It’s time to eliminate elected schools superintendent

Your Turn

Goldy Brown III

Guest columnist

Most Wisconsin parents don’t spend much time thinking about how the state superintendent of public instruction is chosen. They’re focused on whether their child can read confidently by third grade, whether math finally clicks or whether their local school can attract and keep strong teachers. But the way Wisconsin selects its top education official quietly shapes all of those outcomes – and it deserves closer attention.

As more responsibility for education shifts back to the states, how Wisconsin governs its schools matters more than ever. Federal retrenchment, expanded state flexibility and recent court decisions limiting federal agency authority have left governors and legislatures with greater power – and greater responsibility – for results. That shift makes governance structures more important, not less. Wisconsin’s continued practice of electing its superintendent of public instruction now works against accountability and clarity at precisely the wrong time.

The position dates back to 1848, when Wisconsin’s founders were wary of concentrating power in a single executive. That caution made sense in a young, rural state with a modest system of common schools. It makes far less sense today. The modern Department of Public Instruction oversees billions of dollars, administers complex federal programs, and manages responsibilities comparable to other major state agencies. This is not a symbolic or representative role. It is an executive job that demands management skill, policy coherence, and operational experience.

State fills top role with off-cycle election

Yet Wisconsin fills the role through a low-turnout, off-cycle statewide election. In practice, these races are shaped by the groups most consistently engaged in education policy and most capable of organizing around an otherwise low-profile contest. Education associations and other stakeholders routinely provide endorsements, funding and visibility that matter far more than broad public participation – patterns reflected in campaign finance records maintained by the Wisconsin Ethics Commission. Many voters, meanwhile, struggle to name the candidates, much less evaluate their administrative experience.

The result is a system that diffuses responsibility. Governors are expected to answer for education outcomes, but they do not direct the agency that runs the system. Superintendents are accountable to voters in theory, but operate independently of the executive branch. When schools struggle, families are left unsure who is responsible – or who actually has the authority to act.

Other states have recognized this problem and moved in a different direction. Mississippi and Tennessee, for example, treat education leadership as a professional executive function and recruit accordingly. Mississippi appointed Carey Wright and went on to post some of the nation’s largest gains in early-grade reading, as documented by the National Assessment of Education Progress and analyzed by Education Next. Maryland later recruited Wright not because she won a campaign, but because she delivered results, as reported by the Washington Post and confirmed by the Maryland State Department of Education.

Tennessee followed a similar approach by appointing Penny Schwinn, whose tenure helped make the state a national reference point for ambitious, data-driven reform, according to coverage by Chalkbeat and the Tennessee Department of Education. These states compete for education leaders the way serious organizations compete for executives: by evaluating performance, not political survival.

Wisconsin largely opts out of that market. We do not recruit nationally; we campaign locally. We do not prioritize proven leadership; we reward electoral endurance. It should not be surprising that many capable, reform-minded leaders never consider Wisconsin in the first place.

Today, 38 states appoint their top education official, reflecting broad recognition that the role is executive in nature and demands experience and skill, according to the Education Commission of the States. Wisconsin could join that majority through a constitutional amendment.

At a minimum, if the state continues to elect its superintendent, the election should be moved to November’s general election – like other states that elect theirs – to increase turnout, visibility and accountability.

Governance structure no longer matches responsibility of job

This should not be a partisan issue. Democrats regularly support appointed leadership in transportation, health services and environmental protection because experience and continuity matter. Republicans emphasize clear lines of accountability in government. Both instincts point toward the same conclusion here: Wisconsin’s education governance structure no longer matches the scale or responsibility of the job.

For parents and taxpayers, the question is practical rather than ideological: when schools struggle, who is responsible – and who has the authority to fix them? That same question now faces lawmakers in Madison as they debate school funding, accountability and the role of DPI in the next legislative session. Appointing the superintendent, with legislative confirmation, would align authority with responsibility, clarify accountability for families and give elected officials a clearer mandate to lead. Because the superintendent is a constitutional office, this change would require approval by two consecutive legislatures and ratification by voters statewide. At a moment when Wisconsin is being asked to do more with its education system, modernizing how the state chooses its top education official is a sensible place to begin.

Dr. Goldy Brown III, PhD, is a native of Beloit and a professor of education at Whitworth University in Spokane, Washington. He has 25 years of experience in education, including five years as an award-winning school principal in Beloit. Under his leadership, the school received the Wisconsin School of Promise Award in 2014. Brown is also a member of the Conservative Education Reform Network (CERN) affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.