Woods Academy HOS departure?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is giving plenty of notice. Went to one school where the headmaster gave notice right before school ended which gave no time to look for a new headmaster and had to fill it with a temporary one.

That head of school who “gave notice” right before school ended was almost certainly fired by their board.

Best practice advance notice is 18 months, not 8 or 9. Nine months requires the board to scramble to hire a consultant, create a committee, and get community feedback before even starting to identify candidates and do initial interviews. The “best” head candidates are interviewing in the fall, so those candidates may be off the board by the time Woods is ready. Woods may be behind the curve here and may end up deciding to have an interim head for a year.

The Board could have known the end of the school year. The public announcement doesn't mean he just gave notice.

You talking about Woods now? It doesn’t matter when he gave notice from my standpoint. But the public announcement and start of the head search process are late as compared to best practices. And unless Woods just has a terrible board, there’s no reason they wouldn’t have started that process—which necessarily includes announcing the head’s departure—as soon as possible if they truly want a new head for July 2023, as opposed to interim.

Does anyone really care if there is an interim head for several months or even a year? This happens all the time at my company - people who give even lots of notice are replaced with the “acting” CFO or whatever until the new hire is finalized. Life goes on.

OP cares. Which is why they asked the question why the departure was announced now and not a year ago. Because a year ago would have been standard practice for an amicable departure.

It’s not “standard” practice. It’s one practice and giving slightly less notice does not signal problems. It is so DCUM to be like “Well if Maret does it this way, then that’s the BEST practice.”

https://www.headsearch.org/basics-search-process.html

It is fine if your school does not meet this timing. Many schools have searches in the spring or summer, often announcing the next head of school in the fall of the year that the outgoing head of school is leaving. Some also announce searches during the school year that the outgoing head is leaving, often moving through a quicker search to great results. None of these approaches are “wrong,” and schools have experienced success with all of them. The first approach just ensures the broadest applicant pool.

Schools may also consider the interim head of school option if the timing does not feel right for whatever reason, including if the school is larger or particularly complex, or if the board feels it needs additional time to gain community insights, revisit the school’s strategic direction, create space following a long-term head, etc. Many schools look within for an interim head of school, often to an upper-level administrator who has been with the school for some time. Others hire an external interim head of school, sometimes for up to two or three years, depending on the school’s needs.

PP here. I’m no fan of Maret and I thought it was very strange that they did their hiring in the spring as opposed to this fall, after Talbott announced when she did. And I also mentioned St Patrick’s which you conveniently ignored. I’m sure I could find plenty of other examples.

Here’s a quote from the same article, which you also conveniently ignored: “Schools looking to optimize their search process will often announce an opening in the fall or winter almost 18 months before the start date.” Sounds like a recognition of standard practice to me.

St. Patrick’s or insert-whatever-school-you-want, same point. It doesn’t sound like a standard practice to me. It sounds like the basic point that starting earlier gives you more time. There are a million other factors though that impact the timing.

Exactly. Including a less-than-amicable separation, or a board that doesn’t have its act together. Which brings us back to OP’s question…

Picking the two worst reasons out of a million is not a rationale supposition. If you have anything to back those guesses up, please share.

[Anonymous]

What’s the argument?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is giving plenty of notice. Went to one school where the headmaster gave notice right before school ended which gave no time to look for a new headmaster and had to fill it with a temporary one.

That head of school who “gave notice” right before school ended was almost certainly fired by their board.

Best practice advance notice is 18 months, not 8 or 9. Nine months requires the board to scramble to hire a consultant, create a committee, and get community feedback before even starting to identify candidates and do initial interviews. The “best” head candidates are interviewing in the fall, so those candidates may be off the board by the time Woods is ready. Woods may be behind the curve here and may end up deciding to have an interim head for a year.

The Board could have known the end of the school year. The public announcement doesn't mean he just gave notice.

You talking about Woods now? It doesn’t matter when he gave notice from my standpoint. But the public announcement and start of the head search process are late as compared to best practices. And unless Woods just has a terrible board, there’s no reason they wouldn’t have started that process—which necessarily includes announcing the head’s departure—as soon as possible if they truly want a new head for July 2023, as opposed to interim.

Does anyone really care if there is an interim head for several months or even a year? This happens all the time at my company - people who give even lots of notice are replaced with the “acting” CFO or whatever until the new hire is finalized. Life goes on.

OP cares. Which is why they asked the question why the departure was announced now and not a year ago. Because a year ago would have been standard practice for an amicable departure.

It’s not “standard” practice. It’s one practice and giving slightly less notice does not signal problems. It is so DCUM to be like “Well if Maret does it this way, then that’s the BEST practice.”

https://www.headsearch.org/basics-search-process.html

It is fine if your school does not meet this timing. Many schools have searches in the spring or summer, often announcing the next head of school in the fall of the year that the outgoing head of school is leaving. Some also announce searches during the school year that the outgoing head is leaving, often moving through a quicker search to great results. None of these approaches are “wrong,” and schools have experienced success with all of them. The first approach just ensures the broadest applicant pool.

Schools may also consider the interim head of school option if the timing does not feel right for whatever reason, including if the school is larger or particularly complex, or if the board feels it needs additional time to gain community insights, revisit the school’s strategic direction, create space following a long-term head, etc. Many schools look within for an interim head of school, often to an upper-level administrator who has been with the school for some time. Others hire an external interim head of school, sometimes for up to two or three years, depending on the school’s needs.

PP here. I’m no fan of Maret and I thought it was very strange that they did their hiring in the spring as opposed to this fall, after Talbott announced when she did. And I also mentioned St Patrick’s which you conveniently ignored. I’m sure I could find plenty of other examples.

Here’s a quote from the same article, which you also conveniently ignored: “Schools looking to optimize their search process will often announce an opening in the fall or winter almost 18 months before the start date.” Sounds like a recognition of standard practice to me.

St. Patrick’s or insert-whatever-school-you-want, same point. It doesn’t sound like a standard practice to me. It sounds like the basic point that starting earlier gives you more time. There are a million other factors though that impact the timing.

Exactly. Including a less-than-amicable separation, or a board that doesn’t have its act together. Which brings us back to OP’s question…

Picking the two worst reasons out of a million is not a rationale supposition. If you have anything to back those guesses up, please share.

Here’s OP’s question: “Is there more to the story new families should know about? I know not all transitions are negative but just curious why it was announced now and not a year ago.”

