Not seeking a second term, McCormick talks government dysfunction and what's next

Arika Herron | IndyStar

Show Caption Hide Caption Surprise! Its the 2019 Indiana TOY! McKenzie Center for Innovation & Technology teacher named 2019 Indiana Department of Education Teacher of the Year.

State Superintendent Jennifer McCormick surprised many in Indiana politics and education earlier this month when, just two years into her first term as the state's top schools chief, she announced she wouldn't be seeking another term.

Though the position will become an appointed one in 2025, lawmakers had assumed McCormick would run again in 2020. She said the discussion around the switch to an appointed position was one of the reasons she announced her decision not to run so early in her term.

McCormick moving on: State Superintendent says she won't seek another term

After Roncalli: State school chief calls for LGBT-friendly strings on school voucher money

In a news conference, McCormick went on to talk about what she sees as the dysfunctional governance structure dictating how Indiana's education policy is made and implemented and the political games that soured her on the office.

In a recent phone interview, McCormick explained her decision and the factors that drove her to make it. The conversation has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

Q: Let's dive in. Talk about your decision to make this announcement now, with two years left.

A: Obviously, there has become more chatter up in the Statehouse about the appointment. And our team has said all along, we got into this to help kids, to keep the disruption down and when that was becoming a problem I would reevaluate things. It was attempt to send a signal that we're going to remain focused on kids. We're going to remain focused on providing schools with the best resources and guidance that we can provide and try to eliminate some of that disruption of the appointment conversation that was starting to get a little bit louder and little bit more disruptive.

Q: Any concern that you'll be seen as a lame duck for the next two years and not be taken as seriously?

A: I don't think so. I think our work will stand for itself. We have a lot of work to do. We have a strategic plan. We have our work plan that's very aggressive. We're going to work just as hard the second half of my term as we did the first half and plan on accomplishing a lot of things.

Q: So, you've quieted some of the chatter. You don't have to worry about running for reelection. What does this free you up to do in this next two years that maybe you couldn't have done otherwise?

A: I really never was one to not voice my opinion when I felt it would help kids and I will continue to do that. But I'll tell you, it's a balancing act because the governance structure in Indiana is very difficult. You have the State Board of Education and you have the Department of Education and that in itself is just difficult. So, it really frees us up to operate a little freer and still remain focused on schools, remain focused on kids but also to maybe take on some more challenging issues that we were a little bit more hesitant (to tackle). Now, I think at this point we can do what we need to do.

Q: What are some of these challenging issues?

A: We've had some concerns over ESSA (the federal education law). We're going to try to work with folks; that's why we're there. We believe in partnerships and collaboration but we also are very focused and very cognizant of doing what's best for all students of Indiana.

When we're trying to look at some of our school improvement dollars, there was just a lot of back and forth that I think was very unnecessary but I had to be a little bit prohibitive and careful on how we approached that. It's situations like that where now I feel like I can be a little freer without putting the state in jeopardy or without putting our team or local schools in a bad situation.

'Irrelevant': State schools chief won't serve as state board chair after this year

Q: You haven't been shy about wanting to get to one accountability system. To do that, there need to be changes made in the legislature and by the state board. You've spoken about the challenges on both sides of that. Is it possible?

A: I sure hope so. I think it's extremely confusing for schools and communities to have two accountability systems. What I do know is, we have to follow ESSA. We have to follow the federal guidelines because it's $1 billion we'd put at risk if we don't. But you have to have a willingness at the state level to follow the ESSA guidance (which is currently different than some state policies).

Q: You've talked about the problems with the governance structure in Indiana. Is it a system problem, or a people problem?

A: I've heard people say that different superintendents have operated differently and been successful under the structure. I would push back on that and say, not really. When Dr. (Suellen) Reed was in, that structure looked very different. Then Dr. (Tony) Bennett came in, again it was changed. Obviously, it was completely adjusted when Superintendent (Glenda) Ritz came in and I was hoping there would be a willingness to change that because it is so disruptive. It creates a lot of confusion.

And I'm OK with disagreement but the governance structure in itself becomes very difficult. The willingness to change it is up to the people but the system is the way it is and right now, unless someone wants to address the concern, we have to operate within that system.

I think it's probably both.

Q: What would work better?

A: I think when Dr. Bennett was in and he really was the chair who was in charge of the board and it was a very different structure... I think would be much, much easier. Also, having two staffs... it's kind of like having a mini department of education with the state board staff, which also becomes very confusing. You have multiple people looking at the same topics, the same concerns, the same issues and maybe making different decisions. So the structure he was under would be much cleaner and much better but again you have to have a willingness to go back to that type of structure where the chair of the state board actually had some authority and it meant something.

Q: Is there something you've wanted to do that this structure we have now has either prohibited or made more difficult?

A: Our ESSA plan (the state's plan for following the federal education law). We're in charge of following the ESSA plan. We were distributing money we felt was leading to equity for students and would touch more schools. The state board took a different stance in that because of their responsibilities with the turnaround academies. I completely understand but there was a way to follow ESSA and also to address some of their concerns. But when you have two entities working kind of on separate agendas, it becomes very difficult.

Working behind the scenes with (the U.S. Department of Education) we finally got on one page with that but that's the kind of stuff that is just very time consuming. It is not healthy for anyone involved, including the local schools because they're the ones caught in the middle of that. That's just one example.

For instance, we have a director of accountability and she does a fabulous job but there are times where she's not consulted on accountability any longer, even though she's the state's director of accountability. But you have the state board staff who also has some knowledge in that area. It's never a good thing when the state is coming at it from multiple directions when in the end you've got over 2,000 schools relying on us to get it right and not have something that's so confusing to begin with be muddied by power struggles between two entities.

Q: Talk about your first year. You said you tried to do things differently. What didn't work for you?

A: So I came out of, obviously, being a local superintendent where the majority of superintendents who are practicing really have the charge of working with a board and working with a community and your staff and students. My charge was always to really be transparent, whether that's fiscally or academically. You lay out the good, the bad and the ugly and make hard decisions based on that. So, I was operating in the sense of, 'I'm going to really do my homework, look at the data, get feedback from the field, our partners and be very cognizant of making sure we were being transparent for the voters and the other stakeholders.'

Quickly I learned that's not always the way the game is played and sometimes the things that make the most sense aren't embraced or welcomed. And sometimes the things that are more efficient, whether that's fiscally or with time or resources, that's not embraced. It's just a different approach than what we're used to at the local level where we're always pinching pennies and trying to be efficient and trying to be collaborative and transparent. I quickly learned that's not the game in politics. It was very disheartening but I learned that I just had to operate a little differently. Not that we weren't trying to be transparent or collaborative. We were just more strategic with timing, more strategic with partners. We just had to try to change our method of operations so that we would get some things accomplished, stay focused on kids and serve our schools.

Q: You've figured out how to navigate the process. Why not stick around?

A: I feel like we've gotten much better at navigating the system, as dysfunctional at times as it is. But having been through that, I am growing weary of my time that should be spent on the very things we need to work on being spent on trying to continue to navigate and play those games. Regardless of what I do, I'll do something that will serve kids, that will help schools. We'll stay focused on the work, but at some point you have to take a step back and evaluate things and say, 'is this getting accomplished what we need to get accomplished through this mechanism, or would my talents be better suited