If we could do it all over again, here is how we could make it better.
First of all, tell all the applicants up-front that this is a grown-up job, a very public job. They are to have no expectation that their application will be kept a secret. They must be told to expect to have their credentials, their credit records and every other relevant fact about them scrutinized in a very thorough way, and that their CVs will be put on display for the entire parent community to review.
If you think this is going to scare away your most-qualified applicants, why? The rationalization I often hear from school officials is that the applicant "hasn't told his/her principal/superintendent" that they're applying for other jobs; therefore, we owe it to them to keep the process as private and secretive as possible.
Baloney.
If there is some protection we need to give excellent teachers and administrators so that they don't have to fear repercussions from their bosses when they go out and apply for top jobs elsewhere, we need to legislate that protection for them right now.
But the "right" of an applicant for an important government office not to have their CV publicly dissected during a high-profile job search (actually, there is no such right) would, even if it existed, be outweighed by the right of a parent community to know everything possible about a candidate for principal of their public elementary school. Period.
Next, I'd insist, if I were the parent committee advising the superintendent on the hire, that we would agree to agree on a list of three finalists, from which list the superintendent could select his or her favorite. This would, in essence, give parents a chance to take out of the running candidates who appeared to have been hand-picked for advancement by the superintendent of schools for reasons other than merit.
This is such an obvious and necessary safeguard against corruption that I can't believe we don't have it already.
Nobody is saying Bev Hall chose Yolonda Brown to be the principal of SPARK for any reason other than Ms. Brown's own professional achievements, which are considerable. But Bev Hall is not going to always be our superintendent, and, why would we let any superintendent have unchecked power? It's not like we're trying to prevent the super from hiring their choice. They still get to make that call. We're just saying, hey, you have to pick a winner from this pool of three.
Being asked to sit at the table with Bev Hall and "participate" in the selection process when you are given no real power to do anything at all to stop Dr. Hall from picking whomever she likes--well, that's not participation. That's being co-opted and neutered and placated and patted on the head. She can tell you all day long that she welcomes--really values--your advice, and then go out and pick whoever she damn well pleases.
That, my friends, is being treated like you are the tail, not the dog. Next time, don't settle for a seat at the table. Demand a vote.
