As a school superintendent, politics are a scary subject. At least they are for me. I am very measured in how I speak about anything political that does not involve my school or students directly. I advocate with my local legislators on behalf of my district and I openly support them because they have been wonderful to my district – but that is as far as it goes. I simply fear alienating a decent percentage of my stakeholders regardless of my position or opinion as we are now clearly in the most hostile and divisive political environment I can personally remember.
That said, it is not impossible to be political. Some school leaders tackle political issues consistently and assertively in order to support, advocate, and coalition-build within and on behalf of their districts. I salute them.
Thus, I write this post with some minor level of trepidation because it is quasi-political in nature. This past week we experienced the mid-term elections and in Illinois the governorship switched hands (and parties). As such, a litany of political appointees will lose their job and be replaced with the leaders best fit to do the job in the eyes of the new state leader. As is customary in politics, to the victor goes the spoils.
In theory, I have no issue with this practice. In reality, I think this really hurts – or at least has the potential to hurt – the progress being made at the Pre-k through 12 levels in Illinois. The reason is simple. The current state superintendent of schools, Dr. Tony Smith, is pretty incredible. He is an outstanding leader, lobbyer, and listener.
Dr. Smith is incredibly well-respected within the cadre of current superintendents for three primary reasons in my estimation.
First, he fights for our kids and our districts. He was a key cog in helping push forward the most ambitious educational funding reform in our state’s history. He took risks. He did not simply fall on the side of the establishment. He did not act like an appointee of one party. He acted like a leader and fought for what was right.
Next, he is not bound by the status quo. What is easiest is not best. What has been is not always what should be done. Instead of finding reasons why not or pointing to antiquated lines of school code to halt progress he pushed forward. He pushed forward not only on behalf of schools, but to also serve as a wake-up call for those who had forgotten how to dream big. He led.
Lastly, he pushed for local control and autonomy. This felt like a massive shift. I am sure previous leaders were not anti-autonomy – but Dr. Smith took concrete steps to ensure that districts had greater voice in what they were doing and why. He was a barrier remover instead of a blockade. Having that type of support at the state-level was incredible.
I am sure that whomever the governor chooses to replace Dr. Smith will also be great at their job – but I truly believe as superintendents we will look back on the work of Dr. Smith in five, ten, and fifteen years and marvel at the type of visionary, leader, and advocate he was for our schools.
So, while I get ‘to the victor go the spoils’ I wish just this once that clear competency and success in the position would overrule this political tradition.