Appoint or elect?

Tennessee has never been at the forefront of education reform, unless you count your state not requiring districts buy textbooks for every student progressive. Now the Tennessee legislature is looking into allowing school districts to elect their district superintendents.
A bit of history; 17 years ago, when the state launched another major effort aimed at catching students up with the national average. Back then, those who advocated for appointed superintendents said they were key to catching Tennessee's students up with their national peers.

The appointing advocates won and elected superintendents were abolished. Guess what happened? That's right; Tennessee remained in the bottom half of most educational rankings.

Studies by the state comptroller's office and the Southern Regional Education Board show that how superintendents are installed makes little difference in student performance. The only states where elected superintendents still call the shots are Mississippi, Alabama and Florida, and even in those states, some counties opt for appointed superintendents. The three states were ranked at a C-plus or lower in Education Week, a respected national K-12 education journal.

The idea of picking school chiefs through ballots instead of job interviews isn't common outside the South, education experts say. Some in academically high-achieving states say they wouldn't consider a switch to elections.

If the way a superintendent is chosen makes little to no difference to student achievement then why is the legislature taking up the issue? Because they can and it seems like a great idea.