Woodland Park board reviews stakeholder survey, agrees to post superintendent job and run community poll

At a Woodland Park School District Board of Education work session, trustees reviewed results of a stakeholder survey used to shape the district—s superintendent job description and agreed to post the vacancy on Monday while simultaneously running a two‑week community poll on whether to continue a full, external search or consider the current interim superintendent for a permanent role.

The presentation, prepared by the search firm Grundmeier Leadership Services and fielded Oct. 10—6 through Oct. 26, summarized responses from parents, teachers, staff, students and community members. Presenters said parents and guardians formed the largest respondent group; the transcript lists the following category counts reported to the board: administrators 7, teachers 57, support staff 24, students 5 and community members 85. The presenter also read school representation counts: Summit Elementary 59 (28.6%), Columbine 66 (32%), junior/high school combined 123 (59.7%), and Merit Academy 16 (7.8%). (The report—s overall total in the transcript appears as an unclear figure: "226 261" and was not specified further during the meeting.)

Survey respondents repeatedly named the district—s close community ties, dedicated teachers and a range of academic and extracurricular offerings as strengths. The most commonly cited challenges were district fiscal management and transparency, communication and trust, and staff recruitment and retention.

The presenter reviewed ranked qualifications respondents identified as important in a next superintendent: managing district resources, recruiting and developing staff, fostering a positive culture for teachers and staff, and building community and school relations. The transcript records detailed item responses for several questions: for example, 184 respondents (70.5%) rated it most important that the superintendent live in the district, and 167 respondents (64%) rated classroom teaching experience as a top priority.

Board members debated how those survey results should shape the hiring process. Several members urged pausing the external search and extending Interim Superintendent Ginger Slocum—s contract, citing her local residence, long classroom and building leadership experience and recent community outreach (meetings with city and law‑enforcement leaders were cited). Other trustees said the district owes the public a formal, competitive search that includes community participation in interviews and a shortlist of candidates to demonstrate due diligence.

Rather than taking a formal vote, the board directed staff and the search firm to proceed on two tracks: finalize job‑description language to highlight communication, community relations, strong instructional leadership, classroom experience and willingness to relocate to the district; post the job on the previously discussed timeline (Monday); and run a short, two‑week community poll with two focused questions about continuing the search and about extending the interim superintendent.

Trustees identified Keegan (board member) and another board member to work with district staff and the search firm to finalize the posted job description before Monday—s posting. The board said it would accept applications and continue the process; the community poll would be used to collect additional public input before any final hiring decision.

No formal motion or recorded roll‑call vote was taken on hiring policy, an extension of the interim contract, or halting the search. Board members said any contract extension or permanent hire would be subject to subsequent board action and, if appropriate, community involvement in finalist interviews.

Clarifying details provided at the meeting will be posted with the survey materials and job posting; the board asked staff to include the survey summary, the full response data, and a concise explanation of how residency and experience expectations will be handled in the job description.

For transparency, the board asked the search firm and district staff to provide a written timeline of steps from posting to finalist interviews and to preserve the deposit already paid to the search firm while staff confirm next steps.