MCPS Superintendent Josh Starr and the School Board put the school system out of its misery with his planned exit. Starr leaves in two weeks and all involved have agreed never to speak of it again. It’s all so Downton Abbey.

At this point, figuring out exactly why Starr needed to go remains a mystery. Lou Peck helpfully put together that Judy Docca, Michael Durso, Jill Ortman-Fouse, and Rebecca Smondrowski demanded that he go. Puzzled Montgomery residents may still wonder why. Here is the Washingotn Post‘s explanation:

Montgomery County is a consistently high-achieving district with improving graduation rates and strong SAT scores. County officials familiar with school board deliberations told The Washington Post that Starr’s exit was not the result of a single issue; instead, a series of perceived missteps added to a simmering concern about Starr’s ability to build on the success of Jerry D. Weast, who retired in 2011 after a 12-year run.

County officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were describing private conversations, said the board members who lost faith in Starr cited concerns with his approach to closing the school system’s achievement gap and his candidacy for the chancellorship of New York’s public schools after a little more than two years in Rockville. They said his personal style was at times remote and dismissive, and they mentioned the lack of coherent vision for principals at the district’s 202 schools.

After reading this, I’m still wondering, Improving graduation rates and strong SAT scores sound not too shabby. The negative phrases of “perceived missteps” and “simmering concern” read like verbiage that could appear in almost any bureaucratic porridge. Doesn’t exactly reek of the polarization associated with Michelle Rhee or utter failure of many of her predecessors.

The concerns about his candidacy to be New York Chancellor make me shrug. It might be seen as a sign that we were on the right track the school system of America’s largest city considered him a good candidate. Would we prefer a superintendent that no one else wants to hire?

There is also a certain double standard in demanding total loyalty that we are clearly unwilling to reciprocate. Someone who wants to move up also has a real incentive to make the system he currently runs function well.

I’m still trying to figure out what the “coherent vision for principals” concern means. It could suggest a lack of clear marching orders. On the other hand, it might indicate a welcome lack of interest in wrapping up the job in the latest educational fashion. As someone who works in academia and has seen trends come and go, that wouldn’t bother me. Is it just bad relations with the School Board?

We’ll never know, though many theories will circulate widely. Less of a problem for the public’s right to know–I’ll manage in this case–than that it may leave potential good candidates wondering why he went and if they want to follow.