Principal selection process, questionnaires

GIBBS ELEMENTARY PARENT ASSOCIATlOf MEMORANDUM 6/4/94 TO: Dr. Henry Williams, LRSD Superintendent Ms. Estelle Matthis, LRSD Deputy Superintendent FROM: Easter Tucker Willie Jones Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Gibbs Parent Association Members on Gibbs Principal Selection Committee RE: Meeting Preparation for Gibbs Principal Selection Committee By this memorandum, we are again requesting the list of names of applicants currently scheduled for interview by our committee. Please deliver a copy to Gibbs Elementary, attention Easter Tucker and fax a copy to 376-2423. Attached are the following materials: 1) interviews. A list of questions we intend to ask all applicants at Tuesday's 2) A brief list of procedures we propose to help facilitate the interview process. 3) A list of applicants that we request the LRSD administration schedule for interview by the Gibbs Committee on Tuesday, June 7, in case any of these are not already scheduled. Thank you for your assistance with these matters. AttachmentsZach Polett 501-376-2423 3tE7/15/94 01:32 PM 3/5 Partial List of Questions for Gibbs Principal Selection Committee 1) Briefly describe a lesson you have taught or observed recently that you believe was very successful. Explain why this lesson worked well. 2) Do the same for a lesson or activity that you taught or obsserved which did not succeed. Why did this lesson fail, in your opinion? 3) When you informally observe classroom instruction what are the 3 most important things you look for, or hope to see? 4) How would you encourage appreciation of and proficiency in reading and writing among staff and students (and parents)? 5) As principal, what can you offer Gibbs? 6) What are your goals for Gibbs? 7) In what ways do you see yourself supporting the staff in disciplinary matters? 8) In regards to non-academic programs, what ideas or philosophies would you initiate? 9) What do you see the balance to be between the basic instructional needs of reading, science, math, etc. with the international studies theme of the school? 10) What do you think about using the school as a resource for the community as a whole, including after 5 p.m.? 11) What would be your strategies for removing the achievement disparity between at-risk minority and/or lower income children and majority and/or higher income children?Zach Polen SO1-376-2423 107/15/94 01:33 PM 4/5 Partial List of Applicants We Would Like to Interview on Tuesday, June 7 Diane Barksdale Sharon Brooks Deborah Mitchell Cassandra Norman-Mason Stan Strauss, ZaehPolen a 501-376-2423 ^S7/1S/94 01:33 PM D5/5 Proposed Procedures for Interview Process 1) We believe that we will not be prepared to make recommendations at the completion of the Tuesday morning interviews, so would like it understood from the beginning that there will be a follow-up committee meeting at a later date for the committee to evaluate the applicants and make its recommendations. We understand from discussion with Estelle Matthis on Friday, May 27 that the application process was being kept open. If after the Tuesday morning interviews we do not believe we have seen the next principal of Gibbs, then we hope and expect that the District will continue to seek additional applicants and schedule further interviews. 3) We look forward to working closely and cooperatively with the administration and Gibbs staff members of the committee to come up with the best possible principal for Gibbs Elementary.LRSD PRINCIPAL SURVEY RESPONSES CARVER - 4 Responses 1. How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? The superintendents office secretary called - she had been at the school a long time. Called May 27 (about a weeks notice). Received a written reminder of appointment and that team would be asking candidates questions Does not know why she was selected. Received a note in her box from Ms. Mathis requesting that serve on the committee. No written or oral role descriptions provided prior to the day of the interview. Was told to inform EM if she couldnt serve
assumed that more than two other staff members would also be serving on the team. Asked the departing principal to allow her to be on the committee. No information provided prior to the interviews. As co-PTA president, he and the other president decided who would represent the parents. Upon discovering that the principal was leaving, the two presidents initiated telephone communication about the replacement process. The only information from the district was that the interview team was to be racially balanced. Committee members were selected around May 10
first interviews were June 6, and re-interviews occurred well into July. During the first round of interviews, the committee did not receive any oral or written role description or what was to occur. They did receive a copy of "Interview Protocols" at the second round of interviews. 2. What was your understanding of the principal selection process? The committee would ask questions
each applicant would be assigned a score on a 0-4 scale. Sheets were tallied and given to M. Gremillion or her appointee. The superintendent would look over the files with the scoring sheets included and personally interview the top 2 or 3 applicants. These instructions were given orally on the day of the interviews. Team members had about 30 minutes to look over the questions and the scoring procedures. Team members divided the questions with each member having 1 or 2 questions. They were allowed to take notes, but no scoring in front of the candidate. After the interview, there was time to think about a score, but there was no discussion among team members. They looked over their notes, went to the next candidate and at the end of the process, turned over the file to MG. Was told that staff would have input, but her role was not explained. No written instructions received. Received oral instructions upon arriving at the school. They were told they would be rating the candidates, asking previously prepared questions, and told that Dr. Williams would make the ultimate decision. She felt he would be there. Team members would be provided with candidates, interview and rate them on a scale of 4-1 and tally the results. Present the superintendent with the top candidates and he would make the decision. Received written questions and oral instructions on the day of the interviews. Did not have any. Called downtown for information but didnt get any. They wanted to know names of applicants and what questions would be asked,but werent told. For the first round of interviews the committee members didnt learn anything until they walked through the door. At that time, they were given oral instructions along with a list of candidates and a list of 10 questions they were required to ask. They also received a score sheet, some resumes, or other background information on each candidate. The committee did not have sufficient time to look over the information, only 20 minutes. The responded did inquire if the committees input would be taken into serious consideration or if they were "down here playing games." M. Gremillion gave them instructions and assured them they were being taken seriously, but Dr. Williams had the final say. Copies of the Interview Protocol was handed out at the second round of interview. 3. What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? Some parents met prior to the interviews
the whole committee never could do so. At the time of the interviews some members had prepared questions. The districts prepared questions were broad and general. Team members could ask some of their own questions in order to go a little deeper or to probe. The team had about 30 minutes before the meeting to get acclimated. The job posting was available for review. The committee didnt prepare questions
they didnt know who was on the committee. The staff wasnt truly represented. Information was received late, no opportunity to contact teachers to find out what they wanted in a principal. The counselor was the only staff representative. Teachers had no time to voice concerns or expectations. The team reviewed applicant files just before the interviews. Did not see job description. Met prior to the process and prepared questions and determine the expectations of the type of principal needed. This meeting was with parents. Team members looked at the questions and stated that they wanted to ask their own questions. Doesnt remember if any of the teams questions were asked. Did not look at job description. They met for about one and a half hours and reviewed the job posting
they prepared a list of 30 interview questions, and tried to get the names and information on each candidate, but couldnt. They were never told what the selection criteria would be. 4. Briefly describe the interview process followed by your committee. The applicant came in
team members introduced themselves and asked the applicant questions. Team members took notes and probed with some of their own questions, then terminated the interview. Each member privately assigned points to each candidate and recorded the points on a scoring sheet. The next candidate would enter and the process would start again. Each candidate had a folder that had been prepared in advance.Team members looked at the files
read over 10 questions and were asked to decide which ones they would ask. The interview process and the rating scale was explained. Members took notes and rated the candidates between interviews. After the interviews, team was told the results would go back to Ms. Mathis and then to the superintendent. He would review the top three and select from the. A parent asked - 'What if the committee decided to reject all applicants and reopen the interviews." The district representative said they could call and the district would facilitate. Team members were told the rules
they divided and assigned the 10 prepared questions. Members took notes
tallied scores and interviewed the next applicant. The district representative tallied all of the results and submitted them to the superintendent. During the first round of interviews, they interviewed five candidate for about 30 minutes or less each. The brief time between interviews did not allow for meaningful discussion. Margaret encouraged them to rate each candidate after each interview. They did not ask additional questions because they were told that all candidates had to be asked the same questions. The rating sheets were handed in with no discussion, and there was no consensus on the best candidate. The respondent felt that the only acceptable candidate (the schools white female assistant principal) would lose out because of E. Mathiss bias against her. Gremillion told them to call the next day for the interview tallies
