is a great format.  We were those people standing around the edge of the room looking like the secret service.  It was great to watch the candidates be bombarded by community members with all sorts of questions.  I eavesdropped a little. I heard community members ask very direct questions in a respectful way.  I also heard a community member or two being somewhat abrasive.  I was a little nervous, by this, of course, but then realized this is part of it.  Principals need to deal with all sorts of people in all sorts of moods.  It is not a job for the thin skinned.

After the community tea, the search committee met again.  We went through the community feedback forms.  I think I am not breaching confidentiality if I say that they were overwhelmingly positive.  We also heard about the student feedback forms.  Those of us who went on the site visits gave our impressions.  We shared other information that we may have learned or heard about each candidate.  We then voted for our recommendation.

So, then, why have the board interview two candidates?  Well, this is the last test for our candidates.  How do they do before the board? I assume that if our search committee felt strongly that one candidate shouldn’t even make it to the board that this would have been respected.  My impression is that the committee liked both candidates, but that one was just a little bit better fit. I also assume that at the board interview if the candidate we recommended completely bombed then the Superintendent might make another recommendation.

I am friends with several people on this board, but I have no idea why they did not accept the recommendation.  I am quite shocked, actually. Because I feel that the process was so detailed and thorough, so similar to previous searches that board members had participated in and that there is no way the board could have gleaned as much information in their one interview as we did over many weeks of interactions with the candidates, I cannot help but question their motives.  It seems very arbitrary to me.  If there were certain criteria that we as a committee did not meet, then they should have given us those criteria at the beginning or even when the new board was elected.  They did not. 

This also makes me question whether or not they were ever truly committed to hiring a principal, if they truly had open minds.  Sometimes I feel that they made me a party to stringing these two gentlemen along, toying with their careers and expectations.  I have heard through the grapevine that Mr. Campbell is a finalist in the district that is home to Bowdoin College.  All I can say is lucky them!  And, shame on us.

 I read on one school board member’s facebook page something about budgetary concerns. I do believe that the budget is the responsibility of the board. I have no knowledge nor expertise there.  However, it the decision is budgetary, I do have to wonder at the wisdom of it.  The budget currently includes funds for a high school principal.  If we are facing budget issues, then this seems like a personnel cut.  If we need to make personnel cuts, then there are probably positions that we could cut in this district that would have less of an impact on student achievement than the high school principal?

Now, though, I would like to know what the board’s plan is?  They have yet another special meeting tonight that will not be taped nor televised.  Due to a work commitment, I cannot attend. If they reveal a plan, would someone please post it?