No more elected state superintendent of public instruction
Kari Chisholm
There's been a flurry of education bills that have zipped through the legislature this week present. So many, that it's hard to know how to even write up a blog post.
But let's start with the one that effects campaigns and elections in Oregon: The vote, with SB 552, to abolish the elected Superintendent of Public Instruction. When Susan Castillo's term is up at the end of 2014 (or earlier, should she resign), the office will no longer be an elected office. At that point, the Governor would serve as the Superintendent.
It's interesting to note that the House vote was 38-22, but didn't fall on any partisan or ideological lines. Supporters included folks as progressive as Jules Bailey and Tina Kotek and as conservative as Patrick Sheehan and Katie Eyre Brewer. Opponents included folks as progressive as Lew Frederick and Sara Gelser and as conservative as Sal Esquivel and Jason Conger. The same was largely true in the Senate - where the vote was 23-7. Interestingly, Speaker Arnie Roblan voted in favor of abolishing the office - though as a former high school principal, he's long been considered a top prospect for the job. A full vote count is here.
On the one hand, I've got a bias toward letting the people vote for their leaders. On the other, it's true that the Governor is the one that the voters typically hold accountable for the state of the schools - so it makes sense to put his hands on the steering wheel.
What do you think?
And feel free to use this space to discuss any of the 14 education bills that just passed.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
2:21 p.m.
Jun 22, '11
My personal opinion is that we have way too many elected offices in Oregon. This is one that makes no sense. Few know who holds the office or what it does. It never gets enough attention during an election for the citizens to make a really intelligent choice. As Kari says, voters really look to the Governor or that state reps for answers on education.
In the spirit of this bill, we should take a look at eliminating all of the soil and water agencies, ESD's, and other positions where almost no one votes with real knowledge of the candidates or the offices.
7:34 p.m.
Jun 22, '11
"...way too many elected offices"? Don't understand that. I thought electing people was a good thing.
9:58 p.m.
Jun 22, '11
Electing people is good when the voters actually have information on the candidates and some comprehension of the office. I submit that was rarely the case for the State Superintendent of Public Instruction and is certainly not the case on some of these minor agencies. I am a political activist and I have trouble getting information on many of these races. Even the Oregonian doesn't cover them.
As for education at the state level, the public looks to the Governor or the legislature for solutions, which mostly have to do with revenue or policy, neither of which can be resolved by the department. And why is education singled out for election when there are bigger departments that are appointed. I have never understood that one.
12:05 p.m.
Jun 23, '11
face it people are too stupi to vote- this should be left to you to decide
5:26 p.m.
Jun 22, '11
It seems strange to me that it IS the Governor. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to be an appointed position?
7:21 p.m.
Jun 22, '11
An Oregonian editorial described this as "legal gymnastics" to comply with the state constitution.
3:19 a.m.
Jun 23, '11
The deputy superintendent, appointed by the governor, will the primary day-to-day manager.
6:48 p.m.
Jun 22, '11
I think the 0-20 board is just brilliant. Imagine, less politics and more policy in the education debate!!! Sure, the factions will still fight but I think the level of debate on education in the state has just risen a substantial amount with the passage of bill 909 alone.
7:11 p.m.
Jun 22, '11
In light of the fact we came close to getting a total disaster, flat-earther for Sec. of Education last go round.. this is a definite improvement. The Sec. of Ed. position has acted as a political stepping stone for either ascending or descending ambitions, and not as an innovative policy center.
7:35 p.m.
Jun 22, '11
And if Oregon elects a "flat earther" as governor, the education secretary will be one as well.
I think I would have voted against this one.
9:15 p.m.
Jun 22, '11
I don't have the citation, but according to a study by the National Association of State Boards of Education, governor-appointed superintendent is the least effective and the most highly politicized model. And I shudder to think who would be in charge of schools if Dudley had won, for example.
10:51 p.m.
