New SOM Head of Special services -- any info on split vote?

I just saw that Dr. Ella Rideau has been promoted to fill the role of Head of Special Services, in a 5-4 split vote.

I haven't worked with her directly, so don't have an opinion on her promotion, but am always concerned when an internal candidate gets such a split vote.

I haven't had time to watch the meeting yet, but wondered if anyone who attended/saw the meeting can tell who was for/against, and whether there were specific issues raised in public discussion.

Yes votes -  Eastman, Bennett, Daugherty, Smith, Lawson-Muhammad

No Votes - Wright, Baker, Jones and Pai

Just going from memory, the debate seemed to concern process issues associated with Dr. Rideau's hiring rather than her particular qualifications or experience.  Of particular concern was a lack of communication with SEPAC, whose officers spoke during the public session.

I think Board-watchers would agree that the roll-call vote cut across the usual blocs.  The need for better communication and the question of the proper deference level toward administration were themes that arose here in relation to a couple of other issues.

Sorry that it doesn't really answer your inquiry, but that's what I remember. Others might have better information.  The meeting is on demand now on the SOMSD website in 3 parts.  The public speaks on this is in Part 2.

Thanks for the heads up. Bit of a concern, IMHO.

susan1014 said:

I just saw that Dr. Ella Rideau has been promoted to fill the role of Head of Special Services

Thanks to Village Green for coverage of this:

http://villagegreennj.com/schools-kids/south-orange-maplewood-board-ed-appoints-rideau-director-special-services/

Sounds like they gave SEPAC very little role in this -- the comments are pretty pointed, coming from parents who need to work with the newly promoted head.

I agree with the disappointment that this opening was not seen as a reason to examine some problematic aspects of our Special Education program.

The DMC debacle deserves examination...we hired expensive consultants, and the our Special Education team is accused of simply failing to give them the data asked for. That deserved a public answer before there is promotion from within that team. A lot of money was wasted on that contract.

The performance of our district on the educational and disciplinary outcomes for Special Education classified middle and high schoolers is disappointing, and part of our Achievement Gap discussions (and legal battles), and needed to be discussed in public before there was a promotion from within.

On the positive side, in my limited experience, the K-5 part of the Special Education system is the best functioning part of the system, so I live in hope that that reflects Rideau's talents and that she can spread excellence to the rest of the system, and bring fresh energy to the role of Head of Special Services (where I believe fresh energy is very much needed).

I do respect the argument that this is a top administration hire, and should not be a Board level decision. Having said that, I fully expect our Board to now hold the new Head of Special Services accountable for addressing these unsolved issues, and to not give Rideau a long honeymoon before doing so. That IS a Board level responsibility.

susan1014 said:
Thanks to Village Green for coverage of this:
http://villagegreennj.com/schools-kids/south-orange-maplewood-board-ed-appoints-rideau-director-special-services/

Sounds like they gave SEPAC very little role in this -- the comments are pretty pointed, coming from parents who need to work with the newly promoted head.
I agree with the disappointment that this opening was not seen as a reason to examine some problematic aspects of our Special Education program.
The DMC debacle deserves examination...we hired expensive consultants, and the our Special Education team is accused of simply failing to give them the data asked for. That deserved a public answer before there is promotion from within that team. A lot of money was wasted on that contract.

The performance of our district on the educational and disciplinary outcomes for Special Education classified middle and high schoolers is disappointing, and part of our Achievement Gap discussions (and legal battles), and needed to be discussed in public before there was a promotion from within.
On the positive side, in my limited experience, the K-5 part of the Special Education system is the best functioning part of the system, so I live in hope that that reflects Rideau's talents and that she can spread excellence to the rest of the system, and bring fresh energy to the role of Head of Special Services (where I believe fresh energy is very much needed).
I do respect the argument that this is a top administration hire, and should not be a Board level decision. Having said that, I fully expect our Board to now hold the new Head of Special Services accountable for addressing these unsolved issues, and to not give Rideau a long honeymoon before doing so. That IS a Board level responsibility.

Agree with some of this, but the blame for the DMC debacle goes entirely to Osborne, which Mr. Bennett pointed out at the meeting. In general I think this was a good promotion and I'm cautiously optimistic.

(going a bit OT for this thread, sorry)

I haven't heard Mr. Bennett's specifics yet, but let's be clear about how the blame can be "entirely" on Osborne. Did Dr. Osborne fail to ask his employees to provide data, or did he ask and fail to follow up when it wasn't provided?

It is convenient to blame the person who is gone for failure to provide data for a major consulting project, but perhaps a bit disingenuous, unless Dr. Osborne never told anyone else that the data was needed.

If Dr. Osborne hired consultants and failed to pass along the data request, or tell the Board that there was an issue with completing the contract, then he can have full blame. If he shared the issue with his staff and the Board, then I'm still interested in hearing how this expensive failure was allowed to happen. (I will go back and watch the tape at some point when I don't have sick kids in the house)

I will continue to hope that this is a good hire/promotion, but need to see something beyond business as usual, given the existing issues.

susan1014 said:
(going a bit OT for this thread, sorry)
I haven't heard Mr. Bennett's specifics yet, but let's be clear about how the blame can be "entirely" on Osborne. Did Dr. Osborne fail to ask his employees to provide data, or did he ask and fail to follow up when it wasn't provided?
It is convenient to blame the person who is gone for failure to provide data for a major consulting project, but perhaps a bit disingenuous, unless Dr. Osborne never told anyone else that the data was needed.
If Dr. Osborne hired consultants and failed to pass along the data request, or tell the Board that there was an issue with completing the contract, then he can have full blame. If he shared the issue with his staff and the Board, then I'm still interested in hearing how this expensive failure was allowed to happen. (I will go back and watch the tape at some point when I don't have sick kids in the house)
I will continue to hope that this is a good hire/promotion, but need to see something beyond business as usual, given the existing issues.

(last post on this drift -- in particular on the DMC data collection issue)

My understanding is that the Board requested data that had never been compiled (since no one was told the data was needed), as the department never had the manpower or authority to collect it to begin with, and even after the data request was made the department wasn't provided the staffing or authority to collect the data. To me that points to failure at the top. The whole DMC project was a top-driven project that was FUBAR from the outset.

Such a "data guy," that Osborne.

Such a "data guy," that Osborne.