Sept. 25, 2025 — The Beaverton School Board heard 40-minute presentations from three finalist superintendent-search firms on Thursday as the district moves toward selecting a vendor to lead its superintendent search. The school’s staff reported the search committee received seven proposals and unanimously advanced three firms to finalist interviews.

The presentations and question-and-answer sessions focused on stakeholder engagement, candidate vetting and reference checks, confidentiality protocols, timelines and fees. Carrie Delph, a staff member coordinating the process, told the board, “we did receive 7 proposals from search firms across the country,” and that board members should record feedback on standardized scoring sheets that will be shared with the superintendent search committee.

Why this matters: The firm selected will run outreach and vetting that shape the candidate pool for Beaverton’s next superintendent, including how the district collects input from multilingual families, historically marginalized groups and staff. Board members said they expect the chosen firm to produce a superintendent profile grounded in community input and hard evidence about candidates’ instructional and fiscal track records.

Most important points

- Process and next steps: Delph explained that the search committee, formed Aug. 12 and working from evaluation criteria set at an Aug. 26 retreat, narrowed seven proposals to three finalists. The committee will meet tomorrow to synthesize board feedback and recommend a single firm; the full board will meet tomorrow evening to decide. All scoring sheets and feedback are public record and will be collected at the end of the session. Board members were given a ranked-preference form to submit at the close of tonight’s session.

- Presentations: McPherson & Jacobson (national search firm) opened the evening. Dr. Steven Louder, listed as a consultant with McPherson & Jacobson, said the firm emphasizes deep stakeholder engagement and a five-year horizon for superintendent tenures: “we will be with you until that happens,” he said, describing a two-year guarantee tied to facilitated onboarding and performance objective work. The firm said advertising and four days of in-person stakeholder meetings are included in their base scope; travel and background checks for finalists were described as included for certain items and optional for additional finalists.

Ray and Associates, represented by Libra Ford and a team of former superintendents and regional leaders, described a five-stage process (board input, development of a bespoke candidate profile, recruiting, screening and finalist interviews) and provided a detailed two-option timeline. Ray disclosed a base fee of $35,000, additional marketing packages typically around $2,750, an estimated total of $41,750 and a not-to-exceed cap of $50,000. The firm said it would include one in-depth third-party background check on one finalist as part of the fee and quoted $250–$400 for additional finalist checks on request.

Human Capital Enterprises, led in the presentation by Christie Perry and Hank Harris, emphasized individualized planning (including three-consultant interviews with each board member), multilingual and in-person outreach options, confidential community interview panels and continued onboarding support tailored to district needs. The firm highlighted a track record of placements and said consultants would minimize staff workload by handling logistics and communications.

- Community engagement and equity: All three firms described multi-pronged engagement (surveys, focus groups, one-on-one interviews, in-person meetings and multilingual options). Human Capital Enterprises and McPherson & Jacobson emphasized working with district multilingual staff and culturally specific community groups to reach families who may not engage in typical outreach channels. Ray and Associates noted they typically present a short list of 8–10 candidates drawn from a larger applicant pool of about 30–35 and said they use a matrix to help boards narrow finalists.

- Candidate vetting and reference checks: Firms described layered vetting—phone interviews tied to the board’s criteria, deep reference checking (including people not on a candidate’s reference list when possible), review of publicly available student-achievement and fiscal records, social-media and internet footprint reviews, and professional background checks for finalists. Ray and Associates and Human Capital said boards commonly participate in structured reference conversations for finalists; McPherson & Jacobson described multi-round reference work and consultant-network checks.

- Confidentiality and decision-making: Firms emphasized confidentiality protocols, recommended signed confidentiality agreements for board members before viewing applicant materials, and said consultants would act as custodians of confidential files. Human Capital and Ray described limits on staff involvement in decisions and stressed that only a small group of district staff would handle logistics; finalists’ names would remain confidential unless the board decided on a public finalist process.

- Costs and guarantees: Ray provided the most detailed cost estimate (base fee $35,000, estimated total $41,750, not-to-exceed $50,000), noting additional district-paid candidate travel costs. McPherson & Jacobson described advertising and travel as included in its scope and advertised a two-year guarantee (if a superintendent leaves within two years, the firm conducts a follow-up search at no cost beyond certain advertising costs). Human Capital highlighted long-term onboarding support but did not present a single not-to-exceed number during the presentation.

Board questions and concerns

Board members repeatedly asked how firms would ensure authentic participation from historically marginalized communities and multilingual families and how that input would be translated into a superintendent candidate profile. Human Capital was explicit about an analysis step that pulls engagement data into themes that become the district’s candidate criteria; McPherson & Jacobson and Ray described multiple-language surveys, focus groups and targeted outreach and emphasized one-on-one interviews with key community communicators.

Several board members raised process questions: whether firms use artificial intelligence in sourcing candidates (McPherson & Jacobson acknowledged using AI search engines as one tool), whether board members themselves should participate in reference calls for finalists (firms suggested structured, board-led reference conversations for finalists but also said consultants would conduct primary vetting), and how timeline options would affect start dates for a new superintendent (firms generally proposed a July 1 start date for external candidates but said timelines are adjustable).

What was not decided

No formal motion or vote occurred at the Sept. 25 session. The board did not select a firm tonight; the superintendent search committee will review the complete set of scoring sheets and recommend a firm at a meeting tomorrow, after which the board will take up a decision.

Ending

Board members completed written feedback and ranked-preference forms at the end of the session. The superintendent search committee will meet tomorrow to compile that input and present a recommendation to the full board at a follow-up meeting scheduled for tomorrow evening. All written feedback collected by staff will be public record and will be provided to the superintendent search committee in advance of its recommendation.