Board narrows superintendent search to two finalist firms after reviewing five proposals

The ISTD Board of Education agreed to invite two superintendent-search firms to present in a future work session after reviewing five proposals from national and regional firms.

Board members spent the bulk of the work session comparing firm proposals, references and evaluation rubrics to decide which firms should advance. Dr. Stout said he solicited proposals and asked for them to be submitted by June 20; four arrived by that date and a fifth arrived the afternoon of the meeting.

"Can we please get a proposal if at all possible by the 20th," Dr. Stout said he requested of firms when collecting submissions; he told the board that he had coordinated contacts and compiled the materials they discussed.

Why it matters: the board is preparing to recruit a new superintendent and members said they prioritized firms that offered deep community engagement, thorough reference checking and post-hire follow-up services. Several members said robust stakeholder outreach and the ability to include non-English speakers in engagement were important.

Board members used a recommended scoring rubric, which several said they augmented with their own criteria. "I thought the rubric was a great starting place," board member Denise said, and she added items including firm longevity, team diversity, timeline specificity and after-hire follow-up.

Several members said MSBA and the firm listed in the proposals as McFersonson/Jacobson rose to the top of their lists because of reference quality and community-engagement strategies; some members noted concerns about proposals that lacked references. One member said a Delaware-based firm (Zeal) did not provide references and was therefore less competitive.

Members discussed logistics and cost: some preferred limiting in-person presentations to two firms to avoid travel expenses, while others said video interviews could be offered as an alternative. The board discussed scheduling the firms to present at an August work session, or early September, so that the chosen firm could finalize a job posting by late August.

What happened next: board members said they had a consensus to invite McFersonson and MSBA to present at the next work session; members confirmed they could offer virtual presentations if travel costs are prohibitive. The board did not take a formal vote on hiring a firm during the meeting; the action agreed was to invite the two firms to present.

The meeting record shows the board amended the meeting agenda at the start to move the AMI presentation to the end of the meeting in order to allow more time for the superintendent-search discussion. The board then adjourned after completing the listed items.

Next steps: The board plans to host presentations from the two selected firms at a future work session and decide whether to advance one or more firms to a formal engagement with the district.