Tennessee voters should have the right to elect their school superintendents
Image Credit: Canva
Note from The Tennessee Conservative: Editorial statements in this column are the sole opinion of the author; they do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the staff of this publication.
Submitted by Trent D. Laviano –
The recent news stories about teachers in Nashville being directed to change grades for failing students is simply the latest episode in a long series of problems that have plagued school systems across Tennessee. One wonders why these problems have continued to occur.
After all, the so-called “Education Improvement Act” which took effect in 1993 established a requirement that every school system in Tennessee would be required to have an appointed superintendent by September 2000. This was supposed to “remove politics from the selection process” and ensure that local systems would therefore be able to hire the “best” person for the job.
It was based on the false premise that a vote by a simple majority of part time school board members should carry more weight than that of all the voters in a county. This viewpoint is also exacerbated by the fact that many school boards do not really appreciate parental involvement and intentionally limit the opportunity for the public to speak out at school board meetings.
The idea that school board members have some unique expertise and insight is also highly dubious. Until fairly recently, most school board elections were purportedly “non-partisan.” This meant that it was frequently very difficult for voters to determine just what a candidate really believed and what policies that individual would actually support upon taking office.
This resulted in candidates for school board typically making very vague statements which are long on platitudes, but lacking in any real substance (i.e., “I have always supported education and I really care about students”). While this has started to change and school board candidates in some localities now run on a party ticket, and actually declare their positions on controversial issues. However, even that has failed to directly address the many flaws of the current system.
The 1992 legislation which led to the current system was supposed to be a great “reform” which would greatly improve things. However, the while the term “reform” may sound good to some people, that is frequently not the case. Although there are those who think that “reform” is synonymous with improvement, it should really be interpreted as caveat emptor (let the buyer beware).
One of the arguments in support of the current system was that school systems would no longer be limited to local candidates but would be able to conduct a “national search” which would somehow result in the selection of the “best” applicant. This appears to be part of the unfortunate tendency of some organizations to attempt to evade responsibility for their decisions by paying exorbitant fees to consultants.
This is very helpful to them when those decisions have bad results, because they can then claim that it was not really their fault. This enables them to use the excuse that they simply took the advice of a very highly regarded (and therefore very expensive) consultant. They like it because it enables them to evade accountability for their actions. This is quite similar to the medieval practice of buying indulgences to obtain absolution from sins. The consultants also like this system, because they get paid a lot of money, and being as expensive as possible will greatly enhance their reputation and impress potential customers.
One particular subset of the consultant industry is the executive search firm. These are organizations which charge very expensive fees to examine the application materials that are filed by those who are hoping to become the next superintendent. That also means that an outside entity can frequently determine which applications the school board will actually see. This is really just another layer of insulation from accountability.
There are numerous individuals whose entire careers are based on a pattern of trying to move from one school system to another with the intent to eventually ascend to being the head of the largest possible school system. Many of those resume peddlers are able to obtain incredibly high salaries and benefits. This type of career pattern is characterized by a pattern of moves in search of bigger and better opportunities.
It also means that such individuals are not really that interested in staying in any one place long enough to actually accomplish anything of any real significance. These itinerant administrators are very experienced and knowledgeable about how to navigate this system. They have had previous dealings with the search firms and they also know how to do research about the school systems to which they are applying. This enables them to tell the ultimate decision makers (the school board members) whatever they want to hear.
The methodology used by individuals who are successful in getting selected in this manner is somewhat reminiscent of the story of the Pied Piper. They assure the school boards that they will be able to work miracles. This enables them to negotiate for an extremely lucrative “compensation package” that includes all sorts of perks including guaranteed raises and often a generous “car allowance.” While it is perfectly reasonable for a school superintendent to be provided with a car, it should be a fleet vehicle that is county property. These contracts frequently provide for large bonuses under terms that are highly favorable to the superintendent.
Finally, even if the selectee ultimately proves to be a complete disappointment, the contract will often provide for a golden parachute in the form of a substantial “severance package” which ensures that rectifying the mistake will be very costly for the school system. In fact, one of the arguments used by supporters of the current system is that it would be prohibitively expensive to remove current superintendents. That is clearly ridiculous. Personal services contracts are for a specified period of time. In the event that a county decided to adopt a new method for the selection of its school superintendent, that would take effect upon the expiration of any existing contract. In fact, the outgoing superintendent could even choose to run for election.
As things stand at this time, all that is necessary for a school superintendent to remain in place is to stay on good terms with a majority of incumbent school board members. I can clearly recall one school system in Tennessee in the early 1990s which had an appointed school superintendent and a five-member school board. Despite numerous problems and the fact that many parents were very unhappy with the way that the system was being run, the superintendent was able to continue in his position by ensuring that he was always on good terms with 3 out of 5 school board members.
