Beaverton board, consultants set timetable for superintendent search, favor confidential finalist process

Beaverton School District trustees and the district's search consultants used an Oct. 14 work session to set a timetable and ground rules for the search for the district's next superintendent, emphasizing broad community engagement, tightly scripted candidate evaluations and confidentiality for finalist names. Chair Sunita Garg presided over the session.

Hank, the lead search consultant, told the board this meeting was the formal kickoff to the search and walked members through a draft calendar that places community focus groups and an online survey in early November, a December work session to approve the board's “next superintendent criteria,” a recruitment window opening in mid‑December and an application deadline on Jan. 14. "There will be high level of community engagement," Hank said, describing two core outcomes: to “school us up” on the district's current state and to surface the community’s aspirations that will shape the criteria consultants use to evaluate candidates.

Why it matters: the board's decisions about the criteria, the scope of outreach and whether finalist names are public will shape both who applies and how community input is weighed. Consultants said those choices affect whether sitting superintendents and other top officials feel safe applying; that, in turn, can influence the pool's size and seniority.

How candidates will be evaluated

Consultants presented a multi-stage screening plan (numbers used were illustrative). Hank described a typical flow: a recruitment round that could attract roughly 35 applications; consultants would then identify about 12 candidates for an initial virtual interview and reference checks, narrow to roughly 6 semifinalists for a full interview day (the board typically completes semifinalist interviews in a long single day), and then advance 2–3 finalists for onsite finalist week. "We will invite those 12 to participate in a virtual interview with us," Hank said. He stressed the numbers were hypothetical and that any of the 35 applicants could be considered by the board.

The consultants said earlier-stage interviews will use the same scripted questions for every candidate to promote fairness; they recommended board members use a confidential software portal (Breezy) to review applications and to upload reference-check notes rather than exchanging candidate names by email, which creates public-record risk.

Community engagement and focus groups

The consultants asked the board to help design focus-group composition and said they would run most of the sessions without board members present so participants could speak candidly. They proposed increasing the number of planned focus groups from 14 to 18 (at no additional cost) to broaden representation, and promised translated surveys and work with the district's multilingual staff to expand outreach. Board members were asked to submit suggestions for groups or individuals to include via a Google form.

Confidentiality and finalist disclosure

Consultants explained the tradeoffs between publicly naming finalists and keeping finalist identities confidential. Several trustees voiced support for a confidential finalists process to protect potential candidates and to preserve the applicant pool—arguments the consultants framed as consistent with attracting top candidates. Dr. Truong said confidentiality “protects the candidate” and helps surface a qualified pool; other board members echoed that view. The board reached a clear consensus in favor of keeping finalists confidential while ensuring community input through the focus groups and survey.

Scheduling and logistics

Board members and consultants debated date options through winter and winter‑to‑early‑February windows for semifinals and finalist week. The board agreed to use a calendar poll to finalize December work sessions and to tentatively hold finalist-week scheduling in early February, with options discussed for in‑person versus virtual formats depending on member availability and candidate convenience.

Reference checks and background investigations

Consultants recommended scripted, role‑consistent reference checks (the same questions asked of each reference) and asked that board members who perform checks upload their notes into the consultants' confidential portal rather than emailing candidate names. They also recommended third‑party investigative background checks for finalists, a step several trustees said they supported as a future agenda item.

Internal candidates and residency

The consultants said internal candidates would be subject to the same standards and process as external applicants. Trustees discussed whether to require the superintendent to live in district boundaries; no board member advocated imposing a strict residency requirement, and consultants noted most districts leave residency language intentionally flexible.

Student representatives

District staff introduced four new student board representatives—Jordan Sargent, Tramiya Clouser, Isabel Riley and Vihan Paliwal—each of whom briefly described their experience and commitment to bring student perspectives to board deliberations.

Next steps

Consultants will post a draft criteria document for public comment ahead of a December work session, circulate a Google poll to lock down meeting dates that require full-board participation, finalize focus-group parameters with the subcommittee and provide the board with the confidential portal link to begin reviewing applications when the recruitment window closes. The board adjourned the work session at 6:48 p.m.

Sources: statements and proposals presented by the district's hired search consultants and by board members at the Oct. 14 Beaverton SD 48J work session.