In 2009, Russell Shaw, then a head of school candidate, was asked at an all-school assembly what his favorite Dr. Seuss book was.
“I can remember Russell addressing the high school community in the Forum,” science teacher and Director of Student Community Programming Bobby Asher said. Shaw talked about growing up in the same neighborhood as the author Dr. Seuss—dubbed by Asher as Shaw’s “Dr. Seuss moment.”
At the end of last year, Shaw announced he was stepping down from the head of school position, kicking off a months-long search process for a successor. During assemblies similar to ones in 2009, light-hearted questions returned; one candidate was asked what Disney princess he thought he would be, and two others were asked to sing.
While the most public-facing parts of the search look similar, student involvement in the process has increased since 2009.
The 2025 search yielded four candidates who spent two full days meeting with the Student-Staff Council (SSC), a faculty committee nominated by fellow faculty members, faculty who attended open meetings and the entire GDS student body. The search was headed by the Head of School search committee—appointed by the Board of Trustees—who chose the four candidates and will make a recommendation to the board, who will appoint the new head of school.
The 2009 search had three finalists chosen by a dedicated search committee. As in the 2025 search, each candidate spoke to three bodies—faculty, parents, and students—in Q&A-style assemblies, with a seven-minute window to introduce themselves.
Unlike in 2009, SSC was included in the 2025 process. SSC representatives had lunch with each candidate and talked to Jenny Abramson ’95, a member of the search committee.
“She [Abramson] really made us feel like our opinions on all the candidates were heard and understood,” sophomore representative Elliott Etter said. “We got to learn how the process worked as it was going along because they would come in and ask for our feedback.”
The sentiment was echoed by junior representative Willa Wible. “Our voices were definitely valued,” she said. “We all expressed to her [Abramson] different opinions about candidates, and she was taking notes and listening. It felt like they wanted us to be included in the process, which I really appreciated.”
During these lunches, candidates presented to SSC for around five minutes about their background and interest in the HOS role. Representatives were then given the remainder of lunch to ask questions to the candidates. Towards the end of lunch, candidates were also able to ask SSC representatives questions about GDS.
“We had a role where we were supposed to be representing GDS from the student perspective,” Wible explained. “I think it was helpful to get a better sense of how they [the candidates] interacted with students in a smaller setting.”
“Having this extra opportunity felt like a big difference,” junior representative Matias Sevak said. “I was actually surprised how much they were asking for our [SSC’s] input. [Abramson] came and asked us about all of our thoughts for an hour, so it felt like we had a lot more opportunity to present what we thought.”
In a 2009 editorial, the Bit argued that student opinion was not sufficiently included in the head of school search process.
In the editorial—headlined “The Head of School Search: Let Students Have More Say”— the Bit wrote that “for this most permanent and rare of decisions, the student body has rarely been consulted,” proceeding to argue that student opinion was uniquely relevant to the decision.
“GDS parents and headhunting professionals may have a general idea of what a Head of School should be,” the Bit wrote, “but only students can recognize that intangible ‘GDS element’ they see in [then–Head of School] Peter Branch. Only they can examine candidates and know which ones best fit the mold of the school they inhabit most of their waking hours.”
In remedy of this, the Bit suggested three changes.
First, the Bit suggested appointing the SSC as a “go-between” for the search committee and the student body, suggesting that “[SSC] representatives simply channel the many ideas of their constituents, as opposed to trying to lump them together into one distilled opinion.”
Second, the Bit argued the search committee should “report its progress on a regular basis to the student body,” and students should in turn “voice their opinions and suggestions,” but the Bit did not specify how they should do so.
The third proposed change was an opportunity for finalists to “introduce themselves in a school-wide assembly and explain why GDS is as appealing to them as it is to us.”
The executive search firm that GDS used for the search this year, Isaacson, Miller, was the firm that helped to select Shaw in 2009. Both rounds of candidates, in 2009 and 2025, went through two full days of meetings with the GDS community.
“In terms of the process itself, both processes seem intentionally inclusive, thoughtful and transparent,” Shaw told the Bit in November. “A lot of time and energy goes into it. And in both 2009 and now, we have a wonderfully opinionated community of people with really strong views who don’t always agree with each other.”
In an interview, Asher recalled that student feedback during the 2009 process was mainly collected through “word of mouth.”
“Technology is different,” Asher said. “Before, we had to intuitively interview kids. But now, students, parents, faculty and staff can fill out a survey online.
“The activities were the same,” he said, “like lunch with kids, or big meetings in the Forum. But you asked through word of mouth, and so you might get a small sample from a particular group of kids, which means you might overgeneralize from what you hear.”
In the 2009 candidate search, no survey was used to poll student body opinion. Instead, a Student Search Support Committee, composed of eight students—two from each grade—was formed. This committee was selected without input from the student body.
According to the Bit’s editorial, “rarely has this panel reported to the students on the search’s progress. In fact, many GDSers are not even aware of its existence.”
Asher said he appreciated the anonymity surveys provide, something the previous informal way of collecting community opinion lacked.
“I did each of the surveys anonymously,” he said. “I don’t think my opinion is more valuable than someone who’s been here one year. I don’t want them to feel swayed in any way.”
Considering the involvement of the full high school in this year’s surveys, Asher said he thinks “there’s even greater participation from individuals throughout the community” than there was in 2009.