The Regrettable Losses to Our Profession

Executive Perspective

During the past school year, the superintendents of the three largest school districts in America — New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago — decided to leave their posts. They were not the only ones to make that decision, but by doing so their actions signaled the unique stress that superintendents faced in a year marked by the coronavirus pandemic, racial unrest, political divisiveness, police shootings and critical race theory.

The challenges mounted during months of uncertainty. As schools began to close in March 2020, superintendents had to pivot from in-person learning to remote instruction, a situation few districts were prepared for. By last June, most districts had shut down and many educators hoped the pandemic would be controlled to allow a return to normal to start the new school year.

Regrettably, that did not happen. Come fall 2020, schools failed to reopen, remote learning became the mode of instruction, and working parents realized they could not rely on the schools to provide the necessary child care function. It quickly became a no-win situation as working parents demanded their children attend school in person while other parents objected to in-person instruction for safety concerns.

Confluence of Factors

The Washington Post recently took note of the impact on superintendents and acknowledged the difficulty in obtaining hard data on the numbers who left the profession as a result of the confluence of all the issues creating unrelenting pressure on the job. (The news story acknowledged that AASA does the best job in collecting data on superintendents through decennial studies and salary surveys.) We are obtaining hard data from our state executives about the turnover in their states, but there is no doubt that this year we have personally heard from a much greater number of superintendents indicating they were leaving their post, not because of retirement or relocation to another district, but specifically due to the difficulties and stress created by the pandemic and other factors.

Pressure to reopen did not come only from parents. President Trump’s administration threatened districts with the loss of federal aid if schools did not reopen. Further cause for confusion was the lack of clarity and direction from public health agencies regarding proper mitigation strategies to ensure the safety of those attending schools in person. The wearing of face masks, social spacing and vaccinations became contentious issues, having to do more with politics than medical science.

As if COVID-19 alone was not enough to instill conflict and confusion, our country became immersed in the racial unrest created by the many police shootings of Black Americans. When pernicious poverty laid bare by the pandemic revealed the need to feed students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and to provide them with the technology and internet access they did not have but needed for remote learning, superintendents worked to serve the most vulnerable students. The call for racial justice and equal opportunities for all were the reasons why superintendents had to deliberately address the equity issues that persist in our schools.

Consequently, school systems geared up to provide equity training for staff, to review policies and practices to ensure that all students had access to quality programs and services, to provide an equity-focused, student-centered system where no student would be marginalized. These efforts created a backlash in many communities where some individuals perceived those equal opportunities for all students translating into a loss or reduction of opportunities for their own children.

Unfortunate Losses

Until recently, few K-12 educators knew much about critical race theory, but most definitely superintendents are aware of it now. School board meetings have become battlegrounds where community members heatedly label the district’s equity agenda and even the implementation of social-emotional learning as attempts to implement critical race theory. There is no clear definition as to what CRT is other than a 40-year-old academic concept being used to counter the diversity and inclusion efforts. CRT is the latest crisis adding stress to the superintendency.

Unfortunately, public education lost too many outstanding leaders last year who chose to retire because of the prevailing circumstances when they would have otherwise continued to serve. But to the very end, along with their colleagues who remain, they were all champions who fought for equity and the safety and welfare of the children they served.