Most Recent Action
On November 4, 2008, the Republican Party won a majority in both the state Senate and the House of Representatives. Republican leadership has indicated that education will be among its top priorities during the 106th session of the General Assembly. The question of whether schools superintendents should be appointed, as is the current practice, or elected to office is one issue the Republicans have sought to advance in recent years. Now that both houses are under GOP control, it is likely that the practice of appointing school superintendents will be revisited.
Background
A director of schools, or superintendent, acts as a chief executive officer for the school system and is accountable to the school board for his or her decisions concerning the operation of the school system. By law all school superintendents are appointed by school boards in Tennessee, but efforts to change the placement process have been before the state legislature every year since 1993. Supporters on both sides of the issue argue that their method of placement is better for Tennessee's education system. While many studies have been undertaken on the issue, none have proven conclusively that one method is better than the other.
Support for Appointed Superintendents
The Tennessee School Boards Association (TSBA), the Tennessee Organization of School Superintendents (TOSS), and the Tennessee Parent/Teacher Association (PTA) are among those who favor the appointment of school superintendents. They believe that appointing this position results in more accountability, as a bigger pool of applicants with greater knowledge of how to manage school systems will be available, and the school board will not be limited to residents of the community. Further, since the appointed superintendent is chosen by an elected body (the school board); TSBA believes this establishes a clear line of accountability to voters.
Conversely, the election of a superintendent without input from the school board increases the potential that an unqualified but popular individual may be chosen to lead the school system. An elected superintendent also has to campaign for the job every four years, and supporters of appointed superintendents believe that campaigning would be a bigger priority for elected superintendents than focusing on running school systems. They view the election of a superintendent as a practice whose time has passed, as there are only three states in the entire country that continue to elect their superintendents - Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi.
Support for Elected Superintendents
Supporters of the election of superintendents include some rural legislators and the Tennessee County Services Association (TCSA). These supporters maintain that the election of the superintendent would make the position more accountable to voters. They argue that if voters are not satisfied with the performance of an elected superintendent, they have to opportunity not to re-elect that person to office.
They also assert that appointed superintendents often have an agenda that is contrary to the plans of the local government, particularly regarding the use of revenue for the school system. School board budgets are subject to county commission approval, and it is in commissioners' interest to have an elected superintendent with whom they share a constituency.
Neutral on the Issue
Members of the Tennessee Education Association (TEA) are divided on the issue, and the organization has taken the formal position that the placement method of superintendents should be a decision made by the local education agencies.
Legislative History
After a number of failed attempts, the Education Improvement Act (EIA), was finally adopted in 1992. The act required all school districts to place their superintendents by appointment by the fall of 2000. By September 2000, every school superintendent serving in the state had been appointed to office.
The legislation was adopted in the wake of increasing disappointment with Tennessee's public education system. The disappointment was, in large part, borne out of the lawsuits the state faced concerning the constitutionality of the school funding mechanism and disparities in teachers' salaries. The EIA set forth major reform in public education, including increasing school funding through a formula called the Basic Education Program (BEP). In addition, the EIA was intended to foster greater accountability by establishing performance standards for schools and students, issuing an annual report card for all school systems, and implementing a process for electing school board members and appointing directors of schools, or superintendents. The act also gave the Commissioner of Education the ability to remove board of education members and superintendents for not meeting the required standards.
