Left In Lowell

Screening Open or Closed: the Debate

6 Responses to “Screening Open or Closed: the Debate”

1. waittilnextyr Says:
   January 24th, 2008 at 2:20 pm

   The screening process must include discussions other than the resumes of specific candidates, such as what criteria will affect decisions, and how much weight will be given to each. I see no reason why this should be done in closed session.

   As far as the initial review of applications, there may be sufficient reason to limit disclosure, as the majority held last night. But that wasn’t the case with the application for City Manager a couple of years ago.

   I would suggest that the process be open, unless an applicant specifically requests confidentiality up through the point of finalist selection.

2. Shawn Says:
   January 24th, 2008 at 2:53 pm

   I don’t buy the shortage of Superintendents issue.

   Maine is redistricting/reorganizing from about 290 school districts to 26 regional districts(26 was the original plan, not sure if that has changed over time), and reducing the number of Superintendents from 152 to 26.

   This means there is a good supply of experienced candidates available. A few applied in Dracut last year.

3. Lobster Man Says:
   January 24th, 2008 at 5:37 pm

   Let’s see. If you shake up the system, reduce the number of districts, who do you think will start looking out-of-state?

   The really good people will become the superintendents of the mega-districts.

   The good people will become assistant superintendents - out of the line of fire, it’s often better to be number two than number one.

   Very small districts hired superintendent/principals. They stay in place as a principal.

   The weakest will leave the state.

   Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the problem is not with the supply. The problem is with the timing. Lowell is late in the process. I guarantee that good candidates will be courted by other systems. If the resumes arrive on February 1, the committee should meet on February 2, and start interviewing potential candidates on February 4.

   If you want a big process, pick one of the insiders to be interim superintendent and start the whole thing again in May.

4. Anonymous Says:
   January 24th, 2008 at 8:45 pm

   Was that an illegal meeting held at the River Road Cafe?

5. Mimi Says:
   January 24th, 2008 at 10:11 pm

   I do not understand the logic of the argument presented by the four who voted against transparency. By the way that is precisely what they did.

   Are they telling us that someone who applies for this position will do it relunctantly if their application is made public but has no problems if he/she makes the short list. What am I missing here?

   I am disappointed to say the least. That was the last thing I expected.

6. Bob F Says:
   January 24th, 2008 at 11:39 pm

   Putting a large part of the process behind closed doors may make it easier for some people to apply- butare thesethe very people we necessarily want to lead the school system? It can also easily discourage candidates interested in coming into a city and system where there is a more open conversation about the schools. But, for me, even more troubling is the ‘all-star’line up that gets to be the deciders. Where are the parents - a couple of representatives and only one explicitly stated ‘minority’ candidate are hardly reflective of the compositon of the schools or the importance of parents to making the schools work. Lets hope that the people who can name a designee do the right thing and select parents with kids in the Lowell schools and parents who reflect the racial/ethnic makeup of the schools too. An interesting test of whether the city is seriously moving in the direction of inclusiveness or preservation and protection of the status quo.

   A community isknow by the schools it keeps.

Leave a Reply