Tuesday, February 12, 2002 Of the major recommendations made by the SchoolMatch audit, the most controversial concerns the longstanding debate here over whether the school superintendent should be elected or appointed. Following is the full text of the SchoolMatch recommendation: Although SchoolMatch takes no position, nor should it, on the qualifications or effectiveness of any individual within the school system, we strongly believe the ongoing issue of governance has been a concern for many years. The most significant ongoing factor affecting governance in the Polk County Schools -- the practice of electing the county superintendent -- appears to have caused a high degree of politicization in leadership roles. Polk County is the largest school system in the United States still electing its superintendent. Forcing school administrators to openly align themselves with political parties or opposing political groups is counterproductive. This political process creates tension among school employees who feel obligated to take sides in an administrative leadership election. When elected superintendents decide to run for re-election, they place themselves in a weakened position since they cannot afford to offend potential voters. Further, an elected superintendent often feels obliged to reward school personnel who supported her or him by awarding patronage jobs/promotions or other emoluments to them. Even more critical, the elected superintendent is not an employee of the duly elected School Board, with all the normal requirements of accountability to the elected governing body compromised through the polarity created by dual public elections. In addition, effectively requiring the superintendent candidate to stand for election from within the county significantly reduces the pool of qualified candidates available to lead a major educational enterprise. As a result, extended improvement in the instructional program is not likely to continue at the level required to keep pace with critical learning needs and support requirements emerging daily in the district. The unevenness of student performance between schools within the district, absence of consistent articulation between the central office and individual schools, and the lack of uniform application of school system resources suggest the need for a careful assessment of the current governance model. Thus, leadership effectiveness is compromised by this method of selecting a superintendent. Therefore, we recommend that the citizenry, working in conjunction with its governmental leadership, give careful consideration to changing its method of selecting a superintendent through either state legislation or a local referendum. |
