Appointed vs. Elected Superintendents

[Lisa Starbuck]

There's a bill wending its way through the state legislature that would allow counties to choose to elect their school superintendents instead of appointing them.

Pamela Treacy has a thoughtful column in today's News-Sentinel on this subject. Check it out below. I agree with Pamela - appointed is better. What do YOU think?

------------------------------------------------------------------

Appointing school chief works best

Over the past 20 years, with the support of leading educational advocates, a shift occurred across the United States from elected to appointed superintendents. Only 3 states still elect the head of their school districts. Tennessee state law requires the appointment of school system chiefs by the local school board. Currently, there is an effort to change Tennessee law back to the elected system.

Those who support the elective option believe that a superintendent who resides in the district best understands the needs of the community. However, that argument is weak since the appointed system doesn't disqualify residents. If the best candidate is local, they can be appointed.

We should encourage a system that grooms strong local education leadership. Since the school board members are residents, they represent and understanding the community.

Advocates of appointed superintendents believe the process provides for a larger nationwide pool of qualified, experienced candidates and allows for an extensive review of credentials. The School Board members spend hours establishing criteria and interviewing to determine the best person for the job. As we witnessed in 2008, this process is very detailed and time consuming. Most voters don't have time to review each candidate's credentials and background.

In the event of poor performance, the appointed process allows for quick removal instead of waiting one year for a recall campaign or several years for an election. Our educational system and its impact on the economy and welfare of the community is too important to have a less than excellent superintendent in place.

My personal concern about the elected option is finding the right people who would want the job and their ability after the election to focus without distractions on a re-election campaign.

There is a difference in character, experience and personality between those serving in an elected office and the type of person who leads a $370 million educational organization with nearly 8,000 employees.

This is a specialized skill set that even the leaders of our larger local companies in Knoxville would find challenging.

Being appointed to a superintendent position is like a promotion to President in a company. It is career advancement. If we elect them, we are creating more career politicians.

We need an appointed superintendent who wants to ready our children for today's work force, increase the quality of life in our community by creating a plan that will survive beyond his tenure in this role.

When the debate starts, let's focus on the option that works best to achieve those goals.

[Bob Hunter]

I remember living in a county in middle TN with an elected Superintendent (prior to the law change) and he was just like the board members that were elected - say and do what people wanted to keep his job not what was best for the system. I don't think elected is the way to go for that reason but I am not totally pleased with appointed either as the system works now. I would personally rather see a committee of citizens - educators, parents, business people, etc.) that would locate the right person with some type of final "approval" from the board.

[Amy Wright]

I would say that I am more partial to the appointed stance. When one choices to elect a superintendent that also allows for the public to put anyone in that position, whether they have any education experience or not. I do think that opening the position up to people outside the community is a better option, as it allows for people who have a great amount of knowledge and experience (not to say that we don't have great people here as well). It just gives us a more diversified pool of individuals to work with. I believe it was stated that the superintendent is much like the CEO of a company. That being said, usually the CEO has been around long enough to know what works well, and tries to implement what he/she may have learned along the way. Hopefully, we have enough confidence in our elected school board officials to place someone in that position. Of course, I also see it as our job as citizens to let those members of the local school board know what we want in a superintendent and other matters. Hence, maybe right now it all goes back to who you ELECTED in the first place, because they will be APPOINTING the superintendent. Make sense?

[Ed4me]

For me no doubt, appointed Superintendent. With an elected they are in office and would have a network of the good ole boy system. Which we all have seen go on in our county. Currently we have school board member who doesn't have the support of the entire school board. But they still are a voting member of the board and there is nothing we can do to remove them. If they were appointed good chance someone might not be a school board member.

[Hopeful]

I agree. We have so much good ol' boy stuff going on -it really hurts the schools

[Pamela Treacy]

ACT NOW --

just in:

The 2 House Bills (0015 and 0952) will be debated in the House K-12 subcommittee tomorrow afternoon (today). Our only local representative on that committee is Bill Dunn. I have been told if this bill makes it out of committee and on to the floor, it has a
good chance of passing.

[Cathy McCaughan]

The reps that this county has elected and their current legislative activity is an excellent reason to have APPOINTED Superintendents.