they did, and were told the assistant principal was rated way above the others. After two weeks and no decision, the co-PTA presidents met with Estelle and Dr. Williams and were told that the assistant principal did not have enough building experience. The co-presidents pointed out that she met the requirements outlined in the job posting and should get the job. Estelle stated she wanted the best possible person, and Hank wanted a strong principal. The assistant principal had to reapply for the second round of interviews in J uly. 5. In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration adequate? If not, why? Was surprised there were only five. No mention made of interviewing more. All of the applicants were at the assistant principal level, except one who had experience as a principal in a rural district. Would have liked to have seen more. Respondent relayed this concern to the interview chairperson. Some members felt the job was advertised. Does not feel that the team reached consensus on the candidate. Yes. The majority of applicants were knowledgeable and provided in-depth answers to the questions. None were adequate. None of the applicants met the respondents standard. The PTA president felt they were adequate, however the respondent feels the candidates were lacking in experience for a school like Carver. The first time only one candidate was acceptable
the second time, yes
they were given seven candidates (one no show).6. What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal? Dr. Williams. M. Gremillion explained how the processed worked. The team would make recommendations, but the superintendent had the final say. Told up front the superintendent would make the final selection. Dr. Williams would be presented with a list and he would make the decision. Dr. Williams would make the final selection based on their input in the form of their top candidates, ranked in order. 7. What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? Difficult to say
the process is not over.... the process is reopened and the team will be interviewing more applicants today. Wondered at first, but apparently the committee had influence since some felt (the respondent didnt) that the pool of applicants wasnt adequate. Felt her input was given weight. During the first round, input was ignored. The second time they were unanimous with the final selection and the administration agreed. (Note: the candidate declined the position and the assistant principal wound up serving as Acting Principal) 8. How satisfied were you with the process? What parts of the process worked well? What needs improvement? Wished the process was speedier, not dragged out. The school still doesnt have a principal but they will begin again the following Monday. The preparation of the questions by the administrators, the flexibility to probe, and the organization of each applicants file worked well. The timeliness of the process needs work. The team, parent, school personnel process is unsettling. Not very satisfied with the process
it was rushed and respondent did not understand expectations until the morning of the interviews. Need to have advance notice to the staff and allow time for teachers to provide input to their representatives on the committee. If there are three parents on the committee, there should be three teachers. Cant determine what worked well
the district planned well in terms of process
they just didnt provide participants with prior knowledge. Complied with the process, but not satisfied with it. Felt that since it was their school, they should have been able to ask their questions. The actual interviews worked well, but overall all none of the process worked well. The questions need improvement
theyre vague and not individualized for the situation. Understood that Williams would choose.Not satisfied with anything the first round. Things improved the second time, including the quality of the candidates. None of the process worked well the first time, leaving the committee members frustrated and angry. Improvement would be if the district has a clear definition of the interview process and what happens afterward
give the committee time lines for the process and decision
have clear understanding of what questions will be posed and be open with information about the candidates so they can research and prepare for the interviews in advance. The district should have specific job qualifications, and candidates on the interview list should meet the qualifications. All members should have equal weight and the full (and same) interview team should participate in all interviews, including reinterviews. Understood that Dr. Williams would reveal his decision, but they had to work to get it and then they had to bug Estelle for information on the second round of interviews. 9. Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? No. No. I feel Ive shared everything. Nothing else. Has never participated in principal selection, but has helped interview and select an assistant principal. Felt the first set of interviews were a wasted day, because he had to take off from work not knowing how long the process would take. Didnt get a letter of appreciation, but a verbal thanks from Estelle.ODM Parent Involvement Survey Compilation School: Cloverdale 1. How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? - Asked as a second choice by Estelle Matthis office - Asked by Dennis Glasgow at a curriculum revision meeting - Asked as VIPS chair - president of the PT A recommended When were you selected? - Two days prior to the interviews Did you receive a written or oral description of your role? - No - Letter of confirmation from Estelle Matthis - Received letter from LRSD - role explained at the interview site What was your understanding of the principal selection process? - Committee would be able to ask questions based on what we wanted to know. - Didnt have a good understanding when receiving the confirmation letter What written or oral intructions did you receive? When did you receive these instructions? - Estelle Matthis explained orally at the time of the interviews. - Oral instructions on the day of interviews - Oral instructions on the day of the interviews What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? - Were given questions - no period of planning - did get to add questions - No advance preparation or knowledge of other committee members - Looked at question the morning of the interviews. Prepared interview questions - We used the prepared questions, but were allowed to add more. - Added more at the time - Got to add questionsReview applicant files - No - No - One applicant brought in a resume Reviewed job description and the criteria for making the selection - No - No 4. Briefly describe the interview process followed by your conunittee. - A) Interviewed candidates. B) Had ranking scale explained C) Ranked the candidates D) Ended up with two top candidates. E) Estelle said that the choices would be passed on to the superintendent to make a final decision. If he wasnt happy with the choices the committee could be called back. - A) Interviewed B) Tallied individually 3) Discussed applicants 4) Voted - had a dead heat between two candidates 5) Submitted the top two, but Estelle told the committee that they could interview other candidates if they desired. - A) Interviews, questions asked in turn as agreed. B) Rating individually after each applicant. C) After the interviews, the committee discussed the candidates and totaled points. 5. In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration adequate? If not, why not? - Yes it was adequate - The one chosen made it adequate. The other four were not. As a restructured school, we need some specific things which most of the candidates lacked. - Yes, the number and qualifications were adequate 6. What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal? - Estelle would take recommendations to the board to make the final decision. - Dr. Williams - Committee would vote and the decision would ultimately be made by the superintendent7. What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? - Believe it had a great impact on the decision - Dont think it made that much difference. The one that got the position was so much more qualified, that anyone would have picked her. - I think we got lucky and picked the one he wanted 8. How satisfied were you with the process? - Satisfied - Couldnt think of a better way to do it - Satisfied somewhat What parts worked well? - I liked having teachers and parents there - Liked the prepared questions and the ones the committee generated What needs improvement? - If the process worked like it should have, there should have been better parent representation. Committee should have more weight. - Nothing needs improvement - If parents had more input it would alleviate some problems at school and increase involvement. Parents should be invited to participate 9. Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? - Appreciated it and would serve if asked again. Mrs. Estelle sent a note of appreciation and coonfirmation that I would serve - We did not want the other principal to leave. About 70-74 teachers signed a petition to keep her - NoODM Parent Involvement Survey Compilation School: JA. Fair 1. How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? - Participates in PT A - Received a call from Mrs. Matthis office through the school secretary to serve. - No idea how selected. Received a call from Estelle Matthis office. - No idea - a parent called and asked if I would serve - needed racial balance. When were you selected? - Sometime in May - About a week before semester exams - About 5-7 days before the interviews. Did you receive a written or oral description of your role? - Received a confirmation notice - Received a letter of confirmation - Received no written role description, only a letter thanking her for serving and indicating the interview date, time, and place. Letter did not indicate an amount of time the task would require. - No 2. What was your understanding of the principal selection process? - Team would ask certain questions, rate according to a given scale, add up ratings, and give the name of the highest ranking candidates. - Just from the confirmation letter, that members would be responsible for nominating a principal for Fair. - Interviewing candidates for principal of J.A Fair and then collaborate and make recommendations. - Had no idea of the process. What written or oral instructions did you receive? When received? - None - Received no written instructions, oral instructions were given at the time of the interviews. - Set of questions and a rating sheet given out the day of the interviews. 3. What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview?