Appointed Directors of Schools

The General Assembly adopted the Education Improvement Act in 1992, as part of a larger reform effort to provide greater resources for school’s systems while increasing accountability required of schools. A key aspect of accountability was the adoption of a CEO model in which an elected school board would appoint a director of schools who would be responsible for carrying out the policies adopted by the Board. For the most part, this process has worked well and has resulted in clearer lines of authority, a decreases in political influence in hiring and firing, and improvement in student performance.

Every year since that time legislation has been introduced to allow counties to revert to the process of electing directors. The reasons for maintaining appointed directors are still valid today:

· Availability : Appointments provide a broader pool of qualified leaders. The school board is not limited to a small number of candidates in the county or district who choose to run for office.

• Quality : The appointment of the superintendent allows the selection to be based on professional qualifications and leadership skills rather than political savvy. Elections are often more about name recognition and popularity than qualifications.

• Accountability : The appointed superintendent is accountable to the elected board of education (who are elected to set policy) and may be replaced at any time if he or she is not achieving the standards and goals established by the local board and the state.
• Cooperation : Most importantly, the selection method leads to greater cooperation between the director and the board, since the director is answerable to the board.

It is significant that only three states in the entire country (Alabama, Florida and Mississippi) continue to elect school superintendents. Less than 1% of school directors are elected. We should not abandon a governance structure that, on the whole, has brought good results to Tennessee schools.