Superintendent Sinecure
I was speaking with a board director this week about the program placement policy and the director candidly acknowledged that the superintendent violated the policy in 2011 and the board (this was the previous board) allowed it because they saw their role as facilitating the superintendent and not as constrainting her. Enforcing policy would have been a constraint. In 2012 they couldn't enforce the policy because sh had already announced her intention to leave and they had no means of managing her. This board director flatly stated what everyone already knows: the board's only meaningful management tool over the superintendent is the threat of termination. They have nothing short of that.
They can't cut the superintendent's pay. They can't deny a bonus. The superintendent is at the top of the career ladder, so they can't deny a promotion. They can't demote the superintendent either. If they take responsibilities away from the superintendent or overrule the superintendent they will be accused of micro-managing. If they speak ill of the superintendent's job performance they will be in trouble for trashing "the district". They can't even damage the superintendent's prospects following their career at Seattle Public Schools.
Each of the last four SPS superintendents, none of whom did well here, went on to jobs elsewhere. Joseph Olchefske fostered a dysfunctional culture and lost track of $32 million and went on to a further career in
They can't cut the superintendent's pay. They can't deny a bonus. The superintendent is at the top of the career ladder, so they can't deny a promotion. They can't demote the superintendent either. If they take responsibilities away from the superintendent or overrule the superintendent they will be accused of micro-managing. If they speak ill of the superintendent's job performance they will be in trouble for trashing "the district". They can't even damage the superintendent's prospects following their career at Seattle Public Schools.
Each of the last four SPS superintendents, none of whom did well here, went on to jobs elsewhere. Joseph Olchefske fostered a dysfunctional culture and lost track of $32 million and went on to a further career in