Norfolk School Board appoints Dr. Jeff Rose as division superintendent after 4–3 vote amid process disputes

The Norfolk School Board voted 4–3 on Jan. 30, 2026, to appoint Dr. Jeff Rose as division superintendent, concluding a special-call meeting that featured sharp debate over the search process and the candidate’s recent experience.

Board member Miss Dempsey moved to approve Rose’s appointment and Martin seconded. Supporters pointed to Rose’s record leading districts in Georgia and Oregon, his work with Cognia helping hundreds of superintendents, and stated improvements in student outcomes. Martin read resume highlights, saying Rose “launched and led the leadership circle,” increased ACT participation in Fulton County, and led districtwide improvement that reduced failing schools by 64 percent.

Opponents framed their votes as objections to the selection process and to elements of the proposed contract. Connor Paulson said his “no vote signals to the public just how divided the school board is,” and raised concerns that Rose has not been a sitting superintendent since 2018, citing a short recent tenure at Fulton County and saying that gap poses a learning curve for leading an urban division. Paulson also criticized what he described as higher base salary and additional perks compared with the prior superintendent’s contract. President Slaughter similarly said she believed the other finalist’s recent Virginia superintendent experience better matched the division’s immediate needs but pledged to support Rose if confirmed: “If Dr. Rose’s appointment is approved, I will fully support him in this role.”

During the meeting members referenced prior governance disputes, including the board’s termination of the former superintendent on June 11, 2025. Paulson described alleged breaches of confidentiality during the search and said professional recommendations to guide the evaluation were not followed. Supporters responded that the process included public meetings and surveys and urged colleagues to move forward and unite behind the new leader.

Miss Tanner called the roll for the appointment vote. Votes recorded during roll call show Bassin, McAllegero, Martin and Buffalo voting in favor; Slaughter, Thomas and Paulson voting against. The chair declared the motion passed. The meeting adjourned shortly afterward.

The transcript records disagreements over the process, candidate experience, and contract terms but does not specify the contract’s precise salary or benefit amounts. Board members who opposed the appointment said they would continue to hold the board accountable while some also pledged to work with Rose for the district’s benefit.

The board did not set an effective start date in the public discussion recorded in the meeting. The appointment concludes the special-call action; board members said they will now shift attention to supporting division leadership and addressing urgent academic needs in underperforming schools.