- Nothing, had no information upon which to act. - As a committee, nothing before the day of the interview. On the day of the interviews, was given a packet of questions, rating sheets, and list of applicants. - Nothing, was late arriving, the committee was already interviewing the first candidate. - Nothing prior to the day of interviews - never met. Prepared interview questions? - LRSD provided pre-selected questions. Had some flexibility to ask other questions following the "canned" questions, but had to ask all applicant the same ones. - Divided up questions among the committee. After asking questions on the sheet, were allowed to ask individual questions. Could be spontaneous. - The committee did not meet to formulate questions, but Ruthie developed some she and other staff members thought were important. - The interview team did get to incorporate questions of their own. The teachers were able to contribute questions, but the parents werent prepared to. Reviewed applicant files? - Were given no resumes or other written information about the candidates from Estelle. However, one or two candidates brought vitae and another brought a couple of letters of recommendation. - Did not view applicant files. Some applicants brought in resumes or recommendations. - One applicant had a resume. Estelle said the applications were available for review if they wanted to do so. Reviewed job description and the criteria for making the decision? - No job description - Saw no job description or criteria, nor was there any discussion of criteria - No job description 4. Briefly describe the interview process followed by your conunittee. - Met downtown. Estelle spent about ten minutes describing the process. One of the teachers spoke at that time about the staffs support for Vernon Smith, the Asst. Principal. Estelle shook her head that the comments were inappropriate. The committee interviewed five candidates, spending approximately 20 min. with each. Estelle did not ask questions, but facilitated the process and filled out rating sheets. After the interviews, Estelle asked each team member their first choice. Next, they went around for a second choice. There was a brief discussion but the group did not reach concensus on rankings or the best person for the job. The team was asked whether they were satisfied with the quality of the applicants. Everyone agreed they were. - On each question, rated applicants from 1 to 5 with 5 being the highest. Tallied scores while waiting for next applicant. After last applicant, discudded the applicants - did anyone feel the need to start over? All felt the applicants were qualified. Same people asked the same questions of each candidate during the process - Ms Matthis acted as chair. Some of the "canned" questions were wordy - could have been more specific. - Estelle introduced applicants 2) Started asking previously assigned questions in order. 3) Applicants asked questions or madestatements to the team. 4) Applicant left room 5) Team rated individually, tallied scores and ranked the applicants. 5. In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration adequate? If not, why? -Yes - Had pretty good candidates and a sufficient number. - Had one person on the list who did not interview (someone within the school district). Heard that she would continue in current position, since that time found out that she was on medical leave. Had six applicants (not including the no-show). - Yes - Yes 6. What was your understanding of who would make the final selection? - Estelle said Dr. Williams would make the final selection. She said she would give him the committees recommendations. Ruthie understood that Estelle would submit the committees first and second choices in rank order. - Understood that the superintendent would make the final selection from the top three names. - Superintendent would make the final selection. Hopefully he would choose the #1 recommendation. - The superintendent 7. What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? - Had a lot - As a committee - moot question. The person selected was the #1 choice of the committee. - She believes their input didnt carry much weight
that the administration had already decided beforehand tha they could name Broadnax, who interviewed well, but was "too slick" and did not seem to be a "good fit" for J.A. Fair. - The applicant the interviwee chose was already assigned to Mabelvale. She wondered why they were applying at Fair when already assigned. Committee was "weighted" by administrators. Interviewee did not know that Estelle would vote - thought she was only running the show and would not vote.8. How satisfied were you with the process? - Not at all satisfied with the process - Process was very good as far as actual objective. - On a scale of 1-10, a 4 1/2 - Other than having administrators there to weight the committee, it was fine. What parts of the process worked well? - Each candidate brought a different perspective to the job. Liked the opportunity for input into the selection. - Adequate number of committee members and good mixture - especially having administrators and parents. - "Not much". - Rating score sheet. What needs improvement? - Would liked to have added more questions specific to the needs at Fair. Need prior knowledge of who the applicants are, and other pertinent background information. Allow team members to express opinions on what qualities are important in the principal for the particular school and who the staff believes would make a good principal. Dr. Williams had discouraged writing letters of contacting school board members about preferences. The asst. prin. at Fair felt that Estelle didnt like him and that writing letters of support would ultimately make things worse for him. Need a seating arrangement which assures that the candidate cant see the rating sheets being coompleted by individuals. The interviews need to be longer. The interviews were only 20 min. long with only 5 min. between them. - More information on applicants beforehand. Would like to have had time to get to know other team members better. - Committee could have used more flexibility. Disliked "canned" questions. - Teachers felt intimidated by Estelle. The administrators tended to "weight" the committee. What was your understanding about the next step in the hiring process? - That Estelle would give the rankings to the superintendent with the first and second choices of the committee in rank order. About a month to six weeks later Ruthie received a letter from Hank Williams announcing Broadnax as principal and thanking her for her participation. - Estelle was very clear about who was the 1st, etc. choice and that the superintendent would make the final choice. If the superintendent feels we need more applicants, then certainly more applicants could be taken (if the superintendent was not satisfied with the teams choice).9. Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? - Would like another opportunity to participate in the process. - Pleased to see the process including parents and teachers. Could use some refinement, especially allowing committee members prior access to resumes and job descriptions. Would have liked to ttdk to someone who had experience with dealing with the admnistrators in a school. Thought process was good. - In the LRSD, in her opinion, there are a very few people who weild a disproportionate amount of power. If you cross people, you will not get anywhere. She said she was really talking about Estelle Matthis. She mentioned several people who have gotten "crosswise" of Estelle and "thats that". "Estelle is keeping a of good people out of jobs for which they are well qualified. Fairs assistant principal is one of them. Ruthie believes that Estelle is costing the district many good people.School: Forest Heights Jr. High 1. How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? - Dont know what the selection process was. Contacted by Estelle Matthis by phone - Wondered how he was chosen. Told by Estelle that she was looking for respected, experienced teachers to serve. When were you selected? - Near the end of school Did you receive a written or oral description of your role? - Received no advance information 2. What was your understanding of the principal selection process? - a) Assign questions b) Interview applicants c) Rate applicants d) Rank applicants - Prior to the day of the interviews, had no information. Knew that applicants would be interviewed and that recommendation would probably go to Dr. Williams. What written or oral instructions did you receive? - Only received a confirmation letter - no instructions - Questions, rating sheets When did you receive these instructions? - 15 min. before the interviews were to start 3.What did your conunittee do in advance to prepare for the interview? - a) Received instructions b) Reviewed and assigned questions c) Discussed qualifications - Received rating sheets and a set of 10 questions Prepared interview questions - Received prepared questions from the district person Previewed applicant files - One applicant brought a resume- Committee didnt review applicant files Reviewed job description and the criteria for making the selection - Talked about qualifications, but did not review the job description. 4. Briefly describe the interview process followed by your committee. - a) Committee reviewed a list of prepared questions b) Each applicant asked the same questions by the same people, c) After all interviews, each member rated the answers and tallied the scores, d) The committee members revealed their highest ranking applicants, e) Only the top 2 were discussed, f) Committee reached concensus on the top two. f) Two recommendations would be sent to Dr. Williams for final approval. - a) Questions asked of all candidates in round-robin fashion. Candidates could elaborate on an answer b) At the end, candidates could pose question of the committee c) Rated applicants S. In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration adequate? If not, why? -Yes. Interviewed six, all were qualified - Yes. The applicants represented a broad spectrum. 6. What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal? - Before interviews, Estelle informed the group that the supt. would have the final say - could accept choices or send it back to the committee with another pool of applicants. - Dr. Williams 7. What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? - Personal input was equal to that of others, no one person had more influence on the committee. - Initially, felt that influence was significant as a teacher at the school. However, in the final analysis felt the input was not important after the recommendation was made. 8 How satisfied were you with the process? - At the start, okay - at the conclusion, not well. Listened to six applicants. One applicant was absent, but someone (district spec. ed. person) was there to speak on his behalf. The candidates resume was also passed out to the comittee. The committee was told that this person had interviewed with the superintendent and had been a candidate for the principalship of Central. This applicant was the #1 choice of the other members (not the teachers) of the committee. The Dep. Supt. continually told the committee "The superintendent is impressed with this person." - Well satisfied What parts worked well? - Equal say by all in the process - All parts until the absent candidate was considered What needs improvement? - Committee members should be involved in the preparation of questions - Dont consider absent applicants 9. Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? - Unhappy that one applicant was not in attendance - Input significant at first, but "they knew who they wanted all along."LRSD PRINCIPAL SURVEY RESPONSES FRANKLIN - 2 Responses 1. How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? Was a member of the regular staffing committee. There was no written or oral description of her role. Joshua received a letter from LRSD requesting a representative on the principals selection committee