Do you have any information to share? Or do you just want to dissemble? I have been trying to get this discussion back on the right track because I think the question is a good one that I’m also interested in. Replies that just say “who cares?” or “what’s the problem?” or “why would the announcement have come earlier, I only give 2 weeks!” are not really helpful or responsive, as I have explained.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is giving plenty of notice. Went to one school where the headmaster gave notice right before school ended which gave no time to look for a new headmaster and had to fill it with a temporary one.

That head of school who “gave notice” right before school ended was almost certainly fired by their board.

Best practice advance notice is 18 months, not 8 or 9. Nine months requires the board to scramble to hire a consultant, create a committee, and get community feedback before even starting to identify candidates and do initial interviews. The “best” head candidates are interviewing in the fall, so those candidates may be off the board by the time Woods is ready. Woods may be behind the curve here and may end up deciding to have an interim head for a year.

The Board could have known the end of the school year. The public announcement doesn't mean he just gave notice.

You talking about Woods now? It doesn’t matter when he gave notice from my standpoint. But the public announcement and start of the head search process are late as compared to best practices. And unless Woods just has a terrible board, there’s no reason they wouldn’t have started that process—which necessarily includes announcing the head’s departure—as soon as possible if they truly want a new head for July 2023, as opposed to interim.

Does anyone really care if there is an interim head for several months or even a year? This happens all the time at my company - people who give even lots of notice are replaced with the “acting” CFO or whatever until the new hire is finalized. Life goes on.

OP cares. Which is why they asked the question why the departure was announced now and not a year ago. Because a year ago would have been standard practice for an amicable departure.

It’s not “standard” practice. It’s one practice and giving slightly less notice does not signal problems. It is so DCUM to be like “Well if Maret does it this way, then that’s the BEST practice.”

https://www.headsearch.org/basics-search-process.html

It is fine if your school does not meet this timing. Many schools have searches in the spring or summer, often announcing the next head of school in the fall of the year that the outgoing head of school is leaving. Some also announce searches during the school year that the outgoing head is leaving, often moving through a quicker search to great results. None of these approaches are “wrong,” and schools have experienced success with all of them. The first approach just ensures the broadest applicant pool.

Schools may also consider the interim head of school option if the timing does not feel right for whatever reason, including if the school is larger or particularly complex, or if the board feels it needs additional time to gain community insights, revisit the school’s strategic direction, create space following a long-term head, etc. Many schools look within for an interim head of school, often to an upper-level administrator who has been with the school for some time. Others hire an external interim head of school, sometimes for up to two or three years, depending on the school’s needs.

PP here. I’m no fan of Maret and I thought it was very strange that they did their hiring in the spring as opposed to this fall, after Talbott announced when she did. And I also mentioned St Patrick’s which you conveniently ignored. I’m sure I could find plenty of other examples.

Here’s a quote from the same article, which you also conveniently ignored: “Schools looking to optimize their search process will often announce an opening in the fall or winter almost 18 months before the start date.” Sounds like a recognition of standard practice to me.

St. Patrick’s or insert-whatever-school-you-want, same point. It doesn’t sound like a standard practice to me. It sounds like the basic point that starting earlier gives you more time. There are a million other factors though that impact the timing.

Exactly. Including a less-than-amicable separation, or a board that doesn’t have its act together. Which brings us back to OP’s question…

Picking the two worst reasons out of a million is not a rationale supposition. If you have anything to back those guesses up, please share.

Here’s OP’s question: “Is there more to the story new families should know about? I know not all transitions are negative but just curious why it was announced now and not a year ago.”

Do you have any information to share? Or do you just want to dissemble? I have been trying to get this discussion back on the right track because I think the question is a good one that I’m also interested in. Replies that just say “who cares?” or “what’s the problem?” or “why would the announcement have come earlier, I only give 2 weeks!” are not really helpful or responsive, as I have explained.

You’ve been insinuating that the timing itself is indicative of problems (because it’s not “best” or “standard” according to you), and replies have pushed back on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is giving plenty of notice. Went to one school where the headmaster gave notice right before school ended which gave no time to look for a new headmaster and had to fill it with a temporary one.

That head of school who “gave notice” right before school ended was almost certainly fired by their board.

Best practice advance notice is 18 months, not 8 or 9. Nine months requires the board to scramble to hire a consultant, create a committee, and get community feedback before even starting to identify candidates and do initial interviews. The “best” head candidates are interviewing in the fall, so those candidates may be off the board by the time Woods is ready. Woods may be behind the curve here and may end up deciding to have an interim head for a year.

The Board could have known the end of the school year. The public announcement doesn't mean he just gave notice.

You talking about Woods now? It doesn’t matter when he gave notice from my standpoint. But the public announcement and start of the head search process are late as compared to best practices. And unless Woods just has a terrible board, there’s no reason they wouldn’t have started that process—which necessarily includes announcing the head’s departure—as soon as possible if they truly want a new head for July 2023, as opposed to interim.

Does anyone really care if there is an interim head for several months or even a year? This happens all the time at my company - people who give even lots of notice are replaced with the “acting” CFO or whatever until the new hire is finalized. Life goes on.

OP cares. Which is why they asked the question why the departure was announced now and not a year ago. Because a year ago would have been standard practice for an amicable departure.

It’s not “standard” practice. It’s one practice and giving slightly less notice does not signal problems. It is so DCUM to be like “Well if Maret does it this way, then that’s the BEST practice.”

https://www.headsearch.org/basics-search-process.html

It is fine if your school does not meet this timing. Many schools have searches in the spring or summer, often announcing the next head of school in the fall of the year that the outgoing head of school is leaving. Some also announce searches during the school year that the outgoing head is leaving, often moving through a quicker search to great results. None of these approaches are “wrong,” and schools have experienced success with all of them. The first approach just ensures the broadest applicant pool.

Schools may also consider the interim head of school option if the timing does not feel right for whatever reason, including if the school is larger or particularly complex, or if the board feels it needs additional time to gain community insights, revisit the school’s strategic direction, create space following a long-term head, etc. Many schools look within for an interim head of school, often to an upper-level administrator who has been with the school for some time. Others hire an external interim head of school, sometimes for up to two or three years, depending on the school’s needs.

