I think most people would agree the major task facing the school board over the next few months is to hire a new superintendent. A search firm will be hired to assist the board in this process. I imagine at some point the opinions of the community will be sought, I hope more people show up than showed up for a similar meeting regarding the City Manager. Sometimes it seems as if very few want to get involved but many like to complain. Then again sometimes I let the blogs skew my perceptions. If you really stop and count the number of posters on a blog that requires registration (Oshkonversation) you will note that for the most part there are 5-10 different posters on any given thread. Hardly the voice of the community.
At any rate, I'd like to know what readers think should be considered when hiring a new superintendent for the Oshkosh Area School District? Is previous experience as a superintendent necessary? Should board members visit the community where the final candidates work? What qualities are necessary in a new superintendent, what qualities would be nice to have and what qualities are not really important at all?
It appears that all the districts around us that are looking for, or have hired, a new superintendent have paid that person more than our current superintendent makes (anywhere from $20,000 to $40,000 more), should this matter? Will we have to pay in that range to stay competitive or do we just set a dollar figure and see who is willing to come to Oshkosh for that amount?
How would you go about "including" the community or is this strictly a Board decision?
I guess that is enough to get people started...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
Hi Teresa,
Neenah just selected their super. They used a consultant named Birchbauer who moved fast which seems wise when there are so many super possitions open. However, of the 2 candidates he "found", one has a highly controversial past and the other did not seemed nice enough but not terribly strong (which is, I suppose, agreeable to the board.) I did not go to the public forum but both the Post Cresent and the rumor mill provided lots of info. All of that may not be particularly helpful but the whole process has me worried about who will be out there for districts that drag their feet.
Anyway...
The following is a column written by a community columnist for the Post Crescent. He also happens to be a retired administrator in Neenah. I have a great deal of respect for Jeff and think the column includes important questions:
Posted March 13, 2008
Jeff Zdrale column: Hiring superintendent raises many questions
"They seem to be leaving in droves," someone said the other day. No, he wasn't talking about more U.S. companies pulling up stakes for Mexico. He was referring to the many school superintendents across the country who are retiring.
This hasn't occurred very often here in the Fox Valley. The tenures of most district administrators have been quite long compared to the revolving-door action typical of larger cities.
With at least two area districts seeking new leaders now, I've been thinking about this very important process. Having worked in or with five school districts over 37 years, I'd like to pose some questions for consideration.
Should a board of education hire someone from within the district — a known quantity familiar with the issues and the people — or should it seek an outsider, someone who can look at the whole operation with a new eye and who, when making difficult decisions, wouldn't be hampered by past relationships?
Do the district and the board want a superintendent whose main job is to carry out their policies and decisions or do they want someone with new ideas who can show them the benefits of following his lead? Do they want to tell him what to do or do they want him to tell them what to do?
Should the new superintendent be expected, during the selection process, to share her views about some of the thorny questions districts are facing?
Should property taxes continue to be a source of funding or do they perpetuate the inequality of opportunity in the state's schools?
Are district revenue caps putting an increasing stranglehold on schools' abilities to fund their budgets or are they just what's needed to keep a district's focus on the basics?
Should the Qualified Economic Offer continue to be invoked to keep teachers' salary increases in check or should it be repealed due to its discriminatory effects on just one subgroup of state employees?
Or does the candidate keep quiet, thinking, "Those whose bread I eat, it is those whose song I sing"?
Another facet to this question is whether it's best to hire a district administrator who reflects the views of the board on such issues and others like them or whether there are benefits in having differences on key views between the candidate and the board?
In these difficult financial times, should the primary strength of the new administrator be money management? Should budget-building skill, or more often, budget-reducing skill be the litmus test for selecting the new leader? Or should the new administrator be more of a generalist, with an eye for the total picture of all district operations?
And if budgets do need to be cut back, what is the prospective super's preferred method of doing this — cherry-picking here and there for line items that wouldn't be missed; focusing in on a few departments or programs; or implementing reductions of the same percentage across all parts of the district's financial plan?
Although the site-based management concept may be a bit dated, the issue of centralized vs. shared authority is still real.
How will he handle power? Is having a strong central office the way to ensure consistency and equal opportunities for students throughout the district, or is having decisions made by individual principals and their faculties the best way to get their buy-in? How authoritative or participative should the candidate's management style be?
Does the district seek a charismatic, "always out with the troops" superintendent with real people skills and the ability to be the icon who positively brands the district in the larger community? Or does the board want an "at her desk" analytical thinker with a clear understanding of the issues, but who doesn't get to volleyball games very often?
Should a superintendent view "playing politics" (courting the favor and approval of those who wield informal power more than of those whose positions are supposed to have it) as a necessary evil in any bureaucracy or should he be unwilling to work outside the bounds of the organizational chart?
Better to follow the advice of Voltaire: "Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers."
