Board chair lays out superintendent selection plan with blind review, timeline

Dr. Johnson, the trustee tapped to chair the superintendent search committee, outlined a multi‑stage hiring process that she said is designed to reduce bias and identify the candidate “most qualified based on their experience, their leadership ability, and the alignment with what this system needs.” The board approved the selection process during the meeting.

The nut of the process is a two‑phase review. Dr. Johnson said an internal selection committee will perform an initial “weed‑out” using a scoring rubric and a blind review in which identifying information is removed from applications. She told trustees the goal is to present a board‑approved group of up to 10 candidates for the first round of interviews, with the selection committee conducting the initial interviews and the full board conducting subsequent rounds to narrow finalists.

Trustee debate focused on who sits on the selection committee, its size and transparency. Dr. Johnson said the internal panel will include: a trustee (the chair), an elementary principal, a middle/high principal, a senior staff member from HR, a teacher representative, a parent representative and a community representative. Several trustees asked that the committee include more direct board input; others warned that larger committees can become unwieldy. Trustees agreed to add an additional teacher representative (one representing elementary and another representing middle/high concerns) and to remove HR from scoring the initial blind review so HR would not see unredacted applicant names during the minimum‑qualification screen.

Legal counsel reminded trustees that any committee exercising delegated authority will operate under the Florida Sunshine Law and must post notices, keep minutes and hold open meetings; Dr. Johnson said the committee will follow those requirements. Dr. Johnson also proposed bias‑reduction measures including committee training on scoring, use of a numeric rubric for initial screening and blind reviews to prevent identification‑based preference.

The timetable Dr. Johnson proposed is approximate: selection‑committee members identified the week of the meeting; a posting period of roughly 15 days after the job description is signed (with the job posted on the district website, Indeed, LinkedIn and education job boards); initial review the week of March 17; selection of a top 10 by the end of March; first‑round interviews in late April; board interviews in May with a target final decision by May 19 and an aim to have the new superintendent begin by July 1. Dr. Johnson stressed the dates were contingent on board approval of the job description and the pace of applications.

Trustees asked for clarity about the job posting reach (local vs. national); Dr. Johnson said the posting will be nationally visible via LinkedIn, Indeed and other boards. Trustees also discussed the length of posting (15 days as a starting point) and agreed to extend if the applicant pool is thin. Several trustees asked that the board receive the ranked scores from the selection committee even if the board ultimately conducts its own interviews.

The board voted to approve the selection process as presented, with the committee composition adjustments discussed during the work session.