In contrast to the current system, the previous process for electing school superintendents was straightforward and transparent. In addition to being local residents and registered voters, successful candidates were typically individuals who had been teachers, school principals or central office officials who had worked in that school system for years. They were well known to county residents and the voters had a very good basis on which to decide if this was someone who they were willing to elect. It is also preferable for any organization to promote from within instead of seeking to fill senior positions with applicants who lack any experience with local conditions. The salary for the position is a matter of public record, and if someone is not willing to take the position for that amount, he would simply not seek the office.
Finally, these elected school superintendents had to run for reelection at the end of each term. This was typically for a period of 4 years. If the public was not happy with the superintendent, they had the periodic opportunity to vote him out of office. There was never any need for a “severance package” since these superintendents were covered under the state teacher retirement plan. Someone who lost a reelection campaign could either simply retire or go and become a teacher or a principal somewhere else.
One of the arguments which is made by supporters of the current system is that it frees school superintendents from having to campaign for reelection. That sounds a lot like the point of view that instead of having public officials who have to run for reelection, it would be better to simply hire some technocrats who are so “talented” that they should not have to be bothered by accountability for their decisions.
Opinion on this issue is divided. While the Tennessee School Boards Association and the Tennessee Organization of School Superintendents predictably want to maintain the status quo, there are others who want to return to the previous method. The strongest support for electing school superintendents comes from smaller rural counties and the Tennessee County Services Association.
There are currently three states which still have elected school superintendents. These are Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi.
There was a bill which was filed during the 2026 General Assembly. This was HB 1849/ (SB 1719). It was filed by Rep. Ed Butler (R-District 41) and Sen. Joey Hensley (R-District 28).
If this bill had passed, it would have restored the right of individual counties to choose which method they would use to select their school superintendents. While it never got further than the House Education Committee and it was never the subject of an actual vote by the entire legislature, this question is certain to come up again during a future session of the Tennessee Legislature.
That bill would not have required those counties who are satisfied with the current system to change anything. However, it is clearly appropriate for each of the 95 counties in Tennessee to determine which method best suits its needs and to utilize their discretion to decide this question for themselves.
About the Author:Trent D. Laviano served in Iraq and is retired from the U.S. Army. He is currently an attorney in Tennessee.
Restoring Accountability To School Systems (Op-Ed By Trent D. Laviano)
Restoring Accountability To School Systems (Op-Ed By Trent D. Laviano)
Tennessee voters should have the right to elect their school superintendents
Image Credit: Canva
Note from The Tennessee Conservative: Editorial statements in this column are the sole opinion of the author; they do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the staff of this publication.
Submitted by Trent D. Laviano –
The recent news stories about teachers in Nashville being directed to change grades for failing students is simply the latest episode in a long series of problems that have plagued school systems across Tennessee. One wonders why these problems have continued to occur.
After all, the so-called “Education Improvement Act” which took effect in 1993 established a requirement that every school system in Tennessee would be required to have an appointed superintendent by September 2000. This was supposed to “remove politics from the selection process” and ensure that local systems would therefore be able to hire the “best” person for the job.
It was based on the false premise that a vote by a simple majority of part time school board members should carry more weight than that of all the voters in a county. This viewpoint is also exacerbated by the fact that many school boards do not really appreciate parental involvement and intentionally limit the opportunity for the public to speak out at school board meetings.
The idea that school board members have some unique expertise and insight is also highly dubious. Until fairly recently, most school board elections were purportedly “non-partisan.” This meant that it was frequently very difficult for voters to determine just what a candidate really believed and what policies that individual would actually support upon taking office.
This resulted in candidates for school board typically making very vague statements which are long on platitudes, but lacking in any real substance (i.e., “I have always supported education and I really care about students”). While this has started to change and school board candidates in some localities now run on a party ticket, and actually declare their positions on controversial issues. However, even that has failed to directly address the many flaws of the current system.
The 1992 legislation which led to the current system was supposed to be a great “reform” which would greatly improve things. However, the while the term “reform” may sound good to some people, that is frequently not the case. Although there are those who think that “reform” is synonymous with improvement, it should really be interpreted as caveat emptor (let the buyer beware).
One of the arguments in support of the current system was that school systems would no longer be limited to local candidates but would be able to conduct a “national search” which would somehow result in the selection of the “best” applicant. This appears to be part of the unfortunate tendency of some organizations to attempt to evade responsibility for their decisions by paying exorbitant fees to consultants.
This is very helpful to them when those decisions have bad results, because they can then claim that it was not really their fault. This enables them to use the excuse that they simply took the advice of a very highly regarded (and therefore very expensive) consultant. They like it because it enables them to evade accountability for their actions. This is quite similar to the medieval practice of buying indulgences to obtain absolution from sins. The consultants also like this system, because they get paid a lot of money, and being as expensive as possible will greatly enhance their reputation and impress potential customers.