Jun 22, '11
Sue, I'd be interested in having the citation if you can find it. I emailed an old friend who is an editor at a major educational journal asking if she knew of any research that had been done on whether one system was better than the other in terms of educational outcomes. She sent the question on to one of their research librarians who could not find any. If there is a study, I'd sure like to see it. (And I'm sure the librarian would, too!)
10:57 p.m.
Jun 22, '11
And that would be my problem with this scheme: another education mandate that does not seem to have any data to support it. The other problem I see was mentioned above: do we really want to risk a flat-earther or anti-government tea-partyer having the power to appoint cronies to this important office? I'd much rather leave it to the voters than in the hands of one person, even an elected one.
9:42 a.m.
Jun 23, '11
Dudley would have been in charge. The governor is in charge now.
3:22 a.m.
Jun 23, '11
The Sec. of Ed. position has acted as a political stepping stone for either ascending or descending ambitions
I don't think that's accurate, at least with respect to ascending ambitions. Here's the full list of past Superintedents and I don't think there's a single one that ran for higher office while in or after leaving the job.
3:23 a.m.
Jun 23, '11
p.s. It's not "Secretary of Education", it's "Superintendent of Public Instruction".
7:34 a.m.
Jun 23, '11
"I don't think there's a single one that ran for higher office while in or after leaving the job."
Unless you count Norma Paulus running for the U.S. Senate in 1995.
8:54 p.m.
Jun 23, '11
Ah yes. You are correct. Forgot about that one. OK, there's one.
Unless you also count Levi Rowland, who was elected to the post in 1874. He served one term, and then returned to politics in 1891, upon his election as Superintendent of the Insane Asylum. I have no idea if that was considered higher office in 1891 or not.
Seriously.
9:00 p.m.
Jun 23, '11
Good point, but I think Paulus was SOPI AFTER her senate run... ("Think" being the operative word here)
1:59 a.m.
Jun 24, '11
Nope. She was elected Secretary of State in 1976 and 1980. She ran for Governor in 1986. She was elected SPI in 1990 and 1994, and ran for Senate in 1995.
9:55 p.m.
Jun 22, '11
There are never guarantees. A gubernatorial candidate is likely to get much closer scrutiny than what we got last fall in the Sec. of Education.
11:32 a.m.
Jun 23, '11
The Superintendent of Public Instruction race was last May, in the primary, which is part of why it went largely unnoticed. And despite your characterizations, Bill, Ron Maurer was actually way more qualified for the position than Susan Castillo. Maurer has a bachelor's, masters and PhD in education, has children in school and is a former school board member. Castillo is a former television news anchor who wouldn't be qualified to teach in any public school anywhere in Oregon and has never had kids in school.
5:28 p.m.
Jun 23, '11
Yes, and a guy with the kind of right wing extremist thinking we don't need in Education. Do we really need to have the Bible taught as science, or make schools open to packing guns?
11:48 a.m.
Jun 23, '11
I had always assumed the elected position was a Constitutional office- I see it is and here is the section: "Section 1. Superintendent of Public Instruction. The Governor shall be superintendent of public instruction, and his powers, and duties in that capacity shall be such as may be prescribed by law; but after the term of five years from the adoption of this Constitution, it shall be competent for the Legislative Assembly to provide by law for the election of a superintendent..." I haven't researched this at all but it seems at least arguable that once the Legislature provided for the election it is not something that could be reversed with a constitutional amendment.
What I think a lot of people are missing is that this is really about the people's right to vote. It is sad to see so many in office and politics so afraid of the shining light of public opinion.
I for one can't see this. This becomes a political plumb for the Governor to hand out and invites more partisan politics in education as the position is now non-partisan. The Governor's race seems never to be about education- let's look at the last one which "major issues" seemed to revolve around the Governor's girl friend's private business and whether or not Dudley really lived in Lake Oswego or Vancouver.
I was a Kitzhaber supporter but here we see the anti-democratic elitist poking through. There may not be bad results in the short run but in the long run this is a step to making education a partisan issue. Of course candidates for governor will now have this appointment to lever support from education groups- i.e. teacher's unions. Which is good I guess if you are planning or running for Governor or working for one.
