Making the Case for Hiring a Superintendent

Dear Mr. Collier,

Reading our local newspaper opinion pages proves that the group so vehemently opposing a change from the status quo of electing our school district superintendent has run out of logical arguments to support their position thus have adopted a strategy of portraying to the voters that those supporting a change to the appointed superintendent model, as utilized by 99% of United States districts, are a "bunch of unpatriotic liberals that want to take away your right to vote".

An ‘unpatriotic liberal’ in the above context seems to be a person who has low standards of personal excellence and morality, views government as the solution to, rather than a cause of problems and has limited capacity to comprehend local issues much less offer solutions due to her not being born and raised within the appropriate meridians and parallels defining Walton County since 1824.

Let me put to bed this relentlessly parroted talking point regarding "losing the right to vote". In reality, we entrust elected boards and officials in government and business to appoint executives and think nothing of it. I'm sure that the 'vote NO coalition' understands that they have never actually voted for the President of the United States, rather, they have cast lots with state electors who pledge their support to a candidate as is outlined in Article II of the US Constitution. Is that radically different than electing school board members that share our values who then, in an open process with community involvement, select our school superintendent from a large pool of candidates whose qualifications trump connections? To argue that an executive chosen not by direct election is somehow unpatriotic questions the very patriotism of our Founding Fathers! This isn't disenfranchisement, this is a process that actually gives the community greater voice, and this is precisely what we need at this time of sluggish economic development in the rural parts of the county, for as long as our schools struggle, so too will our non-tourist economy.

The 'NO coalition' advocating the continuation of the election of a superintendent unendingly point out that the state has awarded the district an ‘A rating’. While this is true, I have to wonder who other than government wonks devise letter grades that award an A to a district that fails to produce students that can achieve any better than 69% in ANY of the standardized tested subjects of math, science and reading, a shameful 56% in writing and 60% of high school graduates needing remedial classes should they go to college. Back when we were in school, 56% on a test was failing, and those 60s were D's or F's. Much like the mighty Wizard of Oz was exposed as a humbug with the drawing of a curtain, the 'Walton A' looks less impressive when one takes into account 2013 changes the state board adopted to the school grading formula which enabled schools to 'drop' the FCAT scores of underperforming students from inclusion in their assigned neighborhood school's assessment, as was done previously. Commenting on the changes at the time, board member Kathleen Shanahan was quoted as saying "I don't think it is a statistically relevant model," while fellow board member Sally Bradshaw opined “I don’t understand when it became acceptable to disguise and manipulate the truth just because the truth has become uncomfortable,” and went on to state that the changes would only protect the self -esteem of adults leading school districts while ignoring students receiving a substandard education.(source: John O'Connor's StateImpactFlorida report July 16, 2013). Tellingly, less than one month after introducing the changes that enabled schools and districts to look better on paper, then Florida Education Commissioner Tony Bennett resigned from his post after being implicated in a school quality grading scandal that he appeared to have a leading role in at his previous job serving as superintendent of Indiana schools.

Why is it, then, that the 'conservatives' waging their misinformation campaign to protect the status quo here in Walton County have chosen to uphold this man behind the curtain system as proof that no problems exist in this district? Given that conservatives value excellence and competition over social academic promotion and style over substance policy, it makes me wonder, how conservative are these people?
Not surprisingly, there are advocates of the status quo with the audacity to send their kids to Okaloosa schools to be educated while average Walton parents of lesser means are left no choice but to have their kids matriculate through the Walton system. A classic case of “do as I say, not as I do” liberals are so fond of. Again, what is the motivation for preserving that which they obviously recognize as flawed?

Could it be that local government is in no small part their business? Just as liberals like to grow the government and see it as part of their livelihood, so too it seems that some of the folks pushing the status quo can’t afford to lose one more political office to sink their claws into, one more office to seek and dispense favor from. What kind of conservative goes around proclaiming that we need MORE politicians and elected offices?
What about the divisiveness the protectors of the politician have subjected this county to? Without a doubt, their campaign strategy is to make this a county native versus outsider, conservative versus liberal and north county versus south county issue. In the last two weeks I have seen personal attacks waged on well intentioned people who think there might be a better way to do things here. Seemingly, the litmus tests one must pass without being trashed by the 'NO coalition' are to be born in Walton County and to be a card carrying Republican. That is why I am so confused as to why those qualities, if not present, cast doubt and suspicion on the 'YES' advocates while the 'NO' party has no problem having their south county efforts spearheaded by Texas and New York transplants and the immediate past Chairman of the Walton County Democrat Executive Committee. I have no problem with anyone exercising their right of political expression regardless of their party or provenance, but I again have to question this coalition's 'do as I say, not as I do' hypocrisy.

So what is motivating the group that protecting the status quo of electing our school superintendent? Is it outstanding academic achievement? Clearly, not. Achieving smaller government less open to corruption and focused on hiring the best candidates? History tells us that can’t be it. To save us from some carpetbag liberal coming here to serve as our superintendent who will ruin Walton County’s conservative values? Despite the beware the boogey man type warnings the 'NO coalition' pronounces, states like Georgia, Texas and Louisiana as well as counties in Alabama and Mississippi where the district superintendents are school board appointed have been spared this indignity.

I advocate that everyone recognize the desperate smearing and scare tactics for exactly what they are, namely, efforts to tap voter fears instead of articulating a positive vision for our county. Ronald Reagan said it better than I ever could when he joked that "It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first". Our time to position our county as the leader in the panhandle has come, and we can only accomplish this if we take advantage of a very rare opportunity to divest ourselves of the millstone that is the political gamesmanship that has dominated this county for so many years. Please vote YES on the August 26 referendum to send a clear message that we are sick and tired of the taxpayers, schools and kids being collateral damage in the political battles that benefit Walton County's select few.

Sincerely,
Patrick A. Ferry, MD
Santa Rosa Beach

​