Superintendent Selection in Tennessee - The Case for Appointed District Leaders | Page 3
Superintendent Selection in Tennessee: A Brief History
Appointment Enables Accountability
Most school boards rely on a corporate governance model. An elected
board makes high-level policy, investment, and financial decisions,
delegating day to day management of the organization to a qualified
chief executive officer who reports to the board. The chief executive
officer, or superintendent, is charged with administering the board’s
policies and meeting performance goals. When the administrator fails
to meet his or her goals, he or she loses the job, and the board selects
a replacement. This model makes sense for businesses, and it makes
sense for public school systems.
The appointed director of schools is
accountable to an elected board of
education. If a school superintendent
is not serving the needs of students in
the district, the elected school board
can take action more promptly than
the next election. A superintendent
should be able to focus on one thing—
making schools successful.
- Governor Bill Haslam, Tennessee Newspaper
Network, February 14, 2010
Some proponents of electing superintendents contend elections serve
as effective mechanisms for accountability. However, an ineffective
superintendent may serve for years until he or she stands for reelection.
Appointed superintendents are accountable to their boards and have
strong incentives to work in a collaborative fashion with board members.
In contrast, the election of superintendents may lead to deference by
a multi-member board to the decisions of a single administrator who
is held accountable only once every four years. This kind of fractured
governance inhibits effective management of schools and carries strong
potential to negatively affect school personnel and, ultimately, the quality
of classroom experiences for students.
Presumably, a return to the elected superintendent model in Tennessee
would be accompanied by a restoration of the division of personnel
powers between the board and the elected superintendent that was
characteristic of that governance structure before EIA’s passage.
Under that model in Tennessee, the elected superintendent’s
personnel powers were limited and subject to board approval and
concurrence. The elected superintendent was empowered only to make
recommendations to the board on hiring, transfers, and dismissals.
With the exception of granting tenure and dismissing tenured teachers,
the appointed director of schools, much like the CEO of a business,
has the authority to make these personnel decisions. A return to
elected superintendents would restore a system in which the primary
person responsible for advancing the academic progress of the school
district would lack the authority to determine the personnel needs to
accomplish that goal.
Appointed Superintendents:
A Best Practice in State Policy
Only Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi currently have laws enabling
local districts to elect superintendents. Across those states, 147
of the total 355 (41 percent) districts elect superintendents—a total
representing less than 1 percent of the more than 14,000 districts
nationwide. In Mississippi, the state with the highest number of
elected superintendents, a review of the 65 county districts in
which superintendents are elected finds the state designated 34
(52 percent) as on Academic Watch, At-Risk of Failing, or Failing by
2009 standards. Forty-seven of the 84 districts (57 percent) with
appointed superintendents rated as Successful, High Performing, or
Star status.iv
An analysis conducted at the University of Alabama of the effects
of elected superintendents on student performance found “there
is no statistically significant difference in outcomes when either the
superintendent or the school board is elected to the post.” At the
time of publication, 35 out of a total 110 examined districts elected
superintendents in that state.v
Without more compelling data to indicate electing superintendents
may be tied to significant benefits for student achievement, a
governance change to a model such as Mississippi’s or Alabama’s
would be ill-timed for Tennessee, especially during a time of many
other substantial changes in policy and practices in this state.
Distinguishing Board and Superintendent
Roles and Responsibilities
Boards of education and school superintendents should have distinct,
equally necessary roles in the public education system. According to
the Education Commission of the States, “school boards represent the
educational values and priorities of the members of their communities,
including students, school system employees, parents, business
leaders, civic leaders, and taxpayers.” They also “provide stewardship
and direction for public education in a community.” Complementing
the essential work of school boards, “superintendents are school
districts’ education leaders, as well as their chief executives,
responsible for managing and administering district operations.”
Electing superintendents would blur lines of responsibility and authority
for decision-making in districts. The table below compares a variety of
roles and responsibilities performed respectively by school boards and
superintendents.vi
Taking Note
February 2012
Roles and Responsibilities of School Boards and Superintendentsvii
SCHOOL BOARD
Hire, evaluate, and,
when necessary, replace
when necessary, replace
superintendent
Conclusion
States have recognized the appointment of superintendents reflects the
needs of districts and students to have an effective governance model
that enables swift accountability. Opening superintendency to election
would invite political patronage and distract district leaders from the
essential task of improving student achievement—and it would do so
during a time when Tennessee must focus on this task more than ever
before. The state should maintain its system of elected school boards
retaining the right to recruit, select, and, when necessary, replace
directors of schools. This approach is best for district governance, and
it is best for promoting student achievement in Tennessee.
SUPERINTENDENT
Hire, evaluate, and,
principals and central office
staff
Adopt vision for the
Lead process of
district
Page 3
incorporating central office,
principals, teachers, and
staff in setting vision for
district, in partnership with
board
Adopt and create
Ensure district-wide
measures for districtwide
academic content and
academic content and
performance standards are
performance standards
The State Collaborative on Reforming Education (SCORE) collaboratively
supports Tennessee’s work to prepare students for college and the
workforce. We are an independent, non-profit, and non-partisan
advocacy and research institution, founded by former U.S. Senate
Majority Leader Bill Frist.
met along with providing
incentives for progress and
consequences for failure to
meet standards
Set financial goals,
Complete reports on district
monitor finances, and
spending and student
ensure accurate financial
achievement measures
reporting to the public
Approve annual budget
Develop annual budget that
that reflects district
reflects district needs
priorities
Approve appropriate
Recruit highly effective
vendor and/or consultant
principals and teachers and
agreements
hire non-faculty personnel
Approve plans for
Assist low-performing
renovating and building
schools in their
facilities
improvement
i
Tennessee Newspaper Network. February 14, 2010.
Tennessee School Boards Association. (2009). Standing firm in support of board-appointed superintendents.
Retrieved from http://www.tsba.net/getdoc/c2f5b28c-c788-4dc9-91a8-07bc3ff248d8/TSBA_Appointed_
Superintendents_Issue_Brief.
ii
Evaluate and develop
Implement strategies
ways to improve
to involve parents and
effectiveness of the board
community members in the
district
Mississippi Parents Campaign. (2011). “Appointed versus Elected Superintendents.” Retrieved from http://www.
msparentscampaign.org/mx/hm.asp?id=ApptSuperintendents.
iii
iv
Mississippi Department of Education and SCORE calculations.
Hoover, G. (2007). Elected versus appointed school district officials: Is there a difference in student outcomes?
University of Alabama. Retrieved from http://www.cba.ua.edu/assets/docs/efl/WP07-08-03.pdf.
v
Education Commission of the States. (2002). The roles and responsibilities of school boards and superintendents.
Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/41/26/4126.pdf.
vi
vii
Adapted from ECS, 2002.