Saturday, January 16, 2016

What’s The Point?

Shortly after the DESE Commissioner announced his recommendation that the Southbridge School District be placed in receivership the Southbridge School Committee's agenda to interview candidates for Superintendent appeared on the town's website.

One has to ask in all earnestness, what’s the point?

On January 12th the Worcester Telegram reported that George P. King Jr., the assistant superintendent of the Bolton-based Nashoba Regional School District, withdrew his candidacy for superintendent. 

That left us with three candidates for the position. Of these three only Richard D’Agostino comes close to filling the school committee’s desire for someone with three years as a superintendent. He served about two years as acting superintendent in Warwick, Rhode Island, and about a year as superintendent. Prior to that he had been Director of Special Education.

Neither of the other two candidates, Sheryl Stanton or Amy McKinstry, come close to fulfilling that stated goal.

Only two other districts in Massachusetts are currently operating under state receivership, Lawrence and Holyoke.

Clearly the addition of Southbridge to that list testifies to the dire straits in which the district finds itself.

Dealing with that problem calls for outstanding leadership. The current candidates do not offer a compelling case that they possess either the talent or experience to provide such.

There is also the issue of the leadership provided by the current school committee.

I’ll grant that they are an improvement over the prior situation. But not by much. As it now stands, only four of those on the board were elected to that position.

Two of those on the committee, arguably those who have been the most vocal, had long served on it prior to 2012.

They served on the committee while Dr. Dale Hanley was the Superintendent. When the time came to replace her in 2010 the school board dismissed the search committee and ended up selecting Eric Ely as the district’s head. That clearly marked the beginning of the descent into chaos. In many ways it was that action that led to the election of their now discredited successors. Current committee member’s claims that all was well prior to 2012 is clearly disingenuous.

All things considered the State has been extremely lenient in waiting for improvement in the district. After 12 years there is little reason to expect that anything will change substantively.

To proceed with current plans to select a superintendent on January 26th in light of pending action by the State is irresponsible. One has to wonder why, with all the uncertainty surrounding the current state of affairs, anyone would persist in being a candidate for such a position. Perhaps that very fact is testimony to their mediocrity.

In the case of Holyoke a superintendent was already in place. The State and the district reached an agreement to keep that individual on for a year with a contract as a consultant and a splitting of the associated costs.

In the case of Southbridge there is no such person in place. The district continued to pursue its plan despite a request from the DESE Commissioner to suspend its activities until a decision on receivership was reached. Now, despite the Commissioner’s recommendation for receivership, the district – specifically the school committee – persists in this effort.

And, one has to ask, toward what end?

I, for one, doubt that there is any possibility that the Board of Directors of the DESE will not approve the Commissioner’s request.

If that decision does not come until February 23rd will we then be burdened with a superintendent’s contract commencing on July 1 that may commit the community to additional costs? Will the superintendent-elect be confronted with a position that evaporates because said contract contains an escape clause?

And, even in the unlikely event that the Board decides not to impose receivership, is February too late to continue and/or reopen the search? 

I simply do not think that the current course charted by the school committee is in the best interests of the students or the community.


  1. The school committee is showing its arrogance at this point. Nobody believes that they can do anything that they haven’t done for the last twelve years. Lazo is on an ego trip trying to prove that he can fight the state and win. It’s time for him to stand down. If he truly cares about the welfare of the children in this town he’ll shut up and stop with all his nonsense about a team concept. The only team he cares about is one where he is the unchallenged captain.

  2. The last comment starts with this:

    “The school committee is showing its arrogance at this point. Nobody believes that they can do anything that they haven’t done for the last twelve years.”

    I must agree.
    12 years is a long time. In the business world, it is an eternity. If the town itself can not make progress in 12 years, then you must ask why? You must look for a way to break through the log jam and try something new. The State receivership brings this chance. The State will not be stuck in the same political games that have been going on here. They might have their own, but at least they will be new.

    My voice is asking the Superintendent search committee to hold up. Your list of candidates needs to include “none of the above”. As none of the above meet your requirements and your requirements should be much tougher, as it is.

    • If a corporation is in trouble and a change of leadership is needed, they will never go out and search for someone with no experience. They will look for that special person with 10 or 15 years experience or more and someone who has already “righted the ship” someplace else. Asking for a CEO or Superintendent with 3 years experience (or no experience at all), is asking for someone who is still learning (a rookie) not a true experienced professional
    • If a corporation is in trouble – they will not risk becoming a training ground for a new, inexperienced leader.
    • If a corporation is in trouble – they will not want to be only a resume builder, again.
    • If a corporation is in trouble – they will not put an artificial time limit on naming a name. They will continue to search for the right candidate. They will seek outside help in finding this person. The State of Massachusetts is saying they will help find this person. Why are we afraid to accept their help?
    • If the corporation has had 7 CEO’s (Superintendents) in 5 years and there are still major problems, then I would imagine that the Board of Directors would be up to their necks in class action law suits being brought against them by their shareholders for extreme incompetence. Here, I would consider the tax payers as the share holders.

    Instead of fighting the state, we should be embracing their offer. We have proven we can not do it. The reasons do not matter any more. We have a higher authority, the State of Massachusetts, willing to help.

    My voice is asking the Superintendent search committee to hold up and to work with the State of Massachusetts.

  3. When given responsibilities, the answer is not "give up" when faced with ambiguities. There is no downside risk to continue to perform the responsibilities with which you have been charged.

    To roll over and give up would be irresponsible

  4. Seriously, in what way has the Town Council and Town Managers performed better for this community than our School.Committee?

    Why should the State take over the Schools and not our Town government?

    If we are going to surreder our right to elect our School's leDership, let's save some coin and skiptown elections all together, and let the Commonwealth have at it.

    If we are going to allow them to run the schools only, when they fail, and they will, people will not blame the experts from afar. The teachers will be first, then it will be the Christuncil for not raising enough revnue. Or perhaps I have the order wrong, but let's keep it simple and save ourselves from at least one teo year cycle of blame by throwing out town government along with the school.committee so we can get this experiment with totalitarianism over with?


All comments subject to moderation. All commenters must use their own name or a screen name. No comments labelled as "Anonymous" will be published. To use your name or a screen name select "Name/URL" from the drop down menu. Insert you name in the "Name" space and leave the "URL" space blank.