Superintendent: To Be Elected or Hired: That is the Question

X

Of the 17,000 school districts across the nation, only 147 still use the ballot box to determine who they call school superintendent.* Forty two of them are in Florida; the rest are in Alabama and Mississippi. None where superintendents are elected seems famous for academic achievement.** And, as one of the elected-superintendent districts is right here in DeSoto County, I went into list-making mode. Here are two lists, each comparing oft-cited pros and cons for hiring or electing the person who carries out the most important job that citizens entrust to local government: educating children and young adults.
More..

Districts that hire school superintendents:
-- can choose leadership and talent from a national pool. Elected superintendents must already live in the county, limiting choice to a pool of “qualified voters” willing to endure the time, trouble and expense of an election.
-- can set high standards, such as requiring a Ph.D., from applicants. Elected superintendents need only meet state-set minimum educational and experience standards.
-- can create a contract that allows for dismissal for poor performance. An elected superintendent may be removed only at the next election cycle except in cases of what is essentially criminal activity – which provokes a long, due-process investigation.
-- have a leader who answers to and is evaluated by the school board. An elected superintendent can ignore or override school board policies and decisions.
-- usually have fewer problems with nepotism, cronyism, and similar situations. Elected superintendents may feel obligated to reward those who helped them get into office.

Districts that elect superintendents:
-- are led by persons well known in the community. A hired superintendent is likely to be a “stranger” or “outsider.”
-- are assured of an orderly turnover at election time. Hired superintendents can be terminated by a school board for cause, resulting in periods of leadership vacuums.
-- generally pay less for a locally elected superintendent than a hired one. Hired superintendents often command higher salaries and require termination clauses.
-- don’t have to spend money on candidate searches. Locating, interviewing and selecting a hired superintendent can be costly and time consuming.
-- have a leader who answers to voters, not to the school board. A hired superintendent must respond to those who hired him or her.
-- may find it difficult to separate politics from education. Hired superintendents are usually less susceptible to local political pressures.

The Ultimate Criterion
Good arguments on both sides. But the final decision whether to elect or hire probably should be based on results. A couple of years back, DeSoto County School Board members heard from some folks in town who did their homework on this issue. The folder they passed along to me of quantifiable information extracted from the data warehouse at the state department of education concludes: “In all four years [of their survey 2003-2007] all school districts with hired superintendents outperformed, without exception, those districts with elected superintendents. In addition, in all four years, no school district with a hired superintendent was rated D or F by the Florida Department of Education.”

I’ve taken those materials and updated them to see if the four-year findings hold up over the two years since. They do. Based strictly on educational outcome as measured by the state and federal yardsticks, school districts managed by hired (also called “appointed”) superintendents, outperformed the few that still elect a beloved school principal or town politician to hold down the top job.


* so says the National School Boards Association.
** The thing I hear over and over in discussions about teen pregnancy, drop-out data, teacher pay, and similar school-quality indicators for Florida is, “Thank goodness for Mississippi.”