Jeff Zdrale is a Neenah resident and a Post-Crescent Community Columnist.
It was refreshing to see Neenah also including the public in its selection and interviewing process. Other communities welcome the public's views with much more open arms than Oshkosh, though things are getting a bit better here.
The idea of adding community input is so very nice. Perhaps key administrators can choose key players in the "public" to put in their thoughts.
We 'hired' the school board with our votes. Let's let them do their job.
Were any of our current members on board when SuperMann was hired?
I have been following various superintendent searches around the state just because of personal interest in school related and state political issues,
Steven's Point recently found that it has been moving too rapidly and started over. I think they will hire an interim (probably from within) untless the new search finds the right person quickly.
And that may well be as if I were a candidate, Point would look good to me- history of referenda support, strong system etc. good fiscal shape, In fact, you could do worse than taking a good look at the potential in some of the Point second tier administraors with the idea of luring them away.
Quite frankly, given the Oshkosh history, yours will be a hard position to fill. You have to remember that part of the process, a big part, is selling your community to an applicant.
It isn't as if there are many applicants out there with such a wide variety of skills that you can select the one that best fits your needs.
You are going to have to choose from what is available.
In my view the current crop of experienced from outside candidates is so thin and of such questionable quality, that I would look to take my chances with a second tier administrator who has the potential to match your needs, either someone local or somehere from a comparable school in the state.
Menomonie choose to go with an interm from the pool of reitired adminstrasors (that pools is pretrty good) and lucked out to the extent that their community is forging ahead slowly to solve its many problems and the interim agreed to stay on a year or so more until the job was done- says he never gave up on a problem in his earlier years and isn't about to now.
The Racine position is impossible in my view and their recent selection will be one of the many revolving door selections typical of large urban districts
Madsion stole the Green Bay Supt and they did and excellent job of thievery and that one will probably work out.
It could be said that Eau Claire stole yours but I think that situation was much more complex and won't venture a prediction there.
Good Luck.
I appreciate the approach the local media took in the recent rumors about Dr. Heilmann. As to the suspected cast of characters involved in the media leak, one of them is showing a penchant for rumor mongering and since losing the election last month looks to be on a path to destroy the district -- or at least some of the people in it. Michelle Monte was in the Heilmann mess up to her eyeballs and now that that has died down is spreading more gossip on her blog, this time about district computers being used for blogging and campaigning during the election season. Has anyone else noticed a certain pattern on her site that goes something like this. When she has something she wants to plant in the public's mind an anonymous question is posted on her site, soon followed by a response from Mrs. Monte where she gives all the dirt. With regards this latest rumor she says it's not worth investigating unless some rule is being broken. Why mention it then. I'm sure she knows if a rule is being broken. After all most employers have internet policies for their employees. But like the last rumor, I don't believe a word of it and she's losing credibility with every post she makes these days. OASD hath no fury like a Michelle Monte scorned. Something says she'd be scorned even if she'd been elected.
As to the suspected cast of characters involved in the media leak, one of them is showing a penchant for rumor mongering
HOW DO YOU KNOW WHO IS SPENDING TIME "RUMOR MONGERING"?
It seems you are guilty of what you are criticizing!
How do we know? Good golly, it's so obvious to anyone monitoring her drivel. She talks a good game about small minds talking about other people...blahblahblah...but she sure doesn't practice what she preaches. She lost and people in the district don't like or respect her. She needs to get over it or get lost instead of thinking of ways to get even that will only bite her in the A$$.
After reading the most recent post from Mrs. Monte I really think this woman is losing her grip on reality. The topic was an alleged misuse of OASD computers and a finger once again was pointed in the direction of Dr. Heilmann. Besides the obvious that these individual posters (or poster) are sick and have a serious axe to grind, Mrs. Monte has suggested the people posting on a blog in Eau Claire are friends of school board members here and are accusing her of criminal activity because she's demanding accountability and fiscal responsibility. WOW!!
What does any of the recent attacks on Dr. Heilmann's character have to do with fiscal responsibility? She sure loves to twist things. Speaking of accountability, where is hers? She blogs about rumors and completely unfounded allegations whenever she gets the chance, but damned be anyone who dare call her motives and actions into questions (as so many have with her most recent bloggings).
And where has anyone accused her of criminal activity? She's mentioned that a few times, but no one's mentioned criminal activity, except her. Does SHE think she's done something criminal? Who knows what goes on in that head. All I can see anyone's mentioned is IF she's guilty of something she should be held accountable. One would think she would embrace another call for accountability even though it's against her. Or is this another one of those "I live by my rules and everyone else lives by a tougher set of standards to live by" deals?
Technically any comment/post that accuses someone of breaking personnel confidentiality, executive priviledge or slandering the Super is an accusation of criminal. It is called Libel if in print.
