Francis Howell R-III board hears superintendent profile from consultants after 1,370-survey response and focus-group outreach

Search consultants Kevin (search consultant) and Diane (search consultant) presented the results of a superintendent profile and community survey to the Francis Howell R-III Board of Education, saying their outreach included 14 meetings and 81 focus‑group/open‑forum attendees and 1,370 survey responses.

The consultants said the engagement produced a set of perceived strengths and challenges the board can use to recruit and vet candidates. "We had 81 attendees for the focus group in open forums. We had 1,370 responses for the survey," Kevin said, adding the results reflect perceptions of those who participated and are not a scientific study.

The profile highlighted academic programs and staff as leading strengths. The consultants listed high academic standards and a broad set of course offerings — including Advanced Placement courses, Project Lead the Way and Spectrum (gifted) programs — robust special education and English‑learner services, and a wide range of extracurricular activities. Diane summarized the survey top strengths as quality teaching staff, communication, student safety, clean and attractive schools, and a nurturing learning environment.

But consultants told the board they also heard recurring concerns. Participants cited strained community trust after past fiscal problems and the failure to pass a tax levy, recent high staff turnover, depleted ESSER funds, and perceptions of board polarization and public clashes. "There has been, somewhat, an erosion of trust and community division," Kevin said. The consultants noted some respondents described the board as "at times contentious, somewhat polarized" and said those perceptions have made recruitment and retention more difficult.

From those inputs the consultants proposed priorities for a first‑year superintendent: rebuilding trust and relationships across the district, addressing fiscal challenges and resource equity, strengthening accountability for student achievement, unifying leadership teams, and communicating a clear district vision aligned with the strategic plan and school improvement plans. Desired candidate traits included collaborative, consensus‑building leadership; student‑centered decision making; resilience and the courage to address contentious issues; fiscal acumen; and strong communication skills.

The board discussed how to weigh a competency flagged in the survey: equity and inclusivity. Board member Randy (board member) said he was concerned about candidates whose primary focus would be equity programs at the expense of other priorities. "I'm not sure that person's going to work out," he said, explaining he feared candidates who would make equity their top aim to the exclusion of academics or fiscal stewardship. Other board members, and teachers who spoke in the meeting, described equity in less charged terms, focusing on giving each student the supports they need.

Board member Carrie (teacher) described how teachers think about equity in practice: "I would want everyone in my class to think that I treated each of them equally and that I included everyone. That's all that is." Consultants said they would present a balanced slate of candidates and allow the board to assign weight to any competency in the profile.

Trustees also pressed the consultants on contract costs and expense oversight. Board member Jane Hepler, who identified herself in the meeting as the board treasurer, asked for monthly receipts and expense reports after noting the signed contract threshold for board approval. Jane Hepler said she understood an initial figure of $29,500 had been discussed but that the signed contract allowed $48,000 before additional board approval. "I'm gonna request that all expenses be submitted to me as treasurer with receipts monthly," she said. The consultants responded that they keep receipts and detail expenses and that higher allowances account for potential out‑of‑state candidate travel and related costs.

On process and timing, the consultants said they will recruit and vet candidates from their national consultant network, present candidates to the board for initial interviews, narrow to three finalists for second interviews and candidate presentations, and then the board will check references and negotiate a contract. Consultants stated a hoped‑for start date of July 1 for the new superintendent but said naming the candidate could occur sooner. The consultants also said they would deliver the full profile report to the board for posting and review.

Formal business at the meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn moved by Director Cook and seconded by Director Ponder. The board recorded voice votes of "aye" and the chair declared the motion carried.

The board will receive the full written report from the consultants and is expected to set interview dates so the consultants can notify candidates of scheduling constraints.