Superintendents and school board members in districts with low-achieving schools could face removal under a proposal approved Thursday by the Kentucky Board of Education as part of the board’s legislative agenda for the 2010 General Assembly.
We agree that superintendents should be held more accountable for the performance of schools in their district. Although superintendents typically play only a minor role in the day-to-day operation of individual schools within a district, accountability should begin at the top. Just knowing they could be removed if students in schools in the district are consistently doing poorly on achievement tests could cause superintendents to take a more proactive role in solving academic problems within schools.
However, since the adoption of the Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990, the elected members of a district’s board of education have had little or no direct role in the day-to-day operation of individual schools. By law, school members can have no role in the hiring and firing of principals and teachers and even members of their immediate families cannot be employed by the district. The only hiring decision board members make is that of the superintendent.
It would be unfair for school members to be removed from office because of the performance of individual schools. If anything, members of each school’s site-based council who are not part of the school staff should be held more accountable for a school’s performance than members of district boards of education. After all, unlike school board members, members of site-based councils do make hiring decisions that impact student performance.
Since KERA, it has become increasingly difficult to get strong candidates to run for boards of education. Holding school board members accountable for the poor performance of schools in which they have little direct role would be another disincentive for good people to serve on a school board.
Holding superintendents more accountable is one of the few proposals approved by the Kentucky Board of Education that would be considered revenue neutral — or at least nearly so. That greatly increases the chances of the proposal being seriously considered by the 2010 General Assembly.
However, two other legislative proposals endorsed by the state school board — one that would expand the state pre-school program to make some 16,000 more children eligible, and another that would raise the compulsory school attendance age from 16 to 18 — would increase costs. While there is merit to both proposals — particularly the one regarding early childhood education — with the state already having a difficult time balancing its budget, this is no time to be adding new programs. In fact, the best public schools can probably expect from legislators is to maintain funding at its current level.
The idea of forcing teens to remain in school until 18 is not a new one. While it could increase graduation rates, it also would likely mean schools would have to endure students who show little interest in learning and are discipline problems for another two years. Instead of forcing would-be drop outs to remain in school, a better approach would be finding a way to inspire them to actually learn while they are there.
