Will 1,695 district voices, new members trump U-46 habits?

Sheer numbers pretty much tell the story. When Pro-Act Search Inc. asked Elgin School District U-46 residents for input on the next superintendent, it didn't get apathy. It got an earful.

Nine community forums and 55 group interviews involved 375 people from the all over the U-46 community. Another 1,320 people responded to an open survey. In other words, a group largely convinced no one leading the district listens to anything they say roused itself anyway to express its anger with the superintendent who sucked the community dry for personal gain and the school board that abetted her. Did they have a sense of duty? Concern? Anger? Self-preservation? All of the above, probably.

"The situation that happened with the past superintendent put everyone on edge," said Nancy Noeske, a point woman for ProAct, hired by the district to conduct its search. Gee, no kidding.

Given I was one of the 375 who met formally with ProAct representatives at their request, I also met Noeske. She was occasionally taken aback by the details of past events and grateful for the long-term historical background she was provided. Best of all, there was no doubt she and her representatives were listening carefully.

That's more than I can say for the current school board, save its newest members. But Noeske was right to point out that the superintendent decision is about the future, not the past. And ProAct was as persistent in asking about the future as it was in trying to understand the past.

"Our largest response to a survey in 11 years was previously 1,000," said Noeske, in her presentation to the school board. "Thirteen-hundred-twenty responses is excellent for a community that stretches across three counties."

The participation of 375 invitees and the extemporaneous involvement of another 1,320 residents may indeed be excellent, or pathetic, depending on your perspective. Given the final person seated after the last board election tallied only 3,789 votes, the involvement of 1,695 would seem a fair cross section. They certainly provided a good gauge of the angst and anger of taxpayers who feel fleeced and teachers who feel like over-burdened cogs in a district where a lawsuit hangs like an ax over our heads and test scores are improving, but nothing to write home about.

Not surprisingly, all those issues showed up in survey results, along with communication at all levels. In naming the characteristics to be prized in the next superintendent, 76 percent of respondents said "a deep personal commitment to education." As opposed to a deep personal commitment to lining one's own pockets, is what I would read between those lines, especially since 61 percent also named fiscal responsibility as a must.

An ability to advocate for school funding was named by 64 percent, another response to feeling ripped off, but that came in behind the 68 percent who felt an ability to motivate teachers essential, a reflection of marginal morale. Respondents also said improving school safety, academic expectations and accountability, discipline, and class sizes were important.

Nothing too shocking there. The problem is that despite a thorough search and input from the community, the group picking the next superintendent remains the same one that let Neale run roughshod over taxpayers and got us into the lawsuit.

But given the input and two vocal new board members, maybe the right person will apply and get hired in spite of who is doing the hiring.