First, let me thank Dr. Monroe for his service to the district.
I must now ask, why do we need to hire an expensive consulting firm to find a replacement? His replacement will only be around for 4-6 years, on average. Education is in such a state of flux due to Gov. Walker's sweeping changes, that the problems will become overwhelming. I predict that fewer young people will want to become teachers because there is not a lot of respect for teachers, and there is no union protection for them either. Due to the electronically speeded up workplace requiring workers to be connected to the office 24/7, families are making the schools take on more and more tasks that the family used to do themselves, without giving the necessary funding and time to do a good job. This is a prescription for burnout for everyone. Why not simply save the consultant fees and promote from within. They don't have to be the greatest, just the best available within the district, since they won't be around all that long before they run up against unsolvable problems and/or anger someone.

Mike...I too am a Nicolet alum. (class of 1959). Politics do play a part, as much as we would like to think otherwise. I've been in education for 34 years, and I speak as a realist. This country's attitude toward education/teachers/learning is at a serious crossroad. Please re-read my comments. It's no accident that educators are bailing out of education at unprecedented rates. Yes, there are some young people who might become teachers, but idealism can only carry you so far before the realities and burnout set in. Time will tell.

The role will determine the man needed. Limitations are built into the job. Education's problems are unsolvable because most people do not want to spend money or be inconvenienced in any way. My point is that, due to the nature and realities of the job, whoever is chosen by the needlessly expensive, in my opinion, consulting firm won't be around all that long. If the role were so "important", as you say, why do superintendents come and go from districts with such regularity? I feel we don't need the best man, only one that is adequate. You cannot talk meaningfully about education without talking about teachers. Politically, taking risks by being truly innovative, or telling a community the truth about what is needed, is political suicide. Most innovation in education comes from the bottom up...the teachers. Many have the same degrees the administrators have. As long as they were protected by a union, they could afford to bring up creative ideas without fear of losing their jobs. The union is gone, and so will be the creativity. How you can be so naive as to think that local politics aren't huge in villages is a mystery to me.

One example would be when a special education teacher, because of the requirements of the law, suggested a program for a disabled student that the school did not have. The law requires the district to send the child, at the district's expense, to the closest district that DOES offer the program. The teacher was told that if they included the recommendation in the child's Individualized Education Program (IEP), that they would be fired, or at least reprimanded for insubordination. They could definitely count on being given the worst conditions to teach in as a punishment. That child was entitled to an appropriate education, and the teacher had an obligation to point it out. Supervisors supervise. They have a vested interest in finding things wrong, even if there isn't anything wrong. If they didn't find things they say are wrong, there'd be no reason for them to come to work. Ergo, education is kept in a constant state of expensive flux. Phonics is probably the best way to teach reading, but teachers have been forced to try to teach reading in a myriad of ways that did not work as well. They ten get blamed for not doing a good job. Teachers, the front line people, often know the best ways to do things, and what is really needed, but they are ignored or threatened if they do come forward. A union would have provided protection to the teacher because a union represents a powerful bloc of people. A teacher alone is truly alone.

If a job is truly important, you don't set it up so that it is only a matter of time before it will become an impossibility to carry it out successfully. Under these conditions, it doesn't really matter if you get the very best person for the job. You just need "cannon fodder".

If the case you spelled out above is in fact true, then that is a shame. I realize there are difficulties in being a teacher, I have teachers in my family and friends who have been teachers. The situation you describe though doesn't exactly fit the bill for a "creative idea" being squashed, but rather a controlling superior who doesn't have the best interest of the children in mind. I understand that there are people like that, and it's sad that they get into places of influence in our schools.

We live in a challenging World, not just for educators, but really for the majority of people. To simply say that it's impossible to do this job successfully, and thus we should just hire some "ok" person to sit in the office until they decide to move on, wreaks of just giving up. There are people out there who can effectively do this type of job, and can manage the beaurocracy and politics and help to foster a great environment for the kids. A search firm can tailor the search to look for the type of person who has proven they can deal with financial constraints, can deal with tough situations, etc. I am as cynical as it gets, but that doesn't mean we should just give up and settle for "ok", especially when it comes to kids.

Mike...I agree with what you said about the kids, but I still disagree with you regarding hiring a consulting firm. It would be a waste of money. Thanks for the intelligent debate.