Michael Thomas Redux

As discussed in the District 279 United group and amongst parents, there are a number of questions surrounding the hiring of Michael Thomas as a Junior High Principal.  Due to the timing of the hiring decision, it appears to some as though Michael Thomas advocated for a highly controversial Administration proposal, sold out his elementary school, and then was rewarded by being hired as the Junior High Principal.

Was this just a case of bad timing?  Or, did he play his political cards just right?

I spoke with Richard Melvin the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources for the District.  What follows is a summary of the situation based on Richard's comments:

After the former Junior High Principal resigned part-way through the year. The first decision was to either hire an Interim Principal or mount a full search immediately for a replacement.  If the District mounted a full applicants because few administrators are looking at switching positions or looking for new jobs part-way through the school year.  As a result, the administration made the decision to hire an interim principal and look for a new principal starting in the Winter and ending in the Spring.  This decision, made prior to the controversial proposal involving closing schools and redrawing boundaries, drove the ultimate schedule.  It appears to be unfortunate that the final decision landed where it did.

Here is an overview of what I understand to be the process:

•  Around January 30, a group of parents, teachers and staff built a leadership profile.  The profile contained over 4 pages of comments distilled down to three areas.  Those areas were very loosely defined as having teaching experience, having secondary school experience, and having experience with minorities.  This step is done each time a significant hiring decision is undertaken.  Most of the time, the participants come back wanting someone directly experienced at the particular level.
  
  
•  24 applicants applied by February 22. Michael Thomas submitted his application on the final date.
  
  
•  The 13 people were interviewed by System Leadership (stakeholders in the hiring decision).  These are preliminary interviews and ended by March 7, 2008.
  
  
•  Six candidates were interviewed by Kate Maguire and Richard Melvin using a behavioral based tool.  (Asking questions about how a candidate has previous handled difficult situation.  This interviewing technique has a greater statistical correlation to a successful candidate.  I personally use this interview methodology as well.)
  
  
•  Six of those candidates made it through and were interviewed by 16 Site Stakeholders.  The Site Stakeholders performed an advisory role.  They were not asked for a ranking, although they may have provided a ranking. [Actually they were confirmed to have NOT provided a ranking.]  Their primary function was to provide general feedback concerning each candidate as the candidates attributes related to the Leadership Profile written in January.  The District views this interview process as only a single snapshot in a photo album.  The District has considerably more information on each candidate and uses this feedback as one component.
  
  
•  3 candidates make it to the final round and are interviewed by the Cabinet.  The Cabinet is comprised of individuals selected by Superintendent Hintz.
  

That summarizes the process as I understand it from Richard.

As previously discussed on various email discussions and on this blog, it was believed that the Site Stakeholders had all of the information necessary for making the hiring decision and ranked the candidates. However, the District is indicating that the Site Stakeholders only had a portion of the information and that the decision was made based on all of the information, including candidate potential.

One source of mine confirmed that at least two of the parents involved in the process believed that Michael Thomas was a very distant third, at best.  However, he did make the cut into the final group.  There is antidotal evidence that I do not have time to verify that quite a few of the members of the staff at the Junior High are quite upset about the hiring decision.  (Email me if you can verify this.)

Did Michael Thomas sell out his school for a better Principal role?

The process as I understand it does not insure that he did not.  The process of selecting a Junior High Principal overlapped the discussion of a highly controversial proposal.

Is he the best person for the job?

Michael Thomas made it though all steps in the process.  The final step is impossible for us to evaluate.  After all, wouldn't you hire someone that supports your own controversial plans?  Sure.  We want people that believe in the same ideas that we have on our team.  However, it appears all too coincidental at times.

The bottom line is that we will never know for sure.  It is unfortunate that the process took place when it did.  Had it taken place earlier, then the community would have known where Michael Thomas stood long before the controversial proposal.