Our editorial one week ago caused a stir. Many readers told us they vehemently disagreed with our view.
To refresh your memory, we said, “The Indiana General Assembly should give the governor the power to appoint future superintendents of public instruction, so everyone will pull in the same direction.”
We reached that conclusion out of concerns about the counterproductive political struggle between the current governor, Mike Pence, a Republican, and the current state superintendent, Glenda Ritz, a Democrat.
We made the suggestion not because we support Pence, but because we want what is best for Indiana students. Our present stalemate hampers progress with a key factor in Indiana’s future.
The many comments from our readers deserve a response and further discussion.
Some readers said making the state superintendent an appointed position would be giving too much power to the governor.
But education ranks as the No. 1 job of the governor, since it is by far the leading category of state spending. Our top elected official should have significant control over our most important task. The governor we choose deserves a chance to carry out his ideas.
One reader wrote, “Every position should be elected and not appointed.” Electing our officials is a cornerstone of democracy, but we can have too much of a good thing. Voters have a limit to the number of political races they can follow intelligently.
Though 2012 marked an exception, in most years voters pay little attention to the qualifications of state superintendent candidates. But voters usually know the nominees for governor better than any other statewide candidates.
Having one state official — the governor — guiding education policy creates “the buck stops here” accountability. Having too many people trying to control education leads to chaos.
The governor already has to convince legislators to go along with his education agenda. An elected state superintendent creates a third branch of government grasping for the steering wheel. It’s a miracle we didn’t have a standoff until now.
The governor does have the power to appoint the state school board, which currently opposes Ritz, and that’s part of how we got into this mess.
One reader wrote, “… since we live in a democracy and practice representative government, wouldn’t it be best for the board and the superintendent to all be elected by the voters?” We think that would multiply the problem of voters straining to keep track of too many candidates.
One critic of our editorial wrote: “Fascinating that the sources are quotes from 13 years ago.”
We had a reason for quoting advice from 1969 and 2001. It shows that people were questioning the wisdom of electing our state superintendent long before anyone heard of Pence or Ritz. In 2001, one impartial observer correctly predicted the mess we have today.
To discuss this rationally, it’s important to separate the roles of these two offices from feelings about the people (and political parties) who currently occupy them.
We thank state Rep. Dave Ober, R-Albion, for posting last week’s editorial on his Facebook page and inviting discussion. He also mentioned the need to “step outside of the current situation.” He concluded, “ … it’s difficult to say that the existing system is optimal. I can’t say what the best system would be, but I believe it’s a conversation that needs to happen and that our existing hierarchy is too exposed to political dogma.”
Ober added another key point: “Making a change to the policy while Superintendent Ritz is holding the office is unfair and will only further polarize the education debate.”
We should have said last week that any change to an appointed superintendent should not take effect until at least 2020. That would be beyond Pence’s term, although it could affect Ritz’s tenure. For some reason, the state constitution does not limit the term of a superintendent, even though it sets eight-year limits for governor and state auditor, treasurer and secretary of state.
We do not support Pence’s approach to dealing with the results of the 2012 election — by trying to find ways to keep Ritz from exercising her authority.
The response to losing an election should be working hard to win the next election, not trying to undermine the winner.
Indiana has had Republican governors for the past 10 years, which affects the way Democrats view this issue. However, Democrats might have felt differently about this topic during the years from 1989-2004, if a state superintendent had been locked in combat with Democratic Govs. Evan Bayh, Frank O’Bannon or Joe Kernan.
Hoosiers should be guided not by what’s best for Republicans or Democrats, but what’s best for Indiana’s students. We believe the answer is having one less captain trying to steer the ship of education.