Ask any large number of teachers, students and parents how K-12 education could be improved in Washington state, and we doubt anyone would say, “Gosh, if we could just stop electing the state superintendent and let the governor make that decision, teacher morale would soar, students’ test scores would rise and voters would be happier.”
That scenario is fantasy for one simple reason: Taking a cherished and time-honored voice away from the people and giving it to a lone politician, well, it’s difficult to believe that’s the solution to any public problem. This is why the state constitution mandates the superintendent of public instruction be elected and not appointed.
Even so, Gov. Chris Gregoire, as part of her plan to reform public education, wants to create a secretary of education and make that post appointed by the governor. And state Sen. Rodney Tom, D-Medina, wants to amend the state constitution and eliminate the superintendent of public education as an elected position.
We commend Gregoire and Tom for thinking outside the box in the drive to improve public education. And there could be significant benefits to the governor’s overall recommendation to consolidate the vast bureaucracy of disconnected agencies, boards and commissions that oversee public schools. “The system is not working. We have to do something,” she notes, compellingly. But too many elections is not one of the problems.
Washingtonians need only reflect on the 2008 election to see the value of electing the state superintendent. Challenger Randy Dorn based much of his campaign on his vow to replace the Washington Assessment of Student Learning. Many disagreed. (The Columbian endorsed three-term incumbent Terry Bergeson.) But Dorn’s message resonated with enough voters that he was elected, and now the WASL is gone. Keeping that power among the people and away from a single politician is a good idea.
It would be foolish to argue that there are no political influences in the current system. Although the superintendent of public instruction is a nonpartisan position and candidates do not declare party affiliation, it is, after all, an election. And it’s subject to the political pressures that are inherent in such an exercise. But at least those forces are relatively open to the public.
Taking this decision behind a governor’s closed doors would make it even more subject to cronyism and secrecy. Good-ol’-boy networks thrive in such hidden environs.
As Dorn said in an Associated Press story, “I don’t think the public is going to say, ‘We want to give away our vote.’ ”
We’re also bothered by a couple of implied messages in advocating this change:
Voters simply aren’t up to the task, or they just haven’t performed too well.
Governors are smarter than voters.
We should let the experts make these important decisions.
Of course, no politician would come out and make one of those statements, but those would be the perceptions. If we want to keep democracy strong in our state, it’s best to maintain confidence in the electoral process.
Who, after all, is advocating that the state attorney general’s post be changed to an appointed position? No one that we know. That’s the most powerful law enforcement figure in Washington, and it’s good that voters choose him or her.
The same holds true for superintendent of public instruction, the one who oversees the state’s “paramount duty,” according to the state constitution.
Washingtonians have neither the time nor the public clamor that’s necessary to go through the long process of amending the state constitution in this way. Let’s find other ways to improve public education without taking away the voters’ voice.
