Book Report

I choose to read three articles and report on them for this assignment. The last one was the biggest eye-opener. You always think your district is hard, then you read a story like this one.

Rise of the “Rock Star” Superintendent
Patrick Jonsson
Christian Science Monitor
March 31, 2008

Reasons for scarcity of qualified superintendent candidates:
· A decrease in school districts across the nation (35,000 in 1965 to 13,000 today)
· A decrease in certified candidates (70% decrease in black candidates over the past 20 years
· Increased accountability standards required by No Child Left Behind.
· Lack of qualified in-district personnel willing to do an unpopular job that can take a heavy personal and professional toll.

Advantages:
· Decrease in competition (average 250 candidates per job in 1990, less than 30 today)
· Increase in salary and sign on packages ($110,000 10 years ago, $200,000 today)
· New programs specializing in turning business executives and retired military officers into school leaders (The Broad Academy in Los Angeles)
· Many districts are willing to hire “corrective superintendents”, short term “saviors” who make significant academic improvement and reducing discipline problems, effectively laying the groundwork for long-term candidates to follow behind.
· Outsiders can have a clearer view of what’s working and what isn’t.

Concerns:
· Over-politicized school boards that fail to keep the education of students as a priority.
· “To come in an ask for that kind of money knowing they won’t last more than a year and a half, it’s nothing but a big scam-almost racketeering”—John Trotter, head of the Metro Association of Classroom Educators, a for-profit Georgia teachers union.
· “Instead of giving perks to big-shots from the national stage to come here, they should be thinking about giving more perks to our students”, Willis Swint, concerned parent.

A New Framework for Conducting a Search for a School Superintendent
Herb Rubenstein, President and Founder, Growth Strategies, Inc. and David Smith, Executive Vice President, DHR International, Inc.
2004

Current Five Stage System
T-2
Board begins to discuss what type of superintendent the want and review internal candidates.
T-1
Board identifies desired competencies, prepares list of internal candidates, and determines recruiting strategy.
T-0
Board announces formal search, announces recruitment strategy, and collects resumés.
T+1
Board recruits candidates, reviews resumes, holds interviews, evaluates candidates, conducts background checks, and reaches an agreement on candidate.
T+2
Offer is made and agreement is reached.

The New Nine Stage “Super Search” Process
T-4
Board is always prepared for the possibility of replacing superintendent, continuously identifying internal candidates, and alert for possible outside candidates.
T-3
Board continually conducts assessments of the management and development of in-district personnel, use tools to show current shortcomings and strengths of the schools, community groups participate actively as stakeholders in this assessment, and assessment reports are widely distributed to show what changes are needed.
T-2
Board uses assessment reports to evaluate current superintendent and to concentrate on competencies needed in the future.
T-1
Board announces opening when needed, consults all stakeholders, sets salary and package, appoints search committee, and chooses recruitment strategy.
T-0
Committee collects resumes and begins candidate evaluation process with input from stakeholders.
T+1
Short-listed candidates are given assessment reports, prepare presentations addressing reports, preliminary agreement reached, and board evaluates all interviews, background checks, and presentations.
T+2
Finalists selected, interact with stakeholders and board considers input from stakeholders, selects finalist and offers contract.
T+3
Board reviews new superintendent at 60 day intervals.
T+4
Board redoes assessment study to monitor progress.


Broken Arrow (Oklahoma) Superintendent Suspended
Sara Plummer
Tulsa World
October 6, 2008

Jim Sisney was suspended and prohibited from coming on school grounds without approval of the board. He was not granted due process. He was not told the reason for his dismissal but believes it is related to an investigation he started into Air Assurance, a heating and air conditioning company that has been one of the district’s vendors.

The board also voted to stop public comment at board meetings. About 30 protestors showed up at the meeting to show their support.

Both the suspension and public comment proposal were approved by 3-2 votes.

Mr. Sisney filed a defamation lawsuit the previous month against the owners of Air Assurance, a local optometrist, and 3 unnamed co-conspirators. After his suspension, Sisney openly named 3 board members as the co-conspirators.

Below is a summary of the lawsuit. The events are in chronological order:
1. Air Assurance performed $77,000 of work and submitted an invoice after which a work order was issued. District policy is work order, money encumbered, approval, work, invoice.
2. Asst. Super of Operations and Director of Maintenance were charged with “oversight” of Air Assurance, but admitted there was no oversight.
3. Dr. Sisney proposed infrastructure changes to the board.
4. Dr. Sisney was informed of a business relationship between a board member and Air Assurance, creating benefits package for the company.
5. Air Assurance dropped service to district.
6. It came to light that the owners of Air Assurance had made campaign contributions to another board member.
7. Dr. Sisney claims increased pressure from the board, and being told that the owners were “politically important”.
8. Dr. Sisney learns that Air Assurance were still in possession of district master keys and security codes.
9. Dr. Sisney receives copy of invoice for services provided to a local optometrist, but billed to and paid by the district.
10. Investigation shows that Air Assurance had received $613,000 in the current fiscal year, $3,100,000 since July 2002.
11. Board members met privately with Air Assurance owners in 3 separate meetings to avoid a quorum. Board President reports the owner tells him, “I want him gone”, referring to Dr. Sisney.
12. The owners accuse Dr. Sisney of being on a “witch hunt” and demand an apology.
13. Dr. Sisney eliminates Asst. Super of Operations and Director of Maintenance positions citing poor management and budget reductions.
14. Dr. Sisney reports continued pressure from board members to rebuild relationship and issue apology.
15. Dr. Sisney presents talking points and conflict of interest statements to Board.
16. City Council member reports to Board that Dr. Sisney is neglecting his duties and negative campaign ensues.
17. Three executive meetings are held to discuss Dr. Sisney’s evaluation, the final session attended by Air Assurance owners and lasted 6 hours. For the first time in 6 years, Dr. Sisney is not issued a contract extension, although he receives a good evaluation.
18. School Board hires a lawyer without consulting Dr. Sisney, a violation of Board policy.
19. The local optometrist openly makes accusations that Dr. Sisney was “stealing from the schools and blaming it on Air Assurance.”
20. A Board member approached a former employee, a present superintendent of a neighboring district, about the position in Broken Arrow.

Current status:
Several defendants are dropped from the lawsuit, including wife of the company owner.
1. Pretrial conference is set for March 30, 2010.
2. Dr. Sisney takes a position as superintendent in Sperry ISD.
3. His salary goes from $140,000 to $100,000.
4. Broken Arrow ISD has 16,000 students, Sperry 1,300 students.