PP here. I’m no fan of Maret and I thought it was very strange that they did their hiring in the spring as opposed to this fall, after Talbott announced when she did. And I also mentioned St Patrick’s which you conveniently ignored. I’m sure I could find plenty of other examples.

Here’s a quote from the same article, which you also conveniently ignored: “Schools looking to optimize their search process will often announce an opening in the fall or winter almost 18 months before the start date.” Sounds like a recognition of standard practice to me.

St. Patrick’s or insert-whatever-school-you-want, same point. It doesn’t sound like a standard practice to me. It sounds like the basic point that starting earlier gives you more time. There are a million other factors though that impact the timing.

Exactly. Including a less-than-amicable separation, or a board that doesn’t have its act together. Which brings us back to OP’s question…

Picking the two worst reasons out of a million is not a rationale supposition. If you have anything to back those guesses up, please share.

Here’s OP’s question: “Is there more to the story new families should know about? I know not all transitions are negative but just curious why it was announced now and not a year ago.”

Do you have any information to share? Or do you just want to dissemble? I have been trying to get this discussion back on the right track because I think the question is a good one that I’m also interested in. Replies that just say “who cares?” or “what’s the problem?” or “why would the announcement have come earlier, I only give 2 weeks!” are not really helpful or responsive, as I have explained.

There’s nothing more to the story. But you are not happy with that answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is giving plenty of notice. Went to one school where the headmaster gave notice right before school ended which gave no time to look for a new headmaster and had to fill it with a temporary one.

That head of school who “gave notice” right before school ended was almost certainly fired by their board.

Best practice advance notice is 18 months, not 8 or 9. Nine months requires the board to scramble to hire a consultant, create a committee, and get community feedback before even starting to identify candidates and do initial interviews. The “best” head candidates are interviewing in the fall, so those candidates may be off the board by the time Woods is ready. Woods may be behind the curve here and may end up deciding to have an interim head for a year.

The Board could have known the end of the school year. The public announcement doesn't mean he just gave notice.

You talking about Woods now? It doesn’t matter when he gave notice from my standpoint. But the public announcement and start of the head search process are late as compared to best practices. And unless Woods just has a terrible board, there’s no reason they wouldn’t have started that process—which necessarily includes announcing the head’s departure—as soon as possible if they truly want a new head for July 2023, as opposed to interim.

Does anyone really care if there is an interim head for several months or even a year? This happens all the time at my company - people who give even lots of notice are replaced with the “acting” CFO or whatever until the new hire is finalized. Life goes on.

OP cares. Which is why they asked the question why the departure was announced now and not a year ago. Because a year ago would have been standard practice for an amicable departure.

It’s not “standard” practice. It’s one practice and giving slightly less notice does not signal problems. It is so DCUM to be like “Well if Maret does it this way, then that’s the BEST practice.”

https://www.headsearch.org/basics-search-process.html

It is fine if your school does not meet this timing. Many schools have searches in the spring or summer, often announcing the next head of school in the fall of the year that the outgoing head of school is leaving. Some also announce searches during the school year that the outgoing head is leaving, often moving through a quicker search to great results. None of these approaches are “wrong,” and schools have experienced success with all of them. The first approach just ensures the broadest applicant pool.

Schools may also consider the interim head of school option if the timing does not feel right for whatever reason, including if the school is larger or particularly complex, or if the board feels it needs additional time to gain community insights, revisit the school’s strategic direction, create space following a long-term head, etc. Many schools look within for an interim head of school, often to an upper-level administrator who has been with the school for some time. Others hire an external interim head of school, sometimes for up to two or three years, depending on the school’s needs.

PP here. I’m no fan of Maret and I thought it was very strange that they did their hiring in the spring as opposed to this fall, after Talbott announced when she did. And I also mentioned St Patrick’s which you conveniently ignored. I’m sure I could find plenty of other examples.

Here’s a quote from the same article, which you also conveniently ignored: “Schools looking to optimize their search process will often announce an opening in the fall or winter almost 18 months before the start date.” Sounds like a recognition of standard practice to me.

St. Patrick’s or insert-whatever-school-you-want, same point. It doesn’t sound like a standard practice to me. It sounds like the basic point that starting earlier gives you more time. There are a million other factors though that impact the timing.

Exactly. Including a less-than-amicable separation, or a board that doesn’t have its act together. Which brings us back to OP’s question…

Picking the two worst reasons out of a million is not a rationale supposition. If you have anything to back those guesses up, please share.

Here’s OP’s question: “Is there more to the story new families should know about? I know not all transitions are negative but just curious why it was announced now and not a year ago.”

Do you have any information to share? Or do you just want to dissemble? I have been trying to get this discussion back on the right track because I think the question is a good one that I’m also interested in. Replies that just say “who cares?” or “what’s the problem?” or “why would the announcement have come earlier, I only give 2 weeks!” are not really helpful or responsive, as I have explained.

You’ve been insinuating that the timing itself is indicative of problems (because it’s not “best” or “standard” according to you), and replies have pushed back on that.

That was the premise of OP’s question. Your own authority says that schools looking to “optimize their search process” would have announced last year. So, do you have any information about why Woods didn’t announce this last year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is giving plenty of notice. Went to one school where the headmaster gave notice right before school ended which gave no time to look for a new headmaster and had to fill it with a temporary one.

That head of school who “gave notice” right before school ended was almost certainly fired by their board.

Best practice advance notice is 18 months, not 8 or 9. Nine months requires the board to scramble to hire a consultant, create a committee, and get community feedback before even starting to identify candidates and do initial interviews. The “best” head candidates are interviewing in the fall, so those candidates may be off the board by the time Woods is ready. Woods may be behind the curve here and may end up deciding to have an interim head for a year.

The Board could have known the end of the school year. The public announcement doesn't mean he just gave notice.

You talking about Woods now? It doesn’t matter when he gave notice from my standpoint. But the public announcement and start of the head search process are late as compared to best practices. And unless Woods just has a terrible board, there’s no reason they wouldn’t have started that process—which necessarily includes announcing the head’s departure—as soon as possible if they truly want a new head for July 2023, as opposed to interim.

Does anyone really care if there is an interim head for several months or even a year? This happens all the time at my company - people who give even lots of notice are replaced with the “acting” CFO or whatever until the new hire is finalized. Life goes on.

OP cares. Which is why they asked the question why the departure was announced now and not a year ago. Because a year ago would have been standard practice for an amicable departure.

