New superintendent coming to austin, and i'd be lying if i said i wasn't worried.

1. She's 39. Superintendent of St. Paul for only 3 years which made her 36 when she took over.. In D.C. as chief accountability officer before that. In TN and OH before that.
Doctorate from Harvard, Masters from Auburn, Bachelors from Tulane. The graduate degress in Ed would be a minimum of 3 years, but easily more if she did any kind of meaningful thesis.

2. How many years did she spend as a classroom teacher? That's worrisome.

3. How many administrative jobs has she had, and at the tender age of 39, doesn't it seem like she's leap frogging her way up to higher salaries without any kind of longevity to show for it?

4. General consensus on the web SEEMS to be that St. Paul is glad to be shut of her. Was her contract not renewed though? If not, that's worrisome. If it was and she's looking for greener pastures, that's equally worrisome.

5. Candidates names for the position were never revealed to the public here. Eventually we were told it was narrowed to 5 and then 3. Then they named her as the sole final candidate. What kind of crap is that?

6. I'm worried that the latino community was in an uproar over the old white male superintendent being replaced by the young black female candidate.

7. If i'm reading the scores right, the upward trend from the previous superintendent in St. Paul (Harvey) went down all three years she was there, and the acheivement gap widened. Not that I think that it's all on the superintendent's shoulders, but that is one of the major things she was hired to address in St. Paul, and it is of serious concern here, because it comes down to money and jobs.

*I understand that Superintendents are among the most demonized of public officials, and that they have an extremely difficult job, which probably leads to their unpopularity.

I remember hearing about the secrecy bit a while back and was flabbergasted. I don't know the finer points of FOI laws here in Texas; broadly speaking, in some cases they apply to personnel matters but almost exclusively for review/disciplinary issues and especially not for hiring a superintendent.

I covered at least a half dozen superintendent searches up in MI and in every case the half dozen or so semifinalists were named, brought in for public interviews and made available for parental sizing up before the selection was made. Not that that's a perfect setup either, but it sure as shit ain't the Pleasantville crap that goes on too often for my liking around here.

i think we're in for some crazy shee.

We're going through something very similar Phil, only the leading candidate was the subject of a criminal investigation at her next to last post.

Are Superintendents really that important? It seems like the one here just takes heat for budget issues. The test scores tend to be pretty good but stagnant. The last big issue was the closing of two relatively poor elementary schools. I never hear crap about Omaha, except for when the city gobbles up another school district.

I would have figured LooGAR to key on the graduate degree from Auburn. & to make some snide remark that she must have stripped/whored her way thru undergrad in New Orleans (Tulane).

Senator, you're slipping.

Whoa.

Yeah, vendor pressuring and running up restaurant and hotel bills on the school system tab. Of course here, DAT RACIAL.

i remember all the hype re: her age a few years back but i've heard hardly anything since. i'm not native to MN and have spent only a few years here in the TCs but i'm fairly certain this school district was in tatters when she arrived. i don't know how state education systems are guaged/rated but MN tends to land in the Top 5 most years, so 'tatters' might not really do SPs situation justice. i've not seen/heard anything about her short tenure but she must've done enough to keep the district out of the news and to snag a job in TX where - although that's not saying much. i lived in austin before moving up here and i still recall all of the talk of TX's terrible system (spec. austin) and the ridiculous tests kids are forced to take and how 'no child left behind' was plundering the system further down the shitter. i'm obviously only grazing the surface here and am admittedly ignorant to district issues at a whole - i just think the superintendent hire is the least of your worries right now.

As a fine arts teacher, superintendents can definitely have a large impact on my job. It's the first place at the school level that cuts get made, since we're not teaching a core subject like math, english, science, or history... those will always be safe because those are where the standardized tests occur.

No Child Left Behind is nationwide, and a total pile of crap.

SKINNER!!!

I don't know anything about her. I'm childless and I tend to ignore this stuff.

As for web comments about her--what's the source? Most local internets are filled with fringe crazies with hidden agendas. I wouldn't trust them.