While libel is almost always considered a civil offense - which is why you don't see it being prosecuted by district attorneys - there is such a thing as criminal libel and Wisconsin is on the 17 states that have criminal libel laws, especially for web defamation (all 50 states have civil libel laws on their books). Given this one would think the Montes would tread even more gingerly.
I think the whole situation has gotten out of control an I don't care who started what. Anyone on either side who makes accusations, whether it be accusing of inappropriate behavior or accusing of leaking confidential information, should tread lightly.
Better yet, drop it altogether.
You should care who started it because it goes directly to credibility. As far as whio accused who of what, take a good look at what's been written. No one has outrightly accused the Montes of a leak even though it's highly suspected. On the other hand they have strongly suggested and allowed anonymous posters to flat out accuse certain people in the district of things that are untrue. That is dangerous and libelous, and we all should care about it.
And this has what to do with the "Superintendent Search"?
Nice blog control Thiel... Way to stick to your guns.
Here's what it has to do with a search for a superintendent. The rumor-mongering and flat out accusations appearing on the Monte site and the aspersions cast on Dr. Heilmann by way of media leaks in Eau Claire and here and some local bloggers, will quite certainly make a superintendent search here more difficult. The field is already small considering all the districts looking for a new leader and the number of people vying for those positions, and now this. It's a travesty and I hope those responsible are proud. It's doubtful God is.
I have not had time lately to check blog posts or respond to what has been written. I've been sick and work and family obligations have left me with little time for blogging. That said...
I have to agree with anonymous 10:16pm the whole "rumor mongering" done by some in this town, will make it that much more difficult to recruit a quality candidate. I almost have to question the judgement of someone who wants to move to a community that, how did Stew Rieckman put it, Practices such Nixonian politics. I will not revisit that whole issue but suffice it to say there are some in this town who have no problem trying to destroy a man's reputation. I find that dispicable.
I think Jim Olson said it best "It isn't as if there are many applicants out there with such a wide variety of skills that you can select the one that best fits your needs.
You are going to have to choose from what is available."
I think he is right and hopefully there will at least be some kind of choice...
Interesting justification...
Hippocrite!
You're just a bunch o' sour grapes. If not, tell us where the hypocrisy is.
P.S. At least we know where the bad spellers are.
Nope, spelled it just like I meant it.
I don't expect it to last too long now...
Since that's how you meant it, it's nice to see the kind of person supporting a Monte. It's all about rudeness and belittling people with that crowd. Thanks for showing your true colors and for showing the voters of Oshkosh they were right to keep her off the school board.
Of course. It is all about Monte. It always is on this site. If it is negative, it MUST be a Monte or one of their supporters. They can't do anything right and they are the biggest assholes on the planet.
You people need a hobby.
If the shoe fits, Monte lover...
The Montes are known for their negativity and inaccuracies. Don't shoot the messenger for pointing them out.
Still waiting BTW to hear about those hypocrasies you claim exist. Tell us all about, won't you, oh wise one?
Montes are NOT known for negativity and inaccuracies. That is merely what this blog wants people to think. Just because you believe something to be absolute truth does NOT make it so. Most, if not all, of the "inaccuracies" Montes have been accused of issues that can be interpreted a variety of ways and involve opinions that can take many directions. Just because Thiel says something does not make it fact for the same reasons.
One particular instance I can think of is when Mrs. Thiel criticized a college professor that developed, with his students, a website to statistically analyze property values in relation to the property's proximity to schools. She expressed her criticisms and opinions that could be read as facts. However, I highly doubt Mrs. Thiel is an expert in real estate or statistics and was only expressing her criticism of the information and her opinion that it was not accurate. Since the refutation read as being facts to refute the statistician's information, I contend that it is Mrs. Thiel perpetuating her own brand of "misinformation" and "inaccuracies."
EVERYTHING is subject to interpretation. Having personally met all named parties, it is my opinion that the references to the Montes are inaccurate and misinformation made mostly by people who clearly have an opinion based on mob mentality. The same for the statements about Thiel.
It would be interesting to know who has and has not, to include the named, actually had an entire conversation about anything in which to form a personal opinion. An opinion of a person without personal experience communicating with that person is invalid.
Most people of even average intelligence know an opinion when they see it. That doesn't include the Montes because they've shown all too often that they don't know the difference between opinion and fact. The things the Montes present as fact are things they want everyone else to believe to be true. There are plenty of examples all over the net and those things have not and can not be taken out of context or interpreted wrongly. Nope, the Monte's "facts" are often wrong and the inaccuracies have been pointed out time and time and time again. Even those who aren't half as educated as Mrs. Monte believes herself to be know how often their "facts" are wrong. Believe what you want anonymous. The voters know the truth and Mrs. Monte's little ONW blog isn't going to win her any more public approval than she's already got just because she's trying to portray herself as some friendly goody two-shoes.
Post a Comment