Granville board adds limited listening sessions after debate over search process

The Granville Board of Education voted to add a limited set of listening sessions to its superintendent search after a lengthy debate over whether those sessions were needed in addition to a consultant's community survey.

Mark, the search consultant, presented an engagement packet and said the survey received 337 responses, with a strong representation of long‑term residents and district staff. "We had 337 respondents for this," he told the board, and he provided a corrected survey page after spotting a calculation error in one table.

Why it matters: Board members said the qualitative input could help the board develop focused interview questions and allow candidates to hear on‑the‑ground concerns from teachers and parents. Some trustees argued the survey and candidate application packets were adequate and warned that adding sessions risked delaying the process and 'muddying' the board's decision‑making.

In public comment before the presentation, Amy Campbell, who identified herself as a teacher, parent and grandparent, outlined 10 priorities she wants the next superintendent to address. Campbell told the board that "approximately 27% of the student body identifies as minority and 31% are economically disadvantaged," and urged attention to closing achievement gaps (she cited "47% math and 60% reading" proficiency benchmarks), expanding AP access, addressing food insecurity, improving diversity among staff, strengthening ELL and early‑childhood programs, and ensuring transparent use of at‑risk funding.

Board debate focused on process. Several members pressed for listening sessions targeted at teachers, administrators and community members, saying the sessions would surface concerns—especially about curriculum and staff morale—that a multiple‑choice survey cannot capture. Other members said they were elected to make the hiring decision, that the survey and application materials would produce suitable interview questions, and that repeated sessions could duplicate input and prolong the timeline.

The board settled on a compromise: Mark will conduct a short series of listening sessions (staff/secondary, staff/elementary and a community session), summarize themes for the board, and incorporate those themes into a refined set of interview questions. Members agreed to push the timeline back roughly one week to allow sessions to occur and themes to be compiled; the board said it would not extend the applicant submission window. The board scheduled a follow‑up meeting to finalize selection criteria and interview questions and discussed conducting interviews the week of March 24.

Formal actions recorded at the meeting included a motion to reorder the agenda so the public commenter would speak earlier (the motion carried) and the board's approval of the agenda. The meeting concluded with the board announcing its next regular meeting on Monday, March 16, 2026, and adjournment.

What remains: The consultant will run the listening sessions, produce a brief theme summary for board members, and return to the board on the scheduled special meeting date to finalize interview questions and proceed with candidate selection. The board did not change the applicant deadline.