It probably should come as no surprise that the Kansas State Board of Education couldn’t come to quick agreement on the hiring of a new state education commissioner.

The flaws in the board’s search process have produced a flawed result. The best course for state board members now is to revisit their process and restart their search.

Even in their announcement Wednesday that they had failed to agree on a candidate, board members seemed unable to get on the same page. Board Chairman Steve Abrams, a Republican, said both of the candidates they considered were excellent but “We decided we needed to have more discussions.” It was unclear whether he meant they needed to discuss the two candidates or other possibilities.

By contrast, Board Member Bill Wagnon, a Democrat, said the board had decided to reopen the entire process of hiring a new commissioner. He added that he believed the board should hire a professional “head-hunter” to identify additional candidates.

Wagnon seems to be on the right track, especially after Thursday’s announcement that one of the two finalists under consideration has withdrawn to take another job.

The search to replace Andy Tompkins as the state commissioner of education got off on the wrong foot with the composition of the committee appointed to review applications. Apparently thinking they would be unable to reach consensus on this committee’s overall membership, board members agreed to each name one member to the group. Although that process eliminated conflict over the composition of the review committee, it also virtually assured that the divisions that have marked the board’s dealings would be transferred to the review group.

Nonetheless, the review committee completed its work and forwarded names to the board, whereupon one or more board members decided to ignore the review process and bring in at least one candidate who hadn’t been recommended by their committee. At that point, any semblance of an orderly process for hiring a commissioner pretty much went out the window. Whatever qualifications the two finalists brought to the table, neither of them was able to muster majority support among the board.

The hiring decision now has been delayed at least until the board’s next meeting scheduled for July 11-12. Before then, board members should seriously consider enlisting professional help in this search. It would be unfortunate if, rather than following a fair and professional process for filling this job, school board members decide to allow their hiring decision to be guided by the ideological agendas that have split this board on almost every key decision.

Filling the post of state education commissioner is just too important to the future of the state and its schools.