It’s not “standard” practice. It’s one practice and giving slightly less notice does not signal problems. It is so DCUM to be like “Well if Maret does it this way, then that’s the BEST practice.”

https://www.headsearch.org/basics-search-process.html

It is fine if your school does not meet this timing. Many schools have searches in the spring or summer, often announcing the next head of school in the fall of the year that the outgoing head of school is leaving. Some also announce searches during the school year that the outgoing head is leaving, often moving through a quicker search to great results. None of these approaches are “wrong,” and schools have experienced success with all of them. The first approach just ensures the broadest applicant pool.

Schools may also consider the interim head of school option if the timing does not feel right for whatever reason, including if the school is larger or particularly complex, or if the board feels it needs additional time to gain community insights, revisit the school’s strategic direction, create space following a long-term head, etc. Many schools look within for an interim head of school, often to an upper-level administrator who has been with the school for some time. Others hire an external interim head of school, sometimes for up to two or three years, depending on the school’s needs.

PP here. I’m no fan of Maret and I thought it was very strange that they did their hiring in the spring as opposed to this fall, after Talbott announced when she did. And I also mentioned St Patrick’s which you conveniently ignored. I’m sure I could find plenty of other examples.

Here’s a quote from the same article, which you also conveniently ignored: “Schools looking to optimize their search process will often announce an opening in the fall or winter almost 18 months before the start date.” Sounds like a recognition of standard practice to me.

St. Patrick’s or insert-whatever-school-you-want, same point. It doesn’t sound like a standard practice to me. It sounds like the basic point that starting earlier gives you more time. There are a million other factors though that impact the timing.

Exactly. Including a less-than-amicable separation, or a board that doesn’t have its act together. Which brings us back to OP’s question…

Picking the two worst reasons out of a million is not a rationale supposition. If you have anything to back those guesses up, please share.

Here’s OP’s question: “Is there more to the story new families should know about? I know not all transitions are negative but just curious why it was announced now and not a year ago.”

Do you have any information to share? Or do you just want to dissemble? I have been trying to get this discussion back on the right track because I think the question is a good one that I’m also interested in. Replies that just say “who cares?” or “what’s the problem?” or “why would the announcement have come earlier, I only give 2 weeks!” are not really helpful or responsive, as I have explained.

You’ve been insinuating that the timing itself is indicative of problems (because it’s not “best” or “standard” according to you), and replies have pushed back on that.

That was the premise of OP’s question. Your own authority says that schools looking to “optimize their search process” would have announced last year. So, do you have any information about why Woods didn’t announce this last year?

Why don’t you call the school and ask?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is giving plenty of notice. Went to one school where the headmaster gave notice right before school ended which gave no time to look for a new headmaster and had to fill it with a temporary one.

That head of school who “gave notice” right before school ended was almost certainly fired by their board.

Best practice advance notice is 18 months, not 8 or 9. Nine months requires the board to scramble to hire a consultant, create a committee, and get community feedback before even starting to identify candidates and do initial interviews. The “best” head candidates are interviewing in the fall, so those candidates may be off the board by the time Woods is ready. Woods may be behind the curve here and may end up deciding to have an interim head for a year.

The Board could have known the end of the school year. The public announcement doesn't mean he just gave notice.

You talking about Woods now? It doesn’t matter when he gave notice from my standpoint. But the public announcement and start of the head search process are late as compared to best practices. And unless Woods just has a terrible board, there’s no reason they wouldn’t have started that process—which necessarily includes announcing the head’s departure—as soon as possible if they truly want a new head for July 2023, as opposed to interim.

Yes, referring to Woods. Often times the public is notified well after someone in leadership has given notice. The point is no one really knows except a few involved when they actually started the search.

A succession plan could've already been in place. If interested, just visit the school and see how you feel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is giving plenty of notice. Went to one school where the headmaster gave notice right before school ended which gave no time to look for a new headmaster and had to fill it with a temporary one.

That head of school who “gave notice” right before school ended was almost certainly fired by their board.

Best practice advance notice is 18 months, not 8 or 9. Nine months requires the board to scramble to hire a consultant, create a committee, and get community feedback before even starting to identify candidates and do initial interviews. The “best” head candidates are interviewing in the fall, so those candidates may be off the board by the time Woods is ready. Woods may be behind the curve here and may end up deciding to have an interim head for a year.

The Board could have known the end of the school year. The public announcement doesn't mean he just gave notice.

You talking about Woods now? It doesn’t matter when he gave notice from my standpoint. But the public announcement and start of the head search process are late as compared to best practices. And unless Woods just has a terrible board, there’s no reason they wouldn’t have started that process—which necessarily includes announcing the head’s departure—as soon as possible if they truly want a new head for July 2023, as opposed to interim.

Does anyone really care if there is an interim head for several months or even a year? This happens all the time at my company - people who give even lots of notice are replaced with the “acting” CFO or whatever until the new hire is finalized. Life goes on.

OP cares. Which is why they asked the question why the departure was announced now and not a year ago. Because a year ago would have been standard practice for an amicable departure.

It’s not “standard” practice. It’s one practice and giving slightly less notice does not signal problems. It is so DCUM to be like “Well if Maret does it this way, then that’s the BEST practice.”

https://www.headsearch.org/basics-search-process.html

It is fine if your school does not meet this timing. Many schools have searches in the spring or summer, often announcing the next head of school in the fall of the year that the outgoing head of school is leaving. Some also announce searches during the school year that the outgoing head is leaving, often moving through a quicker search to great results. None of these approaches are “wrong,” and schools have experienced success with all of them. The first approach just ensures the broadest applicant pool.

Schools may also consider the interim head of school option if the timing does not feel right for whatever reason, including if the school is larger or particularly complex, or if the board feels it needs additional time to gain community insights, revisit the school’s strategic direction, create space following a long-term head, etc. Many schools look within for an interim head of school, often to an upper-level administrator who has been with the school for some time. Others hire an external interim head of school, sometimes for up to two or three years, depending on the school’s needs.

PP here. I’m no fan of Maret and I thought it was very strange that they did their hiring in the spring as opposed to this fall, after Talbott announced when she did. And I also mentioned St Patrick’s which you conveniently ignored. I’m sure I could find plenty of other examples.