Mr. Walker sends whoever is available. The request came in well within time to allow him to participate. There were no written or oral instructions. 2. What was your understanding of the principal selection process? Committee members were to ask the questions and choose the best one. Sterling Ingram explained the interview committee Committee members would score candidates based on a formula provided by the LRSD (Good, Excellent, Adequate, etc.). The committee would use a numerical scoring system. Sterling lead the discussions. The committee could decide which questions each member would ask. They were told that the three highest rated people would be recommended to the superintendent. The superintendent would interview the three top choices and make his recommendations to the school board. The questions were written beforehand by the LRSD. 3. What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? Nothing, no, no, no. Nothing prior to day of interview. On the day of the interview, committee members got acquainted with each other. Looked to see what questions they wanted to ask. Members were extended the curtesy of adding wording to a prepared questionnaire
they could also do a little prodding. There were no files, resumes, etc. All information was gathered during the interview. There was no real preparation. 4. Briefly describe the interview process followed by your committee. When the committee got together we saw the questions provided. Members went through the questions in order
awarded points
got point totals and took the top three. Nothing prior to day of interview. On the day of the interview, committee members got acquainted with each other. Looked to see what questions they wanted to ask. Members were extended the curtesy of adding wording to a prepared questionnaire
they could also do a little prodding. There were no files, resumes, etc. All information was gathered during the interview. There was no real preparation. 5. In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration adequate? If not, why? Yeah. Yes, however he questioned why the applicant from Dunbar who had never been a principal or an assistant principal was referred. The LRSD defended her application because she had previously been a supervisor. 6. What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal? Dr. Williams The superintendent. 7. What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? Not a bunch. None. There were certain candidates who got higher scores who werent even considered. For example J. J. Lacey scored relatively high at Franklin,but was not given any weight with regards to referrals to principal jobs. Dont believe he was even interviewed. The district was just going through the motions. 8. How satisfied were you with the process? What parts of the process worked well? What needs improvement? 50/50 satisfied. The process worked well, cant pinpoint why. They need to improve the questions
they were too "textbook". Disliked that committee could not add to the questions or change them. The process is fine if they actually followed it. However, the LRSD, starts throwing curves. Committee members are not given any instructions on what they are really looking for, what the goal is. Applicants are scored on charisma, mannerisms and voice. Questions should be discussed beforehand in order to determine what information the questions are supposed to elicit. The deputy superintendent of elementary schools (Larry R.) sat in on the interviews
no problem with that, but district administrators should not score the applicants. They are too biased. Doesnt remember if the LRSD said the superintendent would interview all three candidates. The committee knew who the top three candidates were. Sterling made every effort to be above board.9. Is there any thing else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? I did not realize how important the scoring was. The people from downtown scored people they didnt like rock bottom.. For example the spread between district personnel scores ranged from 15 to 40 (with 40 being a perfect score). The range between the other committee members was between 5-7 points. While recognizing that peers can be helpful, bias may interfere with the scoring process. For example a teacher may know an applicant from another school and think '7 know he is a hard principal, I dont want him at my school." That would be teacher bias. Some may give "friends" inflated scores. Sterling also asked questions of the applicants and scored them. This committee member specifically remembers that one applicant (Julie Davenport) did not score in the top, however, she wound up as the principal at Franklin. However, when the principal list was published, Davenport was listed as a transfer. If that was the case, she should not have been interviewed. Feels the interview process the districts principals use for hiring new staff members is fairer. In the case of the principals teachers get communications prior to the interviews which is unfair.Summary of Gibbs Responses Information gathered from a total of five interviews with committee members: two teachers, two parents, one observer. 1) How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? After Donna Davis decided to retire, she sent a letter to all Gibbs parents, informing them of her decision. The PTA Board knew that parents at other elementary schools had been involved in the principal selection process. In anticipation of the process, the PTA held a school-wide meeting to discuss the hiring process with all the parents and to talk about parent appointees for the interview committee. The Gibbs parents selected five representatives to serve on the interview committee. Zack Pollett, on of the five named to represent the parents, contacted Larry Robertson to express the parents desire to be included in the hiring process. Larry Robertson referred Pollett to Estelle Matthis. The district did not allow all five parents to serve on the interview committee. The LRSD indicated that only three parents would be used on the interview team. The Gibbs parents sent the three allowed and the other two parents attended the interviews as observers. The observers did not vote. Neither of the teachers interviewed were sure how they were selected for the committee. One teacher member actively lobbied for appointment, but she spoke to some many individuals about it that she had no idea "what worked". 2) What was your understanding of the principal selection process? None of the parent or teacher members of the committee were not given any advance information. Some parents contacted LRSD administrators (Matthis, Gremillion, and Robertson), but they received nothing. On the day of the interviews, the committee received a brief orientation from Margaret Gremillion and Larry Robertson. Some parents who served on the Gibbs interview team had extensive experience with personnel matters. As the result of their own experience in hiring, these team members expected to be full participants in the hiring process. They wanted to have a list, well in advance of the interviews, of all applicants who requested Gibbs
to review the applications and resumes filed by each candidate
to be able to recruit candidates for interviews
and to have an active role in determining the candidates to be interviewed by the full committee. None of the parents expectations were met. District officials refused to release the names of candidates or any information about them. A Gibbs parent who is an attorney (but not one of the committee members) filed an FOI request in order to obtain the names of the job seekers. The district waited the maximum three days before responding, and then tried to mail the information rather than have it ready for pick-up, as requested. It took the threat of prosecution for Hurley to turn the names over to the parent. The committee then obtained the list of 27-28 names from the author of the FOI request.Despite the problems surrounding information requests regarding the applicants, all the parents had a good understanding of their role in the actual hiring process. They all said that they knew that their committee was to pick three top candidates, based on their numerical ranking. The superintendent would then chose one of the top three as the next principal. 3) What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? The parent and teacher representatives met before the interviews to prepare questions, review the applicants names gained through FOI, and make plans to contact individuals who would have knowledge of the various applicants professional work . The parents did not include the administrative members of the committee because they did not know, in advance, who those representatives would be. During the advance meeting, the Gibbs group prepared a list of ten questions they wanted asked at the interviews, and included the list of questions in a memo mailed to Estelle Matthis and Hank Williams on 6/4/94. Also in the 6/4/94 memo, the committee again asked for names of the applicants, and they indicated five candidates they would like to interview. The LRSD selected five candidates to be interviewed for Gibbs
