Manitowoc School District advances superintendent search, chooses online survey and compact timeline

The Man­itowoc School District Board moved forward with a national superintendent search and a compact schedule at a regularly scheduled meeting, deciding to use an online community survey rather than holding districtwide in‑person focus groups and agreeing on application and interview time frames.

The discussion, led by the district’s contracted search consultant, centered on how to recruit a broad pool of candidates while giving staff, parents and community members input into the leadership profile. “Everything that is highlighted in yellow, we need to decide tonight,” the search consultant told board members as she reviewed the posting and schedule.

The consultant said the district posting will be distributed broadly through the Wisconsin Association of School Boards database (about 565 applicants in that database), CESA contacts, WASB superintendent page, LinkedIn, Facebook and the Wisconsin School Leadership Career Center, plus 30 college and university sites. The posting was slated to go live immediately once the district confirms an updated budget figure; the consultant recommended posting the vacancy and application portal together so applicants submit complete materials early.

Why it matters: Board members said they want both broad applicant reach and community buy‑in for a hire that the district hopes will bring stability after multiple leadership changes in recent years. The board’s decisions set the public outreach method, the application deadline and the calendar for screening, interviews and final selection.

Key decisions and timeline - The board declined to hold in‑person focus groups for stakeholders and instead authorized an online community survey (staff, parents and community respondents will select one role to represent). The consultant noted three focus groups are already included in the contract if the board later chooses them. The board asked to include two open‑ended questions drawn from the focus‑group prompts in the online survey so respondents can offer free‑form feedback. - Proposed survey window: roughly Feb. 10–17 (the consultant said the survey should run over a week). The board agreed to end the survey on Feb. 17 to give staff time to distribute links and encourage participation. - Application deadline: the board set a roughly four‑week application period ending March 7 (about 28 days from posting). The consultant said that timeline matches current hiring patterns and is intended to capture active candidates. - Application materials: the online portal will require contact info, work and education history, transcripts, proof of certification (or evidence of application for certification), three uploaded reference letters, consent forms and a disclosure form. The board opted to include a single required essay question for the initial pool to preserve applicants’ ability to apply quickly; finalists would receive additional district‑specific prompts and a writing exercise during on‑site interviews. - Screening and interviews: the board scheduled an application review meeting the week of March 9 (March 13 was discussed as a likely review date) to select first‑round interviewees. First‑round interview dates were left flexible but the board discussed holding finalist on‑site interviews in early April (April 4 was discussed as a likely half‑day finalist interview date) with the final selection to occur at a subsequent board meeting in early to mid April.

Stakeholder interview teams and appointments The board discussed how to form stakeholder interview committees (committees of 7–9 members composed of a mix of staff, parents, students and community representatives). Options included board appointments based on nominations from directors and an open call for volunteers via an online form; respondents would indicate whether they represent staff, parents or community and must live or pay taxes in the district if they represent the community. Board members agreed the full board should approve committee appointments in open session after a closed‑session discussion to assemble a cross‑section of perspectives.

Board members debated the merits of in‑person focus groups versus an online survey. Several trustees expressed that in‑person participation can build buy‑in and surface issues not visible in rankings alone; others said the online survey plus targeted open‑ended questions would be efficient and still produce usable data. “I see this timeline as being like, walls. It's gotta click,” Trustee Keith Shaw said, urging the board to preserve options while keeping the schedule tight.

Formal motions and next steps At the meeting a board member moved that the board appoint members to the interview committees; the motion was seconded. The transcript records the motion and second but does not record a final roll‑call vote on that motion. The board later moved to adjourn; that motion was seconded and carried by voice vote (the transcript records at least one “nay” but the chair declared adjournment). The consultant said she will send a draft brochure and survey materials to the full board and that Chris Abel, board president, and district contact Lori will have authority to clear the brochure for posting if the board does not request changes within 24 hours.

Clarifying details discussed during the meeting included uncertainty about the district’s annual budget figure (a figure of about $81,000,500 in the materials appeared low; board members said the current budget is about $100 million and directed staff to confirm), that three focus groups are included in the existing contract at no extra cost, the planned posting channels (WASB, CESA and national superintendent networks) and the consultant’s suggestion that finalists be required to submit a 90‑day plan and complete an on‑site, offline writing exercise to limit use of generative tools.

What’s next: The consultant will post the vacancy once the budget figure is confirmed by district staff, launch the survey in the agreed window, and open the applicant portal. The board will meet in March to review applications and set first‑round interviews; finalists will be interviewed in April with stakeholder input provided to the board prior to final selection.