Here’s a quote from the same article, which you also conveniently ignored: “Schools looking to optimize their search process will often announce an opening in the fall or winter almost 18 months before the start date.” Sounds like a recognition of standard practice to me.

St. Patrick’s or insert-whatever-school-you-want, same point. It doesn’t sound like a standard practice to me. It sounds like the basic point that starting earlier gives you more time. There are a million other factors though that impact the timing.

Exactly. Including a less-than-amicable separation, or a board that doesn’t have its act together. Which brings us back to OP’s question…

Picking the two worst reasons out of a million is not a rationale supposition. If you have anything to back those guesses up, please share.

Here’s OP’s question: “Is there more to the story new families should know about? I know not all transitions are negative but just curious why it was announced now and not a year ago.”

Do you have any information to share? Or do you just want to dissemble? I have been trying to get this discussion back on the right track because I think the question is a good one that I’m also interested in. Replies that just say “who cares?” or “what’s the problem?” or “why would the announcement have come earlier, I only give 2 weeks!” are not really helpful or responsive, as I have explained.

You’ve been insinuating that the timing itself is indicative of problems (because it’s not “best” or “standard” according to you), and replies have pushed back on that.

That was the premise of OP’s question. Your own authority says that schools looking to “optimize their search process” would have announced last year. So, do you have any information about why Woods didn’t announce this last year?

Why don’t you call the school and ask?

Funny. More dissembling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is giving plenty of notice. Went to one school where the headmaster gave notice right before school ended which gave no time to look for a new headmaster and had to fill it with a temporary one.

That head of school who “gave notice” right before school ended was almost certainly fired by their board.

Best practice advance notice is 18 months, not 8 or 9. Nine months requires the board to scramble to hire a consultant, create a committee, and get community feedback before even starting to identify candidates and do initial interviews. The “best” head candidates are interviewing in the fall, so those candidates may be off the board by the time Woods is ready. Woods may be behind the curve here and may end up deciding to have an interim head for a year.

The Board could have known the end of the school year. The public announcement doesn't mean he just gave notice.

You talking about Woods now? It doesn’t matter when he gave notice from my standpoint. But the public announcement and start of the head search process are late as compared to best practices. And unless Woods just has a terrible board, there’s no reason they wouldn’t have started that process—which necessarily includes announcing the head’s departure—as soon as possible if they truly want a new head for July 2023, as opposed to interim.

Does anyone really care if there is an interim head for several months or even a year? This happens all the time at my company - people who give even lots of notice are replaced with the “acting” CFO or whatever until the new hire is finalized. Life goes on.

OP cares. Which is why they asked the question why the departure was announced now and not a year ago. Because a year ago would have been standard practice for an amicable departure.

It’s not “standard” practice. It’s one practice and giving slightly less notice does not signal problems. It is so DCUM to be like “Well if Maret does it this way, then that’s the BEST practice.”

https://www.headsearch.org/basics-search-process.html

It is fine if your school does not meet this timing. Many schools have searches in the spring or summer, often announcing the next head of school in the fall of the year that the outgoing head of school is leaving. Some also announce searches during the school year that the outgoing head is leaving, often moving through a quicker search to great results. None of these approaches are “wrong,” and schools have experienced success with all of them. The first approach just ensures the broadest applicant pool.

Schools may also consider the interim head of school option if the timing does not feel right for whatever reason, including if the school is larger or particularly complex, or if the board feels it needs additional time to gain community insights, revisit the school’s strategic direction, create space following a long-term head, etc. Many schools look within for an interim head of school, often to an upper-level administrator who has been with the school for some time. Others hire an external interim head of school, sometimes for up to two or three years, depending on the school’s needs.

PP here. I’m no fan of Maret and I thought it was very strange that they did their hiring in the spring as opposed to this fall, after Talbott announced when she did. And I also mentioned St Patrick’s which you conveniently ignored. I’m sure I could find plenty of other examples.

Here’s a quote from the same article, which you also conveniently ignored: “Schools looking to optimize their search process will often announce an opening in the fall or winter almost 18 months before the start date.” Sounds like a recognition of standard practice to me.

St. Patrick’s or insert-whatever-school-you-want, same point. It doesn’t sound like a standard practice to me. It sounds like the basic point that starting earlier gives you more time. There are a million other factors though that impact the timing.

Exactly. Including a less-than-amicable separation, or a board that doesn’t have its act together. Which brings us back to OP’s question…

Picking the two worst reasons out of a million is not a rationale supposition. If you have anything to back those guesses up, please share.

Here’s OP’s question: “Is there more to the story new families should know about? I know not all transitions are negative but just curious why it was announced now and not a year ago.”

Do you have any information to share? Or do you just want to dissemble? I have been trying to get this discussion back on the right track because I think the question is a good one that I’m also interested in. Replies that just say “who cares?” or “what’s the problem?” or “why would the announcement have come earlier, I only give 2 weeks!” are not really helpful or responsive, as I have explained.

You’ve been insinuating that the timing itself is indicative of problems (because it’s not “best” or “standard” according to you), and replies have pushed back on that.

That was the premise of OP’s question. Your own authority says that schools looking to “optimize their search process” would have announced last year. So, do you have any information about why Woods didn’t announce this last year?

Why don’t you call the school and ask?

Funny. More dissembling.

That’s not dissembling. Actual Woods parents have already responded on this thread. If you don’t believe them, then call and ask for more info.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is giving plenty of notice. Went to one school where the headmaster gave notice right before school ended which gave no time to look for a new headmaster and had to fill it with a temporary one.

That head of school who “gave notice” right before school ended was almost certainly fired by their board.

Best practice advance notice is 18 months, not 8 or 9. Nine months requires the board to scramble to hire a consultant, create a committee, and get community feedback before even starting to identify candidates and do initial interviews. The “best” head candidates are interviewing in the fall, so those candidates may be off the board by the time Woods is ready. Woods may be behind the curve here and may end up deciding to have an interim head for a year.

The Board could have known the end of the school year. The public announcement doesn't mean he just gave notice.

You talking about Woods now? It doesn’t matter when he gave notice from my standpoint. But the public announcement and start of the head search process are late as compared to best practices. And unless Woods just has a terrible board, there’s no reason they wouldn’t have started that process—which necessarily includes announcing the head’s departure—as soon as possible if they truly want a new head for July 2023, as opposed to interim.