only one of the five LRSD selected also appeared among the names the Gibbs patrons requested. The Gibbs group also recommended procedures for the interview process. As part of the list of proposed procedures, the committee made it clear that they would not be prepared to make recommendation for the principal immediately after the interviews. They asked for another meeting to evaluate the candidates and make recommendations. The procedures section of the memo also stated that the parents had talked with Estelle Matthis and she assured them that the position would remain open for some time. After Estelles assurances, the parents clearly stated (in their memo) that they expected the district to keep seeking new candidates. 4) Briefly describe the interview process followed by your committee. As committee members arrived for the interviews, each received a packet of materials that contained the names of all committee members, the interview questions, the rating sheets, and the names of the candidates to be interviewed. Despite the fact that the Gibbs committee members sent a copy of their ten questions to Estelle and Hank, the questions contained in the packet had been developed by LRSD administrators without parent input. Margaret Gremillion, who seemed to coordinate the Gibbs interview, seemed unfamiliar with the earlier correspondence and questions sent by the Gibbs patrons. After some discussion, the committee incorporated four of their original questions into the LRSD questions. While the Gibbs questions were added to the preset items, the scoring sheets did not include any items except those written by the administration. After the committee interviewed all candidates, They began to discuss the various applicants and the consensus was that none of those interviewed had the right qualifications for Gibbs. All the teacher and parent representatives were in agreement that they would like to interview more applicants. Margaret Gremillion asked the committee members to go ahead and fill out the districts rating forms to document that they had completed the interviews. Margaret stated that she understood that the committee was making no recommendation and she agreed to schedule more interviews. It was agreed that Zack Pollett would contact Margaret at home to find out about the additional interviews. One committee member (Easter Tucker) agreed to complete the rating form only after she was assured the scores would not be construed as a recommendation. When Zack Pollett contacted Margaret Gremillion about the additional interviews, she told him that the superintendent had decided that no more interviews would be conducted. 5) In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for you consideration adequate? No! Most of the candidates had limited experience. Only Ed Jackson was an experienced principal. Committee members were also concerned because they were told that all five persons they interviewed had expressed an interest in Gibbs. Committee members later learned that at least two of the five interviewed had not asked for Gibbs, and several individuals who applied for Gibbs were not given interviews. 6) What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal? We understood that the committee would submit the top three ranked candidates and the superintendent would nominate one of those individuals for the position. The LRSD Board of Directors would then approve or disapprove the decision. 7) What weight do you believe your input was given? None of the Gibbs parents, teachers, or observers believed that they had any meaningful involvement in the principal selection process. The following quotations represent the depth of their frustration. "0." "None. It was a fake. They wasted our time." "We understand it was all (the principal decision) preordained. Parent involvement was superficial." 8) How satisfied were you with the process? What parts of the process worked well? What needs improvement? Generally the Gibbs group was not satisfied with any of the districts actions. Some parents had praise for the method the Gibbs PTA used to select parent representatives. The schoolwide meeting that the PT A held to select parent representatives was, by far, the most inclusive method of selection used at any school. Some suggestions offered were: Have the full committee meet prior to the interviews for comprehensive training
Provide committee members with the names of candidates in advance so that they may research the professional accomplishments of each
Allow the committee to submit names of individuals they would like to interview
Begin the process earlier in the year to avoid a time crunch and loss of good candidates to other jobs
Allow more time for interviews
thirty minutes is not enough. Never again schedule interviews on the final day of the school year. The teachers members missed most of their last day with their classes, and applicants who are currently working in schools need to be in their schools on the final day as well. 9) .. Anything else? After the Gibbs committee learned that they would not be given any more candidates to interview, they scheduled an appointment with Dr. Williams to discuss the process. About fifteen parents from Gibbs attended the meeting, during which the superintendent indicated that although he had not yet interviewed any applicants he had someone in mind for the job. During the meeting the superintendent said that he had the rankings that the committee developed. The parents took issue with that and explained that they had made no recommendations, and they wanted to interview more people. Dr. Williams clearly stated that they would interview no more candidates. Later in the moth. Dr. Williams selected Ed Jackson as the next principal of Gibbs. Many Gibbs parents attended the Board meeting that month and several spoke in protest, explaining their perception of the process. After the Board voted to support of Dr. Williams, the Gibbs parents continued to meet and work to reopen the process. The parents secured over 50 signatures on a petition calling for a special meeting of the Board of Directors. The meeting was held on July 7,1994. At the special meeting, the superintendent announced that the district planned to reopen the interviews for the Gibbs principal. As a result, Ed Jackson remains unassigned. At the beginning of this same meeting, the superintendent made a statement regarding the importance of parent involvement. He offered this statement to contradict the impression left by the media when they "misquoted" his earlier statement about numerous studies showing that schools worked very well without parent involvement. The original statement caused much consternation at the meeting with Gibbs parents, and caused a mini-furor when it was later reported in the local newspaper. The second round of interviews is set to begin on July 25, 1994. Some Gibbs parents have expressed concern because so many potential candidates have been placed in other positions. They fear that no one will be left to hire. On July 13 or 14, 1994 the district placed Ed Jackson at Gibbs to "open the school year". Many parents were upset because he immediately began to walk, talk, and act like the Gibbs principal. Some parents and teachers reported that he discussed major changes in the schools curricular focus, saga continues .. . The 7/29/94 Late breaking update: Marjorie Bassa of PRE selected as Gibbs principal.LRSD PRINCIPAL SURVEY RESPONSES MITCHELL - 2 Responses 1. How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? Not real sure
I try to be involved with my kids school activities. Was selected approximately two weeks before the actual interviews. There were no oral or written descriptions. Received a confirmation letter. Notified by letter from the LRSD
thinks it came from Hank or Sterling - not sure. Joshua sends whoever is available at the time. The letter requesting Joshuas presence can well in time to allow Joshua to participate in the interviews, descriptions. There were no written or oral 2. What was your understanding of the principal selection process? None,. Was told she would be a part of the interviewing committee to select a principal. Received oral instructions on the day of the interviews. The committee would score candidates based on a formula provided by the LRSD. Numbered ratings would represent good, excellent, adequate, etc. Sterling lead the discussion. He let the committee decide on which questions they would ask. Committee was told that the three highest ranked candidates would be recommended to the superintendent. The superintendent would interview the top three and make his recommendation to the school board. The questions were prepared by the LRSD. 3. What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? Nothing while she was there. The school secretary (who served as a parent representative) got there just as the interviews were starting. The committee members selected the questions they would ask. She asked one of ten questions. Each applicant was asked the same question each time. Committee was told they could ask follow-up or clarification questions. Nothing prior to day of the interview. Committee members got acquainted with each other
looked to see what questions they wanted to ask. They were extended the courtesy of adding wording to a prepared question
could do a little prodding. There were no file, resumes, et. All info gathered during the interviews
no real preparation. 4. Briefly describe the interview process followed by your committee. As the process went on, the respondent could not determine what the questions were designed to discover. The questions contained too much educational jargon and the applicants used language unfamiliar to the lay-person. It also seemed that some of the applicants did not understand the questions. After the first few applicants completed their interviews the survey participant said she felt more familiar and could look the applicants in the eye. Committee members tallied responses by points. Members could make comments concerning selection of an applicant. Nothing prior to day of the interview. Committee members got acquainted with each other
looked to see what questions they wanted to ask. They were extended the courtesy of adding wording to a prepared question
could do a little prodding. There were no file, resumes, et. All info gathered during the interviews
no real preparation. 5. In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration adequate? If not, why? Yes, some seemed too qualified. Yes. Had no problem, except wondered why on one school interview a candidate from Dunbar was allowed to apply since she had never been a principal or an assistant principal. The LRSD defended her application because she had previously been a supervisor. 6. What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal? The superintendent would make the final decision. The committee submitted their top three choices. The recommendations would be considered but not necessarily chosen. The superintendent would interview the committees top three candidates and make his recommendation to the school board. 7. What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? Some - since the superintendent chose one of the committees top three. Satisfied with the choice. None. There were certain candidates who got higher scores who werent even considered. For example J. J. Lacey scored relatively high at Franklin and Mitchell, but was not given any weight with regards to referrals to principal jobs. Dont believe he was even interviewed (by the superintendent). The district was just going through the motions. 8. How satisfied were you with the process? What parts of the process worked well? What needs improvement? Satisfied with the process because she did not have to develop the questions. Did not feel qualified to design questions for a principal. Would have liked more time prior to the interviews to review the questions - understand the terminology - understand what the questions were designed to elicit from the applicants. The process is fine if they actually followed it. However, the LRSD starts throwing curves. Committee members are not given any instructions on what they are really looking for, what the goal is. Applicants are scored on charisma, mannerisms and voice. Questions should be discussed beforehand in order to determine what information the questions are supposed to elicit. The deputy superintendent of elementary schools (Larry R.) sat in on the interviews: no problem with that, but district administrators should not score the applicants. They are too biased. Doesnt remember if the LRSD said the superintendent would interview all three candidates. The committee knew who the top three candidates were. Sterling made every effort to be above board. 9. Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? Was interesting - glad to have done it. While recognizing that peers can be helpful, bias may interfere with the scoring process. For example a teacher may know an applicant from another school and think "I know he is a hard principal, I dont want him at my school." That would be teacher bias. Some may give "friends" inflated scores. Sterling also asked questions of the applicants and scored them. This committee member specifically remembers that one applicant (Julie Davenport) did not score in the top, however, she wound up as the principal at Franklin. However, when the principal list was published, Davenport was listed as a transfer. If that was the case, she should not have been interviewed. Feels the interview process the districts principals use for hiring new staff members is fairer. In the case of the principals teachers get communications prior to the interviews which is unfair.Summary of Rightsell Responses Information from interviews with five committee members: three teachers, one parent, and one representative of Joshua. 1) How were you selected to be a member of the interview conunittee? For the most part, the Rightsell committee consisted of the same individuals who serve on the schools regular staffing committee. One teacher, a white female, said that she was not a member of the staffing committee and she assumed her appointment to the interview to resulted from a need for racial diversity on the committee. None of the committee members received written or oral information on their role prior to the interviews. Committee members received written notice of their appointment about a week prior to the interviews. 2) What was your understanding of the principal selection process? All candidates reported that they received oral instructions about the interview process just prior to conducting the interviews. Margaret Gremillion and Sterling Ingram both provided instructions during the orientation. During the orientation Sterling emphasized that all candidates must be asked the same questions (each committee member interviewed at any school emphasized this requirement). After the orientation, all committee members reported understanding that they would interview the candidates and select the top three contenders. Committee members understood that their choices would be forwarded to the superintendent, who would make the final selection. 3) What did your conunittee do in advance to prepare for the interviews? The Rightsell committee was able to add some clarifying questions to those prepared by the LRSD. Committee members did not meet in advance, nor did they review any applicant files or job descriptions. 4) Briefly describe the interview process. The interview session began with the orientation. During that time, the committee divided the interview questions among the members. Each candidate also received an orientation and then was interviewed in turn. Committee members took turns asking their assigned interview questions. Each individual developed his/her own system for ranking the candidates. Some scored candidates after each interview. Others waited until the end of all the interviews and then assigned scores to the various candidates, the participants used a 0-4 point rating scale. After committee members completed their scoring, they spent some time discussing the merits of various candidates.5) In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration adequate? Four of the five committee members interviewed responded, "Yes." The fifth team member, a parent, said that he was not sure that the number was adequate. In his opinion two of the five interviewees were "just tossed in", and were not interested in the job. This parent characterized the process as simply "going through the motions." 6) What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal? The superintendent. 7) What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? Four of the five respondents believed that their input received adequate weight in the final selection. The fifth said that the district administrators "scored the people they wanted high and they werent the ones the committee wanted." The individual who reported this went on to say that he did not believe that the committees input had any bearing on the final selection. 8) How satisfied were you with the process? What parts of the process worked well? What needs improvement? Four of the five committee members were quite satisfied with the process and made no recommendations for process changes. The fifth member reported dissatisfaction with the general process, but did feel that the interview questions had merit. Some suggestions were: Have earlier team input into individuals to be interviewed Hold the interviews in a more relaxed area (they were held in the LRSD Board room) Suggest adding a question or two regarding how the principal would select other staff members 9) Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? All the team members interviewed said that they enjoyed their experience. Several commented about the friendly and cordial relations between committee members. One committee member said that he would be happy to serve on such committee if he knew that his input was meaningful. This respondent said that he did not want to waste his time, if a decision had already been made. At the time of the interview, the district had not provided feedback to the committee members regarding the ultimate decision.School: Southwest Jr. High 1. How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? - School secretary told her that the superintendents office called and asked if she would serve on the committee - The preseident of the PTA called since she and her husband were active in PTA - Active in PTA - Estelles office called When were you selected? - End of the school year - Last week in May. The interviews were June 9 - About oe week before the actual meeting Did you receive a written or oral description of your role? - Got a confirmation from Matthis - No written or oral - No. Received a written note thanking me for being on the committee - no "how to" 2. What was your understanding of the principal selection process? -No understanding - Didnt know anything - Interview and rank candidates and supt. would make the final selection What written or oral instructions did you receive? - Oral instructions regarding the selection process - and received written questions - None - None When did you receive these instructions? - On the day of the interviews - Just before starting on the day of the interviews 3.What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? - Nothing prior - Nothing - Introduced to each otherPrepared interview questions - Reviewed and assigned questions - no additional questions added - Looked at questions Previewed applicant files - No - Didnt review files. Some applicant brought resumes Reviewed job description and the criteria for making the selection - No 4. Briefly describe the interview process followed by your committee. - a) Leader introduced everyone b) Questions assigned c) Interviews d) Each member chose top 3 in order of preference e) Form used to rank order the candidates - a) Dr. Mayo reviewed questions b) Asked volunteers to ask questions c) Clarified that all applicants must be asked the same quetions, although you could ask a followup or clarification question - a) Gadberry (actually Mayo) gave instruction on how the process would go b) Questions were already prepared c) Each interviewer was asked to ask 1-2 questions d) Had to rank from highest to lowest and score each candidate, e) At the end, told to rank f) Went around the table to rank 1,23- g) Told the supt. would pick from these three. The administrators rushed the process - told the committee that they had to go to a board meeting. Done so fast, the team couldnt understand how it was done. The committee never rached concensus on candidates or ranking - not done by scale at all. Committee told that they couldnt keep the scoring or ranking papers - that they may be pulled for court. 5. In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration adequate? If not, why? - Only one person brought in a resume. There wasno prepared or written information on the candidates. One candidate did not show up because of miscommunication. (The committee member talked later to this candidate, who is a friend of hers) The candidate said that she did not receive an invitation to be interviewed - although Estelle Matthis said she did. - More than adequate - Dont know. 6. What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal?- Superintendent - Dr. Williams - Superintendent 7. What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? - Selected their #1 choice. Would like to think he put faith in their selection. Really think he chose who he wanted - Apparently a lot - the committees choice was also the superintendents - No earthly idea 8 How satisfied were you with the process? - Not satisfied at all with final ranking and scoring. - Satisfied with the process Not very What parts worked well? - Interviews - Having questions prepared. THe process itself worked well - Diversity of the committee. Asking set questions of all candidates. Selection of candidates. What needs improvement? - Would like to have been informed of how the rankings would be done - that caused some confusion - Would like to preview applicants and check qualifications. Would like to have screened applicants for interviews. More time. Would like to have developed te questions. - Scoring process should be clarified beforehand 9. Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? - It was different - not saying it was good or bad. -No - appreciate the opportunity to participate - No - Dr. Mayo said the committee would be informed of the selection before it was published. Found out first in the newspaper and received written notification from the district a week later.Summary of Williams Responses The following summary is based on interviews with four committee members: three parents, and one teacher. 1) How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? As usual, the teacher representative had no idea how she was chosen to participate, and the PTA leadership selected the parent members of the committee. All committee members reported receiving a written confirmation of their appointment from the LRSD about a week before the interviews were scheduled. None of the participants received a written description of his/her role. 2) What was your understanding of the principal selection process? All interview team members reported receiving and oral orientation given by Sterling Ingram immediately before the interviews began. Until the time of this orientation, participants knew little other than that they would be interviewing candidates for the principals job. The orientation took about five minutes, during which the committee members received their interview packets which included the prepared questions. 