UPDATE: The head of a local foundation has sent the State Board of Education a scathing letter about the two commissioner finalists, urging the board to launch a new search.
Tony Lewis, executive director of the Donnell-Kay Foundation (one of the funders of Education News Colorado) wrote:
…it is beyond comprehension to think that the State Board of Education spent thousands of taxpayer dollars on a search firm that initiated and finalized a national search that resulted in the selection of only two candidates – one of whom is the interim Commissioner and the other is within a 20-mile distance of your offices.
A candidate pool that is comprised of the interim Commissioner and a local Superintendent does not contain the necessary quantity, diversity or depth of background required in such a search to find an experienced and recognized innovative leader…although it is impossible to see into the black box of the search process to know how many candidates were vetted and included in the first candidate pool, it is clear that the result of two, local candidates does not speak well of the search firm nor of the expense for them. A search that results in such a limited pool of candidates should result in the search firm reimbursing the taxpayers or in the initiation of another search.
Here is the original post:
The estimable Checker Finn doesn’t think much of the State Board of Education’s two finalists to be the next education commissioner — acting chief Robert Hammond and Aurora Public Schools Superintendent John Barry.
Finn’s conclusion:
…it’s a time for forceful reformist energy to carry Colorado a big leap into the future. And that also surely cries out for a bold move on the commissioner front, most likely an unconventional candidate from out of state, not conventional in-state veterans. If Colorado settles for such lackluster educational leadership as this pair of finalists would seem to indicate–all the more vivid when compared with ex-commissioner Dwight Jones–baby steps are the most one can hope for. Let’s hope they don’t turn out to be baby steps backward.
A hat tip to Peter Huidekoper, Jr. for the link.
Popularity: 43% [?]
Boy I’d hate to see who Chester would see as an acceptable candidate. I cannot speak for Hammond, but Barry is as out-of-the-box as you’d think one could get. He had zero educational experience before becoming super at APS; he’s in the process of implementing standards based grading in the district; he forced forced high school teachers to teach an extra class and; he testified in support of SB 191.
And yes, education reform is about baby steps. As long as it is in the right direction.
I for one do not think that Colorado would be served by installing a national bomb-thrower as our next commissioner. We have passed multiple promising reforms, and now it’s time to buckle down for the hard work of implementing what we’ve got. Imagine what Colorado education would look like if CAP4K and SB 191 were actually implemented well and through the cooperative efforts of everyone who cares about education in the state..
This opinion is not necessarily the opinion of the School of Public Affairs or the University of Colorado.
Even assuming Barry is a top candidate (and I personally have doubts), there should be some valid choice between finalists. This feels more like a coronation. Anyone here really think Hammond is likely to prevail?
Instead of getting a substantive debate between different types of candidates (and also should be more than two options on the short list after an initial cut), this is smells a lot like it is already done. And if there are others who would argue otherwise, I’m open to pretty much any and all bets on Hammond, who also deserves better than this.
Alexander….So you are thinking Hammond is a shoe in or this is a coronation for Mr. Barry? I am confused by your post. I too am shocked that this was a “nationwide” search!
I can’t see how they award it to Hammond (who, although I don’t know him personally, seems like a really decent guy and deserves better than being a token stalking horse).
The discussions were behind closed doors so its hard to say why the BOE ended up where they did, but even the BOE must realize for a national search, taking the guy already in the office and one of the local District supers is not going to inspire any confidence in the process or the selection.
There were several questions raised about the search firm (Hazard, Young, Attea & Associates), and this faux choice sure makes an earlier post on these pages prescient: http://bit.ly/e6VINk But this is more a reflection on the Board than on anyone else.