Does anyone really care if there is an interim head for several months or even a year? This happens all the time at my company - people who give even lots of notice are replaced with the “acting” CFO or whatever until the new hire is finalized. Life goes on.

OP cares. Which is why they asked the question why the departure was announced now and not a year ago. Because a year ago would have been standard practice for an amicable departure.

It’s not “standard” practice. It’s one practice and giving slightly less notice does not signal problems. It is so DCUM to be like “Well if Maret does it this way, then that’s the BEST practice.”

https://www.headsearch.org/basics-search-process.html

It is fine if your school does not meet this timing. Many schools have searches in the spring or summer, often announcing the next head of school in the fall of the year that the outgoing head of school is leaving. Some also announce searches during the school year that the outgoing head is leaving, often moving through a quicker search to great results. None of these approaches are “wrong,” and schools have experienced success with all of them. The first approach just ensures the broadest applicant pool.

Schools may also consider the interim head of school option if the timing does not feel right for whatever reason, including if the school is larger or particularly complex, or if the board feels it needs additional time to gain community insights, revisit the school’s strategic direction, create space following a long-term head, etc. Many schools look within for an interim head of school, often to an upper-level administrator who has been with the school for some time. Others hire an external interim head of school, sometimes for up to two or three years, depending on the school’s needs.

PP here. I’m no fan of Maret and I thought it was very strange that they did their hiring in the spring as opposed to this fall, after Talbott announced when she did. And I also mentioned St Patrick’s which you conveniently ignored. I’m sure I could find plenty of other examples.

Here’s a quote from the same article, which you also conveniently ignored: “Schools looking to optimize their search process will often announce an opening in the fall or winter almost 18 months before the start date.” Sounds like a recognition of standard practice to me.

St. Patrick’s or insert-whatever-school-you-want, same point. It doesn’t sound like a standard practice to me. It sounds like the basic point that starting earlier gives you more time. There are a million other factors though that impact the timing.

Exactly. Including a less-than-amicable separation, or a board that doesn’t have its act together. Which brings us back to OP’s question…

Picking the two worst reasons out of a million is not a rationale supposition. If you have anything to back those guesses up, please share.

Here’s OP’s question: “Is there more to the story new families should know about? I know not all transitions are negative but just curious why it was announced now and not a year ago.”

Do you have any information to share? Or do you just want to dissemble? I have been trying to get this discussion back on the right track because I think the question is a good one that I’m also interested in. Replies that just say “who cares?” or “what’s the problem?” or “why would the announcement have come earlier, I only give 2 weeks!” are not really helpful or responsive, as I have explained.

You’ve been insinuating that the timing itself is indicative of problems (because it’s not “best” or “standard” according to you), and replies have pushed back on that.

That was the premise of OP’s question. Your own authority says that schools looking to “optimize their search process” would have announced last year. So, do you have any information about why Woods didn’t announce this last year?

Why don’t you call the school and ask?

Funny. More dissembling.

No, if you want an answer, call the school. You want there to be some sort of scandalous situation and are unhappy with not getting an answer to meet that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is giving plenty of notice. Went to one school where the headmaster gave notice right before school ended which gave no time to look for a new headmaster and had to fill it with a temporary one.

That head of school who “gave notice” right before school ended was almost certainly fired by their board.

Best practice advance notice is 18 months, not 8 or 9. Nine months requires the board to scramble to hire a consultant, create a committee, and get community feedback before even starting to identify candidates and do initial interviews. The “best” head candidates are interviewing in the fall, so those candidates may be off the board by the time Woods is ready. Woods may be behind the curve here and may end up deciding to have an interim head for a year.

The Board could have known the end of the school year. The public announcement doesn't mean he just gave notice.

You talking about Woods now? It doesn’t matter when he gave notice from my standpoint. But the public announcement and start of the head search process are late as compared to best practices. And unless Woods just has a terrible board, there’s no reason they wouldn’t have started that process—which necessarily includes announcing the head’s departure—as soon as possible if they truly want a new head for July 2023, as opposed to interim.

Does anyone really care if there is an interim head for several months or even a year? This happens all the time at my company - people who give even lots of notice are replaced with the “acting” CFO or whatever until the new hire is finalized. Life goes on.

OP cares. Which is why they asked the question why the departure was announced now and not a year ago. Because a year ago would have been standard practice for an amicable departure.

It’s not “standard” practice. It’s one practice and giving slightly less notice does not signal problems. It is so DCUM to be like “Well if Maret does it this way, then that’s the BEST practice.”

https://www.headsearch.org/basics-search-process.html

It is fine if your school does not meet this timing. Many schools have searches in the spring or summer, often announcing the next head of school in the fall of the year that the outgoing head of school is leaving. Some also announce searches during the school year that the outgoing head is leaving, often moving through a quicker search to great results. None of these approaches are “wrong,” and schools have experienced success with all of them. The first approach just ensures the broadest applicant pool.

Schools may also consider the interim head of school option if the timing does not feel right for whatever reason, including if the school is larger or particularly complex, or if the board feels it needs additional time to gain community insights, revisit the school’s strategic direction, create space following a long-term head, etc. Many schools look within for an interim head of school, often to an upper-level administrator who has been with the school for some time. Others hire an external interim head of school, sometimes for up to two or three years, depending on the school’s needs.

PP here. I’m no fan of Maret and I thought it was very strange that they did their hiring in the spring as opposed to this fall, after Talbott announced when she did. And I also mentioned St Patrick’s which you conveniently ignored. I’m sure I could find plenty of other examples.

Here’s a quote from the same article, which you also conveniently ignored: “Schools looking to optimize their search process will often announce an opening in the fall or winter almost 18 months before the start date.” Sounds like a recognition of standard practice to me.

St. Patrick’s or insert-whatever-school-you-want, same point. It doesn’t sound like a standard practice to me. It sounds like the basic point that starting earlier gives you more time. There are a million other factors though that impact the timing.

Exactly. Including a less-than-amicable separation, or a board that doesn’t have its act together. Which brings us back to OP’s question…

Picking the two worst reasons out of a million is not a rationale supposition. If you have anything to back those guesses up, please share.

Here’s OP’s question: “Is there more to the story new families should know about? I know not all transitions are negative but just curious why it was announced now and not a year ago.”

Do you have any information to share? Or do you just want to dissemble? I have been trying to get this discussion back on the right track because I think the question is a good one that I’m also interested in. Replies that just say “who cares?” or “what’s the problem?” or “why would the announcement have come earlier, I only give 2 weeks!” are not really helpful or responsive, as I have explained.