11:51 a.m.
Jun 23, '11
Bad typo:
Meaning to say: "...could be reversed withOUT a constitutional amendment."
3:54 p.m.
Jun 23, '11
Education is a special policy sphere: it is part federal, state, and local government.
And while I agree with John Calhoun that it is critical for informed voters to make informed choices, I believe it was a mistake to deny voters an opportunity to determine whether an independently elected, non-partisan office would become an extension of the Governor's Office.
I believe we have lost an important counter-weight in the local government/state government relationship. An independently elected superintendent - or failing that - an independently elected State Board of Education is an important link between the school districts and the state.
I understand the frustration with the bureaucracies associated with education policy - as a school board member I share this frustration, and more. But there is more to education policy than state mandates - right now 199 school districts wrestle with competing federal, state, and local visions of education and this will not help that struggle.
The State of Oregon now has more control over an enterprise that is simultaneously a federal, state, and local effort. While critical, state funds are not the only funds involved in school finance.
ADM is the lifeblood of schools the state over, but other funds (managed by other governments) help sustain the structures and systems of our shared enterprise. The value of governance structures appear to have been lost in the conversation.
Since BM 5 and BM47/50 we have increased the budgetary impact of schools upon the State General Fund; this has not changed the responsibility of school districts - if anything, this lack of local authority, prevents local control.
It is time for a real discussion about the future of school districts, now that the State of Oregon has abolished its independent education advocate.
This step is neither minor, nor insignificant. Over time, I believe we will see that this change set us upon a course with a string of unanticipated consequences.
An appointed Attorney General? Labor Commissioner? Treasurer?
Those offices control inherently state functions. In contrast, the Superintendent works with stand-alone governments at the local and federal levels of government; appointment of other statewide elected offices then appear to be up for discussion.
At the end of the day, there should have been a public dialogue (extending beyond the hallowed halls in Salem), and a vote of the citizenry. Sometimes the easiest path isn't the right path.
There are no bad actors here; everyone involved wanted to improve our situation - I just wish we could have been more deliberative about the benefits and consequences of this structural change upon the system as a whole.
At least that's one perspective from rural Oregon.
4:50 p.m.
Jun 23, '11
Well said! Thank you for speaking on behalf of all of us who think Oregon made a wrong turn on this and so many of the other "education reform" bills.
7:11 p.m.
Jun 23, '11
i agree with Lew & others that voting for our leaders is a good thing. but i also agree that uninformed votes are bad. i'm not sure how informed voters were last may when Susan Castillo got just enough votes in the primary to avoid a general election runoff. i don't know if they'd have been any better informed, what with the governor's race & Leg races. perhaps having the Senate review & confirm the Governor's appointee will lead to a better choice.
it seems like we have a toss-up: hoping the voters pick smart, or hoping the Gov picks smart & the Senate confirms smart. i can make good arguments in either direction. since voters have done a good job picking governors for many decades, maybe trusting that vote + the competence of the Senate is the best way to go. since we're going to radically restructure school governance in about every way possible, this is probably a good time to see how this works for us.
9:02 p.m.
Jun 23, '11
Yeah, you're right, Bill. We need somebody with less education in the field of education running education in Oregon. That sounds progressive to me.
5:02 p.m.
Jun 25, '11
It's always good to seriously consider the ramifications of taking away a vote of the general electorate, but I think the potential good outweighs the malaise that has settled in. The appointment of the deputy position would need confirmation by the Senate. It would also require that the person selected would have a minimum of five years experience in leading K-12 public schools. We haven't had that since Verne Duncan.
The people with the skill set and experience in leading public schools have little incentive to do so now. The pay is half of what many district supts make-Oregon's current salary for the job is the lowest in the country.
Currently, 36 states have this position as an appointment. As Kari and others have noted, education is an important topic during gubernatorial races, yet little has been exerted from the executive branch in recent years. Voters will have the results of that as leverage.