The most profound impact on the superintendency—and public education in general—over the past 20 years has been the ever-increasing demand for school leaders to actively engage our local, state, and national representatives and governing bodies.

This is necessary in order to both promote and to protect the public schools and its programs. As a superintendent for more than 20 years, I have watched this gradual evolution move from an annual courtesy visit to the state capitol, and periodic cordial meetings with selected legislators to, at minimum, a well-planned, organized annual campaign led by citizen groups, part-time lobbyists, regular visits to the capitol, and strategic public, private, and very private sessions with key legislators.

During a fiscal crisis in the 1980s, in order to balance the State budget, the Minnesota Legislature eliminated annual cost of living increases for school districts. This lone decision, made in order to accomplish a Constitutional mandate, resulted in a dramatic unintended consequence. As a result, school boards, superintendents, parents, and other citizens have found it necessary to initiate the practice of educating and lobbying legislators for any funding increases. These activities are often necessary just to protect programs that are already in place.

Over time, even as supporters of schools became more visible and vocal, legislators seemed to become more and more prescriptive, targeting dollars for specific programs, sometimes simply changing the name of one program to use that money for a “new” program, almost indistinguishable from the first. They also began to look for more evidence of “successes;” they wanted “accountability.” On the surface (but absent the politics), these would be welcome and reasonable requests.

The State’s demand for accountability with any funding increases began over a decade ago. This led to an even more assertive effort on the part of superintendents and school boards to protect programs and policies designed to enhance the learning of all students, even as schools tried to adapt to any new legislative changes or often unfunded mandates. As other issues, such as transportation and health care, began to take a more prominent place on the public stage, schools saw sporadic, inconsistent increases in funding and too frequently no increases at all. That required schools to engage the public and to ask for their support for operating levy referendums.

Through it all, school districts have maintained their focus: providing quality public education to all learners. They have engaged single-issue constituents, they have weathered legislative curricula, and they have responded to multicultural issues that have arisen.

At the same time, school districts have also enhanced the level of learning for all students, made progress on closing the achievement gap, provided more students with post-secondary education opportunities, and they have overseen the increase in test scores on nearly all of the myriad of success indicators established for schools.

Public school students have remained or become international competitors, public schools have grown stronger, and many in public education have helped to make this happen, frequently spending more time engaging the public than they have engaging members of their own families.

Here’s to a 2007 legislative session that is bipartisan, cordial, effective, and one that contributes to the success of all of the state’s student learners and the good of all people.