You’ve been insinuating that the timing itself is indicative of problems (because it’s not “best” or “standard” according to you), and replies have pushed back on that.

That was the premise of OP’s question. Your own authority says that schools looking to “optimize their search process” would have announced last year. So, do you have any information about why Woods didn’t announce this last year?

Why don’t you call the school and ask?

Funny. More dissembling.

It’s been answer, you just don’t like the answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is giving plenty of notice. Went to one school where the headmaster gave notice right before school ended which gave no time to look for a new headmaster and had to fill it with a temporary one.

That head of school who “gave notice” right before school ended was almost certainly fired by their board.

Best practice advance notice is 18 months, not 8 or 9. Nine months requires the board to scramble to hire a consultant, create a committee, and get community feedback before even starting to identify candidates and do initial interviews. The “best” head candidates are interviewing in the fall, so those candidates may be off the board by the time Woods is ready. Woods may be behind the curve here and may end up deciding to have an interim head for a year.

The Board could have known the end of the school year. The public announcement doesn't mean he just gave notice.

You talking about Woods now? It doesn’t matter when he gave notice from my standpoint. But the public announcement and start of the head search process are late as compared to best practices. And unless Woods just has a terrible board, there’s no reason they wouldn’t have started that process—which necessarily includes announcing the head’s departure—as soon as possible if they truly want a new head for July 2023, as opposed to interim.

Does anyone really care if there is an interim head for several months or even a year? This happens all the time at my company - people who give even lots of notice are replaced with the “acting” CFO or whatever until the new hire is finalized. Life goes on.

OP cares. Which is why they asked the question why the departure was announced now and not a year ago. Because a year ago would have been standard practice for an amicable departure.

It’s not “standard” practice. It’s one practice and giving slightly less notice does not signal problems. It is so DCUM to be like “Well if Maret does it this way, then that’s the BEST practice.”

https://www.headsearch.org/basics-search-process.html

It is fine if your school does not meet this timing. Many schools have searches in the spring or summer, often announcing the next head of school in the fall of the year that the outgoing head of school is leaving. Some also announce searches during the school year that the outgoing head is leaving, often moving through a quicker search to great results. None of these approaches are “wrong,” and schools have experienced success with all of them. The first approach just ensures the broadest applicant pool.

Schools may also consider the interim head of school option if the timing does not feel right for whatever reason, including if the school is larger or particularly complex, or if the board feels it needs additional time to gain community insights, revisit the school’s strategic direction, create space following a long-term head, etc. Many schools look within for an interim head of school, often to an upper-level administrator who has been with the school for some time. Others hire an external interim head of school, sometimes for up to two or three years, depending on the school’s needs.

PP here. I’m no fan of Maret and I thought it was very strange that they did their hiring in the spring as opposed to this fall, after Talbott announced when she did. And I also mentioned St Patrick’s which you conveniently ignored. I’m sure I could find plenty of other examples.

Here’s a quote from the same article, which you also conveniently ignored: “Schools looking to optimize their search process will often announce an opening in the fall or winter almost 18 months before the start date.” Sounds like a recognition of standard practice to me.

St. Patrick’s or insert-whatever-school-you-want, same point. It doesn’t sound like a standard practice to me. It sounds like the basic point that starting earlier gives you more time. There are a million other factors though that impact the timing.

Exactly. Including a less-than-amicable separation, or a board that doesn’t have its act together. Which brings us back to OP’s question…

Picking the two worst reasons out of a million is not a rationale supposition. If you have anything to back those guesses up, please share.

Here’s OP’s question: “Is there more to the story new families should know about? I know not all transitions are negative but just curious why it was announced now and not a year ago.”

Do you have any information to share? Or do you just want to dissemble? I have been trying to get this discussion back on the right track because I think the question is a good one that I’m also interested in. Replies that just say “who cares?” or “what’s the problem?” or “why would the announcement have come earlier, I only give 2 weeks!” are not really helpful or responsive, as I have explained.

You’ve been insinuating that the timing itself is indicative of problems (because it’s not “best” or “standard” according to you), and replies have pushed back on that.

That was the premise of OP’s question. Your own authority says that schools looking to “optimize their search process” would have announced last year. So, do you have any information about why Woods didn’t announce this last year?

The “authority” quote that you cherry-picked was ““Schools looking to optimize their search process will often announce an opening in the fall or winter almost 18 months before the start date.” Often is not always. And the same authority discussed alternative approaches. Get a different hobby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is giving plenty of notice. Went to one school where the headmaster gave notice right before school ended which gave no time to look for a new headmaster and had to fill it with a temporary one.

That head of school who “gave notice” right before school ended was almost certainly fired by their board.

Best practice advance notice is 18 months, not 8 or 9. Nine months requires the board to scramble to hire a consultant, create a committee, and get community feedback before even starting to identify candidates and do initial interviews. The “best” head candidates are interviewing in the fall, so those candidates may be off the board by the time Woods is ready. Woods may be behind the curve here and may end up deciding to have an interim head for a year.

The Board could have known the end of the school year. The public announcement doesn't mean he just gave notice.

You talking about Woods now? It doesn’t matter when he gave notice from my standpoint. But the public announcement and start of the head search process are late as compared to best practices. And unless Woods just has a terrible board, there’s no reason they wouldn’t have started that process—which necessarily includes announcing the head’s departure—as soon as possible if they truly want a new head for July 2023, as opposed to interim.

Does anyone really care if there is an interim head for several months or even a year? This happens all the time at my company - people who give even lots of notice are replaced with the “acting” CFO or whatever until the new hire is finalized. Life goes on.

OP cares. Which is why they asked the question why the departure was announced now and not a year ago. Because a year ago would have been standard practice for an amicable departure.

It’s not “standard” practice. It’s one practice and giving slightly less notice does not signal problems. It is so DCUM to be like “Well if Maret does it this way, then that’s the BEST practice.”

https://www.headsearch.org/basics-search-process.html

It is fine if your school does not meet this timing. Many schools have searches in the spring or summer, often announcing the next head of school in the fall of the year that the outgoing head of school is leaving. Some also announce searches during the school year that the outgoing head is leaving, often moving through a quicker search to great results. None of these approaches are “wrong,” and schools have experienced success with all of them. The first approach just ensures the broadest applicant pool.

