Montgomery County School Board hears three firms’ plans to run superintendent search

The Montgomery County School Board on Monday heard hour-long presentations from three firms competing to run the district’s superintendent search and questioned each about recruitment strategy, confidentiality and how finalists’ records on equity would be vetted.

Kevin Castner and Dr. Wayne Harris of BWP & Associates told the board their tailored, four-step process emphasizes local knowledge and deep community engagement. “There’s no more important decision that you’ll make in selecting your superintendent,” Castner said, and the firm recommended a confidential search to attract a larger, higher-quality applicant pool. Dr. Harris added that “community input is critical” and described forums, surveys and a leadership profile approved by the board as central parts of BWP’s model.

The Berkeley Group’s Kelsey Wong and Dr. Scott Baker proposed a six-phased approach that begins with profile development and stakeholder engagement, proceeds through national recruitment and preliminary video interviews, and concludes with final interviews, contract negotiation and optional onboarding supports. “We are a public sector consulting firm based right here in Virginia,” Wong said, and Baker stressed the firm’s intent to be “a full-service partner” beyond the recruitment itself.

Barry Carroll of McFerson & Jacobson said his national recruitment network and active outreach are intended to bring “rock-star” candidates to the district. Carroll outlined a five-phase process with video screening, reference and background checks, an in-person finalist interview stage and a two-year placement guarantee: if a placed superintendent leaves within two years, the firm will re-run the search at no fee for professional services (expenses excepted).

Board members pressed all three firms on two recurring topics: confidentiality versus transparency, and how the firms would evaluate candidates’ track records serving historically marginalized communities. BWP told the board it typically expects an initial applicant pool of about 30–40 and would bring four to six finalists; the firm said it can provide rubrics and non‑name-specific summaries of its screening, and it conducts confidential reference calls with contacts who know the candidate.

Berkeley Group said candidate assessments such as DISC and emotional‑intelligence tools are available as optional add‑ons, and it emphasized looking for evidence in candidates’ past work that they have closed achievement gaps and supported all students. McFerson & Jacobson said it routinely does targeted outreach and deep reference checks and that hiring boards should prioritize documented evidence of what candidates have done, not only what they would do.

Before the presentations the board handled routine procedural business. The board voted unanimously to return to open session, to certify that matters discussed in the prior closed meeting were lawful, and to approve a motion described in the record as returning student aid to schools; each roll call recorded seven votes in favor.

The board did not choose a search firm that night. Chair Mr. Hudson said the firms’ materials would remain available for follow‑up and that the board intended to make a decision soon after allowing time for public review and questions. The board then moved into a separate closed session later in the evening to discuss purchasing matters.

What happens next: Board members will review proposals and follow up with firms on details such as the desired level of confidentiality, inclusion of finalist assessments and timeline adjustments; the firms said they are ready to begin stakeholder engagement and recruitment if selected.