Like Tina Mueh, president of the Boulder Valley Education Association, we were surprised by the backgrounds of the two finalists for Boulder Valley School District superintendent presented by the school board last week.
As the Camera’s Amy Bounds reported, the finalists currently work in school districts that bear very little resemblance to the one they are seeking to lead. And neither is currently a superintendent of schools working under the direction of a school board where he is.
One finalist, Rob Anderson, comes from a Fulton County, Ga., school district with more than three times as many students and twice as many schools as Boulder Valley. The other, Krish Mohip, comes from the opposite end of the spectrum, a district in Ohio with less than one-fifth Boulder Valley’s student enrollment.
“They’re very dissimilar from who we are as a district,” Mueh said, and it’s hard to argue.
The challenges of a sprawling school district like Fulton County’s, which surrounds Atlanta, and a tiny, failing district like Youngstown, Ohio’s are dramatically different from those in an affluent district encompassing smaller municipalities and rural, mountainous areas like Boulder Valley. That doesn’t mean these candidates couldn’t adapt, but it does mean they would have to. And it does seem strange that a search that began with 79 applicants nationwide has not produced a single finalist who has more familiarity with circumstances like Boulder’s.
More troubling, one of the two, Mohip, is not a superintendent of that small Ohio district but a chief executive officer, an uncommon title for a school administrator, who normally works at the direction of a school board. In Ohio, Mohip was installed under a state law that gives broad powers to administrators in school districts deemed to be failing. His installation as CEO in 2016 brought predictable friction with the school board, which became advisory, and the teachers’ union. Mohip says he’s all about collaboration, and he may be, but working under the direction of a school board requires more political dexterity than having total control.
The other finalist, Anderson, is a deputy superintendent for academics in Fulton County. He might be ready to run a district, but being in charge and working with a school board that includes members with a variety of agendas is quite different from being a member of the bureaucracy.
Context matters. The Boulder Valley School Board has not exactly burnished its reputation for transparency lately, dismissing former superintendent Bruce Messinger in a contentious process under circumstances that remain fuzzy. The board took the position it was a personnel matter it could not discuss publicly, no doubt abiding by legal advice. Nevertheless, it left many members of the public wondering what was going on behind the scenes.
Now, to present as a fait accompli two finalists from districts very different in size and composition from the one they seek to take over is only likely to increase the amount of head-scratching about what members of the Boulder Valley school board are thinking. Board president Tina Marquis said March 20 is the earliest the board will vote. The timetable calls for the new superintendent to be in place July 1.
We think meeting a schedule is less important than getting the choice right. There is no emergency. Cindy Stevenson, the former Jefferson County superintendent currently running the BVSD on an interim basis, seems fully capable of leading the district until a consensus candidate emerges who has the support of important stakeholder groups, including parents and teachers.
Perhaps Anderson or Mohip can be that candidate. We don’t know. We do know that either would face a considerable learning curve, taking on a job different from the one he holds now in a district of very different size and composition. Both have experience dealing with achievement gaps among disadvantaged students, a BVSD priority, which might be why they find themselves as finalists. Important as that is, it cannot be the sole criterion. A successful superintendent requires a broad set of skills.
The candidate interviews last week by selected students, parents, employees and community members should be the beginning, not the end of consideration of these finalists. The board should evaluate not only the input of these selected interviewers, but also that of members of the public who were allowed only to observe the interviews. They were given comment cards, and board members should take the time to review them.
We urge the board not to rush this. Following Messinger’s ouster, it needs to get this hire right. There are worse outcomes possible than re-opening a process that fails to produce a consensus candidate to lead the BVSD going forward.
—Dave Krieger, for the editorial board. Email: kriegerd@dailycamera.com. Twitter: @DaveKrieger