The Whitewater Unified School district is looking for a new district administrator. The public K-12 district serves Whitewater and some smaller towns nearby. Over the last two days, the two finalists for that position participated in public forums held via audiovisual conferencing. There’s no reason whatever to doubt that both candidates are sincere in their ambitions, but no two candidates could be more different in background and perspective. (I attended the second – and more forward-looking – day of these forums.)
These years since the Great Recession have been difficult for Whitewater (and other towns in the Midwest): recession, opioid crisis, stagnation, statewide and local corporate welfare schemes, and through it all a mendacious campaign to distract from these problems with empty but happy talk.
I began writing shortly before the Great Recession, and the years since have not been kind to the outlook that prevailed when I started publishing. Repeated hardships have a way of refuting more effectively than any commentary. Since 2007, Whitewater has had five district administrators, four university chancellors, two city managers, three chiefs of police, with dozens of other officials having come and gone. Some of those who have remained have slipped close to parody.
Nemesis made her way to Whitewater, and she has slowly and retributively swept aside countless leaders who arrogantly considered themselves the very stuff of legend.
Now the school district comes to her present choice: these two candidates (however sincere) are not equally suited to Whitewater’s difficult present and uncertain future. The difference is so great that it almost startles. I’ll not weigh in for a particular candidate; it seems unnecessary.
It’s for this reason that one can write that the choice of these different finalists is unexpected: circumstances so difficult, locally and statewide, should have by now fixed this school board’s understanding in a particular direction.
There are three main possibilities why the board selected to two finalists so different from each other: (1) it could not find two suitable candidates of the same perspective, (2) the board doesn’t think one perspective is decidedly more suited to Whitewater than another, or (3) there’s an expectation that one candidate will obviously be both preferable and willing to take the job.
If the board could not find two suitable candidates of the same perspective, then it’s a sad sign of general weakness as a destination (but a weakness that will take time to overcome).
If the board doesn’t think one perspective is decidedly more suited to Whitewater than another, then they’ve learned nothing meaningful from their time in office.
If the board believes there’s one candidate who is obviously both preferable and willing to take the job, then it’s a gamble. If that candidate declines, the board will be left with a different (and by the board’s own estimation less desirable) alternative. No prudent person would willingly gamble with the community’s future this way.
Having seen so many leaders come and go, one cannot say with confidence what decision this board will make. People choose freely, sometimes well, and sometimes poorly.
Whitewater will find out soon enough; patience is a virtue.
This is a tactful way of describing the differences. Yes, it is very wide. I do not know how the school board got to this point but it really is two different approaches. It’s interesting how you analyze what this choice says about the school board’s thinking. People worry about you being critical but this is a logical/analytical assessment of what a choice like this means. Whitewater definitely doesn’t have enough of that analytical approach.
They don’t have a clear mission. Then the usual suspects come along with pet ideas and it gets worse. No one leads everyone follows along.