Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Leadership topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Moore County Schools board approves leadership profile for superintendent search after debate over 'visionary' vs. 'unifying' language
Summary
The Moore County Schools Board approved an edited leadership profile for its superintendent search on March 19, 2026 after extensive edits and debate over priorities — including academics, chronically low‑performing schools, and the district's military community — and despite one member's public opposition to the search process.
The Moore County Schools Board of Education voted to approve a leadership profile to guide its superintendent search on March 19, 2026, adopting edits that emphasize academic excellence, operational experience and the district’s large military community.
The profile, which the board compared side‑by‑side with language from consultant BWP and a board draft, will direct the district’s recruitment and interview process. The board took a voice vote after a lengthy line‑by‑line review; the motion passed and staff will finalize the document with a legal review of one disputed phrase.
Board members debated several substantive edits before the vote. Ken Benway pressed for a new bullet calling for action on chronically low‑performing schools and urged changing the phrase “collaborative manager” to “unifying leader.” “Change this to unifying leader,” Benway said during the discussion, arguing the term better captures the district’s needs. Dr. Doll and other members pushed to retain and incorporate specific BWP language that would require candidates to show concrete, data‑driven evidence of improving student outcomes.
The board also discussed the district’s demographic context. Members noted that a sizable portion of Moore County’s students are connected to the military and recommended the profile ask candidates to understand and leverage that community. A staff member summarized the outreach that informed the documents, saying the search process included 10 stakeholder meetings, a community forum and 576 survey responses (338 parents, 227 staff), along with additional written input.
Not all members supported moving forward. Board member Pauline Bruno said she opposed the search process itself and criticized the consultant’s March 9 presentation as embarrassing, calling the effort a “waste of taxpayers’ money.” Bruno’s objection did not prevent the board from approving the profile.
The profile’s final language prioritizes academic excellence for all students while also listing recruitment and retention, facility needs and sustainable funding among key challenges and opportunities. Members debated tone and specificity — several urged concrete expectations so candidates could read the profile and clearly see whether they fit, while others favored broader statements to allow applicants latitude in describing approaches.
Board members emphasized operational qualifications as well: experience with budgeting, capital projects and bond referenda; the ability to allocate resources effectively; experience developing instructional programs; and political savvy to work with county commissioners and community partners. Several members argued that the superintendent should be a “tireless advocate for public schools” who can clearly explain data and district needs to multiple constituencies.
One final wording question — whether to include “physical achievement” in a personal‑qualities line — will be resolved after review by the district’s legal counsel. The board agreed that if counsel advises the phrase is problematic, staff will remove it and the approved profile will stand.
Next steps: staff will incorporate the board’s edits into a final profile, obtain legal guidance on the flagged language, and use the approved profile to launch the superintendent recruitment and application process.
