Matters such as religion, politics and education are never black-and-white. No matter how persuasive an argument one advances, someone else can always cite chapter and verse and contradict it.

     With that in mind, this column will address some of the points made in Friday’s Optic by Editor Jesse Gallegos.
     Gallegos’ theme is that the public is safer in the hands of five elected school board members than one appointed superintendent. Gallegos questions how Gov. Bill Richardson could have signed off on House Bill 212. Specifically, the law, passed in the 2003 session, gives superintendents the power to employ, fix the salaries of, assign, terminate or discharge all employees of the school district.
     I question Richardson’s action, but for different reasons. Whereas Gallegos decries a tyrannical superintendent trying to mold teachers and students in his/her image, my reservations about the law are different.
     In essence, all the power a superintendent now has is really the kiss of death. Here’s why: In the past, school board members customarily got involved in the hiring of personnel. Frequently, people wishing to sign on with the system would contact one of the board members, remind him or her of the support the family has provided that board member, then they’d wait to see whether they got the job.
     Theoretically, Senate Bill 212 was designed to prevent board members from becoming the de facto employment agency. The aim of the bill was to allow the superintendent to make decisions independently. According to the new law, a board member commits a crime by foisting a person of his or her own choice on the school system.
     The mechanics of the bill are in theory . . . great. No board interference, appointments made by the best-qualified person, and no need to curry favor with board members.
     But remember the kiss-of-death allusion? With all that power given superintendents, board members now realize they can’t legally tamper with appointments. But—and here’s the crux of the matter—a school board that clearly objects to the way the superintendent conducts business can simply replace the superintendent.
     How many times will the elected board members renew the contract of the schools’ chief administrative official who demands autonomy and the right to choose who gets hired and fired?
     Implications that school boards micro-manage are profuse. The members run on a platform, invariably for better, reformed schools. In their campaign they liberally sprinkle their speeches with the phrase, “what’s best for the children.”
     “What’s best for the children” is a school system in which its personnel exude confidence, trust, cooperation, compassion and an undying feeling that “This is the best job I’ve evey had in my life!” “What’s best” is characterized by the assurance that hired personnel need not fear for their jobs because chose to exercise their First Amendment rights or because they failed to support particular board members in the latest election.
     True, education attracts deadwood as well. Carefully chosen superintendents and principals are obligated to fix things when a teacher or other staff member fails to put professionalism and concern for students first, becomes profligate with sick-leave policy or simply fails carry out the terms of the contract.
     In order to qualify as teachers, aspirants need to undergo at least four years of rigorous baccalaureate training, taking the necessary coursework that leads to certification. Further, these degreed personnel often need to devote their summers toward taking refresher courses, working toward particular certification or an advanced degree.
     To anyone who says teachers get paid too much, have a short work day and get summers off, I say, “Step into their classroom—or better yet—step into their shoes for a week and discover how overpaid and underworked the teachers are.” That experience invariably will show the critics why teacher burnout is epidemic and too many otherwise dedicated teachers take early retirement or leave the profession altogether.
     Teachers are the only people in the world with a license to change people’s minds. That trust does not come lightly or easily.
     And what about school board members? In New Mexico, ironically, there are no special qualifications other than being a resident of legal age of the particular area of jurisdiction. To get elected, board members aren’t required to take endless coursework, pass a stringent National Teachers Examination or oversee an ocean of eager students, each of whom would like to believe he or she is the teacher’s favorite. It’s ironic that many decisions involving personnel with degrees are made by those without them.
     Over the years some members have been overt in and even proud of announcing that such-and-such a teacher will never get a job “as long as I’m on this board.”
     To be sure, a great many board members genuinely conduct their campaigns on a professional level, honestly have the students’ best interest in mind and vote objectively on matters in their purview.
     It’s when the rubber of reality meets the empty rhetorical road of “what’s best for the students” that students and the public get short-changed.
     Thus, Senate Bill 212 is a big mistake, but not for the reasons outlined by Editor Gallegos. Rather than a tyrannical superintendent, the greater likelihood is that the superintendent had better toe the line and acquiesce to the wishes and hiring preferences of some board members, lest they have to resort to pounding the pavement the next contract year.