Kelly is throwing out a false choice between being a good manager and being a visionary leader. I also completely disagree with her about what’s needed at this time. It is possible and I’d argue necessary for the next CO commissioner to be a visionary in terms of reform and also be a great manager. Given the design and state of the CO’s current education system and what’s new in terms of law it is not as simple as just implementing 191, Cap4K, Innovation law, new standards/assessements, fixing school finance etc. The next commissioner will need to have have a clear vision of how it all fits together, what’s missing (which there is plenty) and what this might look like on the ground throughout the state. The policy framework in CO is at best a sketch, it is hardly a blueprint. It will require a fairly bold visionary leader. Both of the candidates have demonstrated a solid management background, it will be interesting to hear about their vision for the state and how they can make it happen.
I agree with Van that the next commissioner should be capable of both visionary leadership and highly competent management, and that the tasks that face us are complex. I’m suggesting that the state can be served well in these dimensions without resorting to the small pool of highly visible national reformers who are often more about creating conflict than about engaging in the long, hard slog of true leadership.
So I wonder if either or both of CO’s finalists will want to join “Chiefs for Change” which is looking as if it will be the new hard charging state policy group for the reform minded chiefs/states. The leadership includes LA’s Pastorek, IN’s Bennet, RI’s Gist and NJ’s Cerf. Apparently TN’s new commissioner Kevin Huffman has just joined. There are now 10 members….all hard charging managers with a vision for reform. See here http://blog.eduflack.com/2011/04/25/chiefs-change-cheers.aspx?ref=rss
Van, I’m glad you brought up the “Chiefs for Change” coalition, which we highlighted at the Independence Institute before the finalists were announced: http://www.ediswatching.org/2011/04/hoping-colorados-new-education-commissioner-will-be-a-chief-for-change/
I don’t have enough confidence in John Barry’s record to say he represents the clear sort of reform alternative to be the only other choice than the existing interim commissioner. For one thing, what is Barry’s record on charter schools? He supported SB 191, but so did nearly everyone outside the CEA. That issue can’t stand by itself as a litmus test. In any case, I share Alex’s concern that this “feels like a coronation.”
Given the expectations of a “nationwide search” presented to the State Board (as expressed ably by Randy DeHoff), there clearly is a problem with the short list of in-state finalists. Tony’s concerns are well-placed. I agree that coming forward with just the two local finalists “should result in the search firm reimbursing the taxpayers or in the initiation of another search.”
Maybe then the State Board could select Hammond as a short-term caretaker, continuing the interim role for a matter of months while the search firm gracefully exits and a new process is initiated. In the meantime, maybe Hammond could surprise some by signing on to “Chiefs for Change” and showing, beyond his capable administrative leadership, colors we have not seen yet.
Wouldn’t this be a workable solution?
One of last decisions before I left the State Board of Ed was to hire the search firm. I thought the board made it clear at the time we wanted an aggressive national search for non-traditional and national stature candidates, as well as qualified in-state candidates. Like Tony Lewis, I’m disappointed that the board only named two in-state, inside education finalists. Both finalists have some experience and characteristics to recommend them. think John Barry has the edge, based on his accomplishments in a district that at best could be described as “reform-neutral.” Aurora is not recognized for their support of school options created outside the district – charters especially – but despite that John Barry has created some impressive options to address students who are not well served by more traditional schools. I don’t know if there were better candidates than John Barry who chose not to apply – my guess is there were not – but I’m confident that so long as the board continues to pursue an aggressive reform agenda, John Barry is ably qualified to lead that agenda, and that Robert Hammond can continue to support that agenda as the Commissioner’s number two.
It’s too bad the state board decided not have more a public vetting process with the two finalists. I think they did the finalists a disservice. It will put whoever they decide upon in more of a difficult spot than would have otherwise happened if each of the two finalists were able to openly describe their visions and work plans for the state. Imagine if Dwight Jones would have been hired in Clark County without a public process. He’d be spending the first six months gathering support rather than doing the work. Hopefully the finalist will spend some time in the next few weeks making an effort here to weigh in on what they would like to do. It shouldn’t be hard for either given their understandings of Colorado.