Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Superintendent Search Survey topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Woodland Park board narrows stakeholder survey for superintendent search
Summary
Board members reviewed a consultant draft of a stakeholder survey for the district’s superintendent search, asked to add demographic and ranking questions, discussed anonymity and distribution, and agreed to finalize edits for a September rollout.
The Woodland Park School District RE-2 Board of Education spent most of its work session reviewing a draft stakeholder survey intended to inform the district superintendent search. Board members asked the district consultant and staff to add questions about respondents’ stakeholder type, school affiliation and geographic location, to change several “select three” items into ranked questions, and to include plain-language definitions for terms such as “equity” and “cultural responsiveness.”
Board members said they wanted the survey to show whether community priorities differ by role — for example, students, parents, teachers or business owners — and by which school respondents are connected to. Several members urged the board to add a ZIP‑code or school‑name field to reduce responses from people outside the district while keeping the survey anonymous unless respondents voluntarily identified themselves.
The board discussed changing multiple-choice “pick three” prompts to a 1–10 ranking or a shorter ranked list so responses better reflect priorities. Members also asked for ranking of leadership styles and for clearer definitions so respondents interpret choices similarly. Board members requested a quick, readable survey to limit respondent fatigue while capturing enough detail to guide candidate interviews.
Multiple speakers argued for explicit questions about experience and qualifications, not only personal traits, and asked the survey to include items about prior experience working in schools (classroom teacher, school building leader, central-office/assistant superintendent or superintendent) on a short importance scale. Several members pressed to add explicit language about special education — for example, asking how important a candidate’s experience with IDEA, IEPs or special‑education program development is to respondents — and to note that support for special populations could be folded into the instructional‑leadership item.
Board members also discussed whether to ask if respondents consider it important for the superintendent to live in or participate in the local community (a ranking question was suggested) and whether to ask whether respondents are satisfied with the current superintendent or want the board to continue the search. Staff said the draft indicates the survey is anonymous unless respondents volunteer names; board members requested the district confirm how anonymity is handled and whether the consultant or the district will publish raw contact data.
The board confirmed it has already paid a deposit to a search firm and that the firm is available to help edit and format the survey if needed. District staff said they would edit the consultant draft, check the search‑firm contract to confirm scope and distribution responsibilities, circulate the revised draft to board members for review, and aim to publish the survey in September to meet the board’s original timeline.
The discussion closed with staff and one board member volunteering to consolidate the changes and circulate a revised draft for final review before publication.
