The board discussed stakeholder feedback regarding the search for a new executive director. Wendy summarized themes from leadership, staff, and parent input sessions, noting that all groups expressed a strong preference for an internal candidate familiar with the school’s culture and operations. Leadership team members and the Team Chair Council were most unified in this view.  They also emphasized that visibility in the school and presence in the building is critical to success in the role.

Sarah said she was surprised by how consistently staff voiced support for an internal candidate. She noted that while this input should carry weight in the board’s deliberations, the board’s responsibility remains to select the strongest possible candidate overall.  

Bill opened the discussion to board members not directly involved in the process. Amy asked whether there would be opportunities to incorporate the school’s mission statement or other guiding documents into the search process.

The board agreed to review the proposed process options in greater detail before making a final decision, and Bill reiterated the goal that any hiring process would align with Springfield Prep’s established hiring policies and procedures.

The committee reviewed three options for conducting the Executive Director hiring process: 

• Option A (Internal-Only): Open exclusively to current Springfield Prep leaders and staff, with no external posting.
• Option B (Internal-First, then External if Needed): Begin with an internal window, then expand externally if no strong internal candidate emerges.
• Option C (Retain a Search Firm): Engage an external firm to lead a regional search for both internal and external candidates.

Anne and Bill outlined the differences among the three pathways, noting that Option A offered speed and minimal cost, while Option C provided the broadest pool but carried higher cost and a longer timeline. Option B balanced both priorities by allowing the school to begin internally and pivot externally if necessary.

Shawna Wells described what each pathway would entail, explaining that many schools choose an internal-only process and then provide coaching or targeted professional development to strengthen the selected candidate. She also outlined the benefits, drawbacks, and costs associated with using a search firm.

The committee then discussed stakeholder feedback, which showed strong preference for an internal candidate who understands the school’s culture. LaShawna and Sarah highlighted that internal candidates already have years of performance evaluations, providing insight into their leadership strengths and areas for growth. Amy emphasized that internal candidates also bring visibility and trust within the school community.

The group discussed a decision between Options A and B. LaShawna, Sarah, and Amy expressed support for Option A, preferring a fully internal process. Anne and Bill spoke in favor of Option B, viewing it as a balanced approach that preserved flexibility if the right internal candidate did not emerge. Amy said she was increasingly persuaded by Option B, calling it a sign of good governance that would demonstrate transparency to staff and families.

Wendy reviewed the implications of Option B, including the impact of the upcoming holiday season on the timeline. She proposed a communications plan that would begin with a board briefing, followed by staff and family updates, and an internal posting period targeted for November. The process would extend into January to allow for a thorough and equitable review.

Amy asked whether the performance task could include aspects that measure emotional intelligence. Wendy confirmed that Springfield Prep’s standard hiring process includes a performance task designed to simulate the role in action and that this element could be adjusted to assess relational leadership skills.

After discussion, the committee agreed to move forward with Option B, beginning with an internal-first process while maintaining the flexibility to consider external candidates if needed. The committee will refine the detailed timeline and bring a formal recommendation to the board at an upcoming meeting.

Wendy reviewed recent edits to the Executive Director job description, highlighting the addition of language emphasizing visibility within the school and a deep understanding of Springfield Prep’s culture as key priorities for the role. She also noted that classroom teaching experience is strongly preferred, reflecting the school’s belief in the value of instructional experience, though it is not required.

Compensation information was added to the posting based on findings from the recent compensation study to ensure market competitiveness. Shawna Wells noted that staffing patterns and leadership responsibilities may need to be adjusted depending on the strengths and developmental areas of the selected candidate.

Amy outlined the next steps for the committee, including updating the board memo for review at the October 28 meeting and revising the accompanying presentation slides. She confirmed that she will take the lead on coordinating these updates and ensuring materials are ready for board review.