3) What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? In response to this question, most parents explained the orientation period provided at the beginning of the interview session. Other than that preparation, on the day of the interview, the committee undertook no advance work of any type. One committee member, who is an attorney, wrote to Estelle requesting copies of the applications and resumes for the Williams applicants. Estelle responded that the information requested was confidential and that it was not the practice of the district to share this information. The packet the district provided to the Williams committee included: the names for each candidate with the time of his/her interview, the list of questions to be asked, the ratings forms, and a list of the committee members. The list of pre-written questions was amended to include a couple of question parents were concerned about adding. The committee did not receive written information about any applicants, nor did they see a job description. 4) Briefly describe the interview process. The session began with the aforementioned orientation, during which the committee members finalized their questions and divided them among the members. That accomplished the first applicant entered the room, was introduced by Margaret Gremillion, and then interviewed according to the standard process. Committee members used their own system to keep up with a candidates scores. Some members ranked each individual as he/she completed the interview
other took notes during the interviews and completed their ranking after all interviews were finished. After each individual completed his/her personal evaluation of the candidates Sterling Ingram and Mabel Donaldson totaled the scores for each candidate. None of the committee members voice any dissent with the top three at the time of the interviews. One of the LRSD administrators thanked the members for their participation, and then their work was done. Members reported receiving a thank you note from the superintendent. 5) In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicant provided for your consideration adequate? Two of the four respondents replied that both the number and quality of applicants was adequate or better. The other two respondents felt that the number of applicants was sufficient, but that several of the interviewees did not have adequate knowledge of magnet schools. 6) What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal? The superintendent with the Boards approval. 7) What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? Most participants agreed it was given some weight. Some parents expressed the opinion that parental input was not given that much weight due to an earlier meeting the parents had with Dr. Williams regarding Ed Jacksons removal. Dr. Williams made it clear that no amount of parent support would change his mind that Jackson needed to be reassigned. 8) How satisfied were you with the process? What parts of the process worked well? What needs improvement? Responses to this question varied widely from the opinion expressed by one parent who seemed truly pleased with every aspect of the process and would use the same procedures in the future to the opinion expressed by others that felt that the process was superficial and parent involvement was not meaningful. Some suggested improvements were: Ensure that factors in addition to the interview are considered in the final selection Provide more advance preparation. Committee members need more time to look at resumes of like material and time to become familiar with the questions and develop their own questions.Improve the advance planning for the interviews. Some parents felt that the district contacted them at the last minute to serve on the interview team in an effort to placate vocal parent groups. 9) Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? One parent closed with two question he said he had been trying to get answered since the change in principals assignments began. These questions were: 1. What school district goal is met by mass reassignment of the principals? 2. What desegregation goal is served by these reassignments? The parent asking these questions stated that parents fear nothing more than instability and upheaval. He fears that the instability caused by the reassignment of so many principals will scare some parents away from LRSD. This parent also commented that if the district wanted to give the parents opinion serious weight, the parents should have been involved in screening the applicants and deciding who to interview for their school.4. Briefly describe the interview process followed by your conunittee. The majority of parent and teacher respondents described an interview process which consisted of the following components: Orientation: According to all respondents, at each school the districts designated committee leader provided a brief orientation on the day of the interviews minutes prior to beginning the first interview. Respondents described these sessions as having been 10-15 minutes long. The leaders began orientations by having committee members introduce themselves. Committee members then received packets containing prepared questions and rating sheets. Question Review: Committee leaders gave parent and teacher representatives an opportunity to read the districts prepared questions. At some schools, participants were permitted to discuss and add questions to the list. Each committee member chose the question(s) they wanted to ask the interviewees. Survey results indicate that the district representatives at all of the schools strongly advised the committee members to ask the same questions of all candidates in the same way. Interviews: Survey results indicate that individual interviews ranged in time from 20 to 30 minutes. Candidates were introduced to the interview committee by the district administrator coordinating the process. Each committee member in turn asked previously assigned questions of the candidate. Respondents from each school indicated that individual committee members could ask followup questions. Although candidate information such as applications and resumes were not viewed by the committees prior to the interviews, candidates at several schools brought and distributed resumes to the committees during their interviews. At each school, at the end of the interview the committee gave each candidate the opportunity to ask questions or provide additional pertinent information. Rating and Ranking: Most survey respondents generally mentioned using a zero to four point scale to rate candidates on each question. Parent respondents from one school stated that although the district allowed them to develop and ask additional questions, the only ones candidates were rated on were the ones provided by the district. Survey responses indicate that individual committee members used varied methods in rating candidates. For example, some committee members provided point ratings as they listened to responses to the questions during the interviews. Other committee members made notes during the interviews and provided point totals for responses after each individual interview or after all interviews were completed. Upon completion of the interviews, varied methods of ranking were described to the monitors by parents and teachers. At some schools, point totals were taken by the process coordinator and a straight ranking by points determined the top three candidates in order. Another option described involved the committee members individually ranking candidates based on their point totals, followed by determining the number of firsts, second, and third place rankings of each candidate.Survey responses indicate that committee discussions after the interviews generally dealt with not only determining the top three candidates, but also whether the committee was satisfied with their choices and the range of applicants they had interviewed. 8. How satisfied were you with the process? Most parents and teachers on school committees expressed general satisfaction with the district hiring process, although they also admitted that there were areas needing improvement. More specifically, although some respondents had no problems with the process, they felt that their participation represented no more than a feint of parental involvement by the district. It was these individuals, who more often felt that some hiring decisions had already been made by the district prior to the interviews. The following aspects of the district hiring process were most frequently identified by parents and teachers as having worked well. The size and diversity of the interview committees Having questions prepared in advance Having parent, teacher and administrator representation on the interview committees The methods individual PTA groups used to recruit and choose parents for the interview committees. The following suggestions represent a composite of the ones most frequently offered by parents and teachers to improve the district hiring process. The suggestions are categorized according to aspects of the interview process. Parent Recruitment and Contact Improve advance preparation as it relates to contacting parents to participate. Many committee members were contacted on extremely short notice. This lead to some parents expressing the opinion that their involvement was only "window dressing" to placate vocal parent groups. Screening Have earlier team input into choosing the individuals to be interviewed.Timing of Interviews Avoid holding interviews during the last week(s) of the school year. Some teachers on the committee missed the last day of classes, and applicants currently working in schools need to be in their schools on the final day as well. Begin the entire process earlier in the year to avoid crunch time and the loss of good candidates to other jobs. Setting Hold interviews in a more relaxed setting rather the LRSD Board Room. Orientation Provide more specific instructions to committee members regarding the goals of the process and what they should be looking for in a candidate. Provide more advance preparation such as reviewing resumes, becoming more familiar with the prepared questions, and developing additional ones. Have the full committee meet prior to the interviews for comprehensive training. Information About Applicants Ensure that factors in addition to the interview are considered in the final selection. Provide committee members with the names of candidates in advance so that they may research the professional accomplishments of each. Interview Questions Add questions regarding how the potential principal would select other staff members Allow the committee more time to develop additional questions which are more specific to the individual school. Actual Interviews The interview committees should not consider candidates who fail to show up for the interview. Individual interviews need to be longer