Schools may also consider the interim head of school option if the timing does not feel right for whatever reason, including if the school is larger or particularly complex, or if the board feels it needs additional time to gain community insights, revisit the school’s strategic direction, create space following a long-term head, etc. Many schools look within for an interim head of school, often to an upper-level administrator who has been with the school for some time. Others hire an external interim head of school, sometimes for up to two or three years, depending on the school’s needs.

PP here. I’m no fan of Maret and I thought it was very strange that they did their hiring in the spring as opposed to this fall, after Talbott announced when she did. And I also mentioned St Patrick’s which you conveniently ignored. I’m sure I could find plenty of other examples.

Here’s a quote from the same article, which you also conveniently ignored: “Schools looking to optimize their search process will often announce an opening in the fall or winter almost 18 months before the start date.” Sounds like a recognition of standard practice to me.

St. Patrick’s or insert-whatever-school-you-want, same point. It doesn’t sound like a standard practice to me. It sounds like the basic point that starting earlier gives you more time. There are a million other factors though that impact the timing.

Exactly. Including a less-than-amicable separation, or a board that doesn’t have its act together. Which brings us back to OP’s question…

Picking the two worst reasons out of a million is not a rationale supposition. If you have anything to back those guesses up, please share.

Here’s OP’s question: “Is there more to the story new families should know about? I know not all transitions are negative but just curious why it was announced now and not a year ago.”

Do you have any information to share? Or do you just want to dissemble? I have been trying to get this discussion back on the right track because I think the question is a good one that I’m also interested in. Replies that just say “who cares?” or “what’s the problem?” or “why would the announcement have come earlier, I only give 2 weeks!” are not really helpful or responsive, as I have explained.

You’ve been insinuating that the timing itself is indicative of problems (because it’s not “best” or “standard” according to you), and replies have pushed back on that.

That was the premise of OP’s question. Your own authority says that schools looking to “optimize their search process” would have announced last year. So, do you have any information about why Woods didn’t announce this last year?

Why don’t you call the school and ask?

Funny. More dissembling.

It’s been answer, you just don’t like the answer.

Good luck to the Woods board in hiring a new head from the dregs of this year’s crop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is giving plenty of notice. Went to one school where the headmaster gave notice right before school ended which gave no time to look for a new headmaster and had to fill it with a temporary one.

That head of school who “gave notice” right before school ended was almost certainly fired by their board.

Best practice advance notice is 18 months, not 8 or 9. Nine months requires the board to scramble to hire a consultant, create a committee, and get community feedback before even starting to identify candidates and do initial interviews. The “best” head candidates are interviewing in the fall, so those candidates may be off the board by the time Woods is ready. Woods may be behind the curve here and may end up deciding to have an interim head for a year.

The Board could have known the end of the school year. The public announcement doesn't mean he just gave notice.

You talking about Woods now? It doesn’t matter when he gave notice from my standpoint. But the public announcement and start of the head search process are late as compared to best practices. And unless Woods just has a terrible board, there’s no reason they wouldn’t have started that process—which necessarily includes announcing the head’s departure—as soon as possible if they truly want a new head for July 2023, as opposed to interim.

Does anyone really care if there is an interim head for several months or even a year? This happens all the time at my company - people who give even lots of notice are replaced with the “acting” CFO or whatever until the new hire is finalized. Life goes on.

OP cares. Which is why they asked the question why the departure was announced now and not a year ago. Because a year ago would have been standard practice for an amicable departure.

It’s not “standard” practice. It’s one practice and giving slightly less notice does not signal problems. It is so DCUM to be like “Well if Maret does it this way, then that’s the BEST practice.”

https://www.headsearch.org/basics-search-process.html

It is fine if your school does not meet this timing. Many schools have searches in the spring or summer, often announcing the next head of school in the fall of the year that the outgoing head of school is leaving. Some also announce searches during the school year that the outgoing head is leaving, often moving through a quicker search to great results. None of these approaches are “wrong,” and schools have experienced success with all of them. The first approach just ensures the broadest applicant pool.

Schools may also consider the interim head of school option if the timing does not feel right for whatever reason, including if the school is larger or particularly complex, or if the board feels it needs additional time to gain community insights, revisit the school’s strategic direction, create space following a long-term head, etc. Many schools look within for an interim head of school, often to an upper-level administrator who has been with the school for some time. Others hire an external interim head of school, sometimes for up to two or three years, depending on the school’s needs.

PP here. I’m no fan of Maret and I thought it was very strange that they did their hiring in the spring as opposed to this fall, after Talbott announced when she did. And I also mentioned St Patrick’s which you conveniently ignored. I’m sure I could find plenty of other examples.

Here’s a quote from the same article, which you also conveniently ignored: “Schools looking to optimize their search process will often announce an opening in the fall or winter almost 18 months before the start date.” Sounds like a recognition of standard practice to me.

St. Patrick’s or insert-whatever-school-you-want, same point. It doesn’t sound like a standard practice to me. It sounds like the basic point that starting earlier gives you more time. There are a million other factors though that impact the timing.

Exactly. Including a less-than-amicable separation, or a board that doesn’t have its act together. Which brings us back to OP’s question…

Picking the two worst reasons out of a million is not a rationale supposition. If you have anything to back those guesses up, please share.

Here’s OP’s question: “Is there more to the story new families should know about? I know not all transitions are negative but just curious why it was announced now and not a year ago.”

Do you have any information to share? Or do you just want to dissemble? I have been trying to get this discussion back on the right track because I think the question is a good one that I’m also interested in. Replies that just say “who cares?” or “what’s the problem?” or “why would the announcement have come earlier, I only give 2 weeks!” are not really helpful or responsive, as I have explained.

You’ve been insinuating that the timing itself is indicative of problems (because it’s not “best” or “standard” according to you), and replies have pushed back on that.

That was the premise of OP’s question. Your own authority says that schools looking to “optimize their search process” would have announced last year. So, do you have any information about why Woods didn’t announce this last year?

The “authority” quote that you cherry-picked was ““Schools looking to optimize their search process will often announce an opening in the fall or winter almost 18 months before the start date.” Often is not always. And the same authority discussed alternative approaches. Get a different hobby.

Yes, because they want to reassure boards that, for one reason or another, are behind the eight ball with their sub-optimal hiring process.