On the next Commissioner (and the elephant that is still in the room)

 Okay, people, this is officially too many succession plans for me to keep track of.
Anyway, I will remind you as always that this is from only me, no one else. 

One of the things that those who govern organizations, including educational ones, should have an awareness of is the bench; that is, who is being prepared for leadership. Educational organizations vary in size, of course, so not every organization has one (or much of one). There are also educational leaders that don't spend time and energy on preparing others for leadership. Nonetheless, who's on the bench, who isn't, who is prepared, who isn't--these are questions that boards should have an awareness of.

Thus when an educational leader steps down, a reasonable board at least asks the question of who in the organization is prepared to lead it. That isn't always going to be the right answer--there are, for example, times when a break with the previous leadership is very necessary--but it should at least be asked. 

A bench (this one overlooks Curtis Pond in Worcester)

It's not clear that the Board of Ed ever really did this. It essentially only came up as Russell Johnston was leaving. 

When it did come up, it was as the news of Johnston's not applying for the position was announced. As I said when it then came out that he was also leaving the state: 

In particular, this adds to the elephant in the room that Vice Chair Hills raised which has gone not only unanswered, but unaddressed entirely: if the current incumbent of longstanding service does not want the position, and now plans neither to be there for the transition but not even to be in the state, what does that say about the job? 

It is the Board, as the body that hires and evaluates the Commissioner, to pursue and answer that question. Something is not good about the working conditions of that office. I do not know what it is; I'm not in a position to. But if they don't answer that, they're setting the next person up.  

And that one, to be clear, is absolutely on the Board to figure out. The Commissioner, and thus the entire Department, works for them. "Why do people not want to do this job?" is on them to answer. People not wanting to do it is something they need to fix!¹
I continue to think that it bodes fairly ill that the only (?) answer anyone seemed to have when they then had to replace Johnston was to do a double appointment of the Secretary, which appears to violate the very basic functionality of the independent nature of the Board and the Department, the position of the Commissioner, and about half a dozen other things, including what the Commissioner actually needs to do on a daily basis. 

I thus am approaching this appointment with significant unease, as several written-in-giant-flaming-letters questions are unanswered as they charge forward.² 
 

Yet, here we are. 

So (sigh) about the three finalists, in the order in which they were interviewed:

Elsey is "Clinton-era ed reform called and wants their candidate back."³ He has not done a job that remotely prepares him for this one, at all, including simply leading a large organization.⁴ His times in public education have short--he spent less than three years in Chicago Public Schools as "Chief Innovation and Incubation Officer," two years in a state-run Detroit Public Schools that brought him from special project director as a Broad Institute fellow to assistant superintendent--and far too much of his experience is either as a "disrupter" (TFA, Broad) or that "we can fix it from outside" thing that I was concerned about before we got to interviews. 
In short: no, no, no, absolutely not.

Laux, I'm going to be honest, is who I would bet on if someone forced me to put money on this. She is from here. She quoted both the Governor and the coach of the Celtics in her interview. She has a compelling personal story. She's actually run at least part of a state agency, and thus has the most relevant experience of any of the candidates. There wasn't anything, to my ears, glaringly wrong with any of her answers, 'though two things I'd be interested in--why she left Texas, and what she think would be most an adjustment from Texas--didn't have a question to answer. 
While she didn't give me an actual headache, she also didn't have anything to say that was different, new, interesting, or outside of what one would expect. 
In short: she isn't probably what we actually need, she is probably what we are going to get, and we can probably bear it.

Martinez is who I'd vote for if anyone asked me. He of course doesn't have friends with some union folks now, having told the Chicago Teachers Union and the mayor that, no, he wasn't going to have the district borrow money to settle the contract⁵. He was the most real of the candidates, and he also has a compelling personal story (emigrated to Chicago from Mexico when he was six, oldest of 12, Chicago Public Schools graduate). He knew our data well enough for towns like "Newton" and "Brookline" to ring bells, and he actually spoke to that, which is something Massachusetts, for all it's "number one for some" is never real about. He actually spoke to district governance, which never happens⁶. He's demonstrated more than once that he won't back down when he thinks he's right, which is exactly what we need in dealing with the federal government right now, but also is probably the kiss of death with this Board.
Also, he is wrong on charter schools, and he is probably wrong on cell phones.
In short: he'd easily be the most interesting of the three, but he's probably too scary for the Board.

The recording of the interviews is here. The feedback request is here, though note that it is very "finalists driven" and you may want to simply email the Board.

_____________________________
¹I have a theory about this which also is connected to who got appointed to the graduation committee.

²...'though as someone who is going to listen to this, and also meetings going forward, I will note that someone could still raise this as an issue.

³He also looks to me a lot like the direction I fear is the Healey administration seems to be going in, which I am concerned is way too much turning it over to the Lt. Governor, which is the same thing, really.

⁴Anyone who applied who has run a large organization should be insulted he is a finalist. I mean, really.

⁵...which I also think was a good decision, because borrowing money in hopes that the state will come up with it is a bad plan. Also, let's remember that he started in public education as a finance person.

⁶It may be noted that he is the only one who doesn't have teaching experience, but give me someone who has devoted their life to public education in operations over someone who still thinks that three months of training over a summer plus two years of TFA is "teaching experience" any day of the week.