thirty minutes is not enough. The period of time provided the committee between individual interviewees should also be lengthened.Rating and Ranking A better job needs to be done of explaining the rating and ranking process prior to the interviews. A lack of understanding brought about confusion. Evaluate the weighting of the rating system. Extremely low ratings by a district administrator on the committee could completely offset high ratings by other committee members and cause a candidate to receive an overall lower final rank.SURVEY RESPONSES Q 5, 6, 7 5. In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration adequate: If not, why? A vast majority of the respondents felt that an adequate number of applicants interviewed for the positions, the exceptions being Gibbs and Carver, where most of the interview team members expressed dissatisfaction with the number of applicants provided. On the other hand, results were mixed with regard to the quality of the applicants. Some committee members expressed dissatisfaction with applicants who did not have experience as principals or who had no experience with magnet schools or programs. Candidate interviews were limited in time and scope and not all candidates provided resumes. For the most part, interview teams did not object to the number of applicants. However, several team members felt that the administration "stacked the deck" by referring unqualified or poorly qualified applicants along with one candidate who was clearly better qualified professionally, but who was not necessarily temperamentally suitable for the school in question. 6. What was your understanding of who would make the Unai selection of the principal? Responses fell into two main categories. One body of respondents understood that Dr. Williams would make the final selection based upon the committeess top three choices, and while the superintendent may not select their top choice, he would select one of the top three choices. Another group of respondents recognized that Dr. Williams would give their recommendations serious consideration, it was possible that he would not accept any of their recommendations. Additionally, there were a few respondents among both groups who understood that the Board of Directors had the ultimate say in the selection process. Perhaps because LRSD officials did not have an inservice for the selection committees, there was some misunderstanding of the final selection process. Many committee members expressed frustration with the short orientation period provided just before the interviews began. It is easy to see that a lack of adequate preparation time leaves room for miscommunication or poor communication. There was no time for district personnel to get an adequate reading of the committee members understanding of the selection process. 7. What weight do you believe your input was given? Responses ranged from "none" to "a lot", depending on whether the respondents candidate was selected or not. Several committee members expressed a belief that the superintendent had preselected who he wanted and the interview process was a sham. The administrators were permitted to vote on the candidates also, which lead some of the committee members to feel that the administrators actually determined the top candidate. Some of the members revealed that administrators scored some candidates far too high and others were scored far too low.For the most part committee members did not believe that really selected their principal. Their responses reveal a pattern of accepting that although they provided input during the selection process, unless they selected the person that the superintendent wanted, it made no difference who they wanted for the job. Despite believing that they had no actual control over the selection process, many of the interview team members said they enjoyed being a part of the team.Trends Noted in Responses to ODM Survey of Parents and Teachers 1) How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? At the incentive schools, the interview committees consisted of the same people who serve on the schools regular staffing committees. In some cases, an additional person might have been added to the committee for racial balance purposes. At the other schools, the PTAs were the agents responsible for appointing the parent members to the committees. Despite the PTA involvement, monitors noted that quite a few of the parents who served on committees were also LRSD employees. None of the teacher members knew how they were selected to serve on a committee, but selection of the teachers did not involve the LRCTA. Nearly all the committee members reported being selected about a week before the interviews and receiving a letter of confirmation from the district that also gave the date and time of the interviews. SfTmnT7|-ynnfl Conclusions: While the process used to appoint committee members was not written, it was pretty consistent from school to school. The incentive schools were the anomaly, since they used the regular staffing committees. The incentive school staffing committees included a Joshua representative, but the district sought no participation from Joshua on any of the magnet, area, or secondary school committees. It seems particularly inconsistent to exclude Joshua from the magnet school committees, since a Joshua representative serves on the MRC, just a representative of each of the districts serves on that body. It also seems odd that the district went to the PTA leadership to appoint the parent members, but bypassed the LRCTA membership in the appointment of teachers to the committees. In the past, the union has been asked to provide the names of the teacher appointees to interview committees. A sizable portion of the parent representatives who served on the interview committees were also LRSD employees. While district employees have a great deal of knowledge about how schools operate, the presence of so many teachers and support staff members among the ranks of the parents looks suspect. Individuals who are employed by the district may be more reticent to speak out or question the process followed by the LRSD, than a "civilian" would be. 2) What was your understanding of the principal selection process? While many committee members reported a pretty fair understanding of the process, most explained that this was the understanding they had based upon the orientation delivered by LRSD administrators, just minutes before they began to interview candidates. This orientation constituted the sum total of information imparted to committee members. According to the respondents, the district did not furnish any written description of the role of committee members, nor did the district provide any advance written or oral information regarding the candidates identities or qualifications. The Gibbs committee did obtain some information about candidates identities through a FOI request lodged by a parent from outside the committees membership. Many individuals who served on committees said they had no idea what their role would be until they showed up and heard the orientation. In some other instances, notably Gibbs, parents had some awareness of the process because they talked to other parents who had served on interview committees in earlier years. Some of these previous committees had been very active and recruited candidates for interviews. As a result of the consultations with members of prior committees and personnel experience with hiring decisions, some committee members developed very high expectations for meaningful involvement in the process. inclusions: It seems clear that a lot of the misunderstandings and hard feelings generated by the principal hiring process could have been avoided if the LRSD had clearly defined the role of the interview committees at the start. Luckily for the district, many committee members seemed to construe their notification of appointment to an interview committee as no more than a nice opportunity to serve the district and their childs school. These people were content to wait until the day of the interviews for further instructions. A significant minority of the participants took their charge much more seriously. This second group of individuals expected to be full partners in the hirings and took a great deal of time and trouble to prepare questions, conduct background checks, and generally try to become well-informed, active committee members. This dedication to task caused certain parents to expend a great deal of effort as they tried to fulfill their role, as they imagined it should be. If the district had made its intentions clear from the beginning, perhaps the parents would not have felt that they had been mislead and taken advantage of. 3) What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? With the exception of the Gibbs committee and one member of the Williams committee, none of the school committees did anything in advance to prepare for the interviews. The parents and teachers who served on the Gibbs committee met in advance and spent a great deal of time developing interview questions and defining what they expected from the process. The Gibbs group forwarded the material they generated to both the superintendent and the deputy superintendent. According to respondents from Gibbs, none of the administrators serving on their committee seemed to have any knowledge of the information previously provided to the LRSD leadership. The members of the Williams interview committee did not meet in advance of the interviews, but one member of the committee reported engaging in correspondence with Estelle Matthis, in an attempt to gain some information to help him prepare for the interviews. This individual and some others reported developing interview questions that they wanted included in the process. While the district used pre-determined questions at every interview, most committee members reported that the committee was able to amend the districts questions, to a certain extent. . JjUUUlUM^^St Conclusions: Advance preparation was nonexistent. If the district had engaged in more advance planning for the interviews, there would have been adequate time to conduct an orientation well in advance of the interview dates. Such advance preparation could have headed off some of the misunderstandings that cropped up at several schools. The commitment of time and effort required to properly train the committee members would be one indication that the district truly valued the committees efforts, and wanted to make the process meaningful. The minimal orientation prior to the interviews may have helped create the widespread impression that much of the process was a front for predetermined decisions.
This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.