One particular subset of the consultant industry is the executive search firm. These are organizations which charge very expensive fees to examine the application materials that are filed by those who are hoping to become the next superintendent. That also means that an outside entity can frequently determine which applications the school board will actually see. This is really just another layer of insulation from accountability.
There are numerous individuals whose entire careers are based on a pattern of trying to move from one school system to another with the intent to eventually ascend to being the head of the largest possible school system. Many of those resume peddlers are able to obtain incredibly high salaries and benefits. This type of career pattern is characterized by a pattern of moves in search of bigger and better opportunities.
It also means that such individuals are not really that interested in staying in any one place long enough to actually accomplish anything of any real significance. These itinerant administrators are very experienced and knowledgeable about how to navigate this system. They have had previous dealings with the search firms and they also know how to do research about the school systems to which they are applying. This enables them to tell the ultimate decision makers (the school board members) whatever they want to hear.
The methodology used by individuals who are successful in getting selected in this manner is somewhat reminiscent of the story of the Pied Piper. They assure the school boards that they will be able to work miracles. This enables them to negotiate for an extremely lucrative “compensation package” that includes all sorts of perks including guaranteed raises and often a generous “car allowance.” While it is perfectly reasonable for a school superintendent to be provided with a car, it should be a fleet vehicle that is county property. These contracts frequently provide for large bonuses under terms that are highly favorable to the superintendent.
Finally, even if the selectee ultimately proves to be a complete disappointment, the contract will often provide for a golden parachute in the form of a substantial “severance package” which ensures that rectifying the mistake will be very costly for the school system. In fact, one of the arguments used by supporters of the current system is that it would be prohibitively expensive to remove current superintendents. That is clearly ridiculous. Personal services contracts are for a specified period of time. In the event that a county decided to adopt a new method for the selection of its school superintendent, that would take effect upon the expiration of any existing contract. In fact, the outgoing superintendent could even choose to run for election.
As things stand at this time, all that is necessary for a school superintendent to remain in place is to stay on good terms with a majority of incumbent school board members. I can clearly recall one school system in Tennessee in the early 1990s which had an appointed school superintendent and a five-member school board. Despite numerous problems and the fact that many parents were very unhappy with the way that the system was being run, the superintendent was able to continue in his position by ensuring that he was always on good terms with 3 out of 5 school board members.
In contrast to the current system, the previous process for electing school superintendents was straightforward and transparent. In addition to being local residents and registered voters, successful candidates were typically individuals who had been teachers, school principals or central office officials who had worked in that school system for years. They were well known to county residents and the voters had a very good basis on which to decide if this was someone who they were willing to elect. It is also preferable for any organization to promote from within instead of seeking to fill senior positions with applicants who lack any experience with local conditions. The salary for the position is a matter of public record, and if someone is not willing to take the position for that amount, he would simply not seek the office.
Finally, these elected school superintendents had to run for reelection at the end of each term. This was typically for a period of 4 years. If the public was not happy with the superintendent, they had the periodic opportunity to vote him out of office. There was never any need for a “severance package” since these superintendents were covered under the state teacher retirement plan. Someone who lost a reelection campaign could either simply retire or go and become a teacher or a principal somewhere else.
One of the arguments which is made by supporters of the current system is that it frees school superintendents from having to campaign for reelection. That sounds a lot like the point of view that instead of having public officials who have to run for reelection, it would be better to simply hire some technocrats who are so “talented” that they should not have to be bothered by accountability for their decisions.
Opinion on this issue is divided. While the Tennessee School Boards Association and the Tennessee Organization of School Superintendents predictably want to maintain the status quo, there are others who want to return to the previous method. The strongest support for electing school superintendents comes from smaller rural counties and the Tennessee County Services Association.
There are currently three states which still have elected school superintendents. These are Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi.
There was a bill which was filed during the 2026 General Assembly. This was HB 1849/ (SB 1719). It was filed by Rep. Ed Butler (R-District 41) and Sen. Joey Hensley (R-District 28).
If this bill had passed, it would have restored the right of individual counties to choose which method they would use to select their school superintendents. While it never got further than the House Education Committee and it was never the subject of an actual vote by the entire legislature, this question is certain to come up again during a future session of the Tennessee Legislature.
That bill would not have required those counties who are satisfied with the current system to change anything. However, it is clearly appropriate for each of the 95 counties in Tennessee to determine which method best suits its needs and to utilize their discretion to decide this question for themselves.
About the Author: Trent D. Laviano served in Iraq and is retired from the U.S. Army. He is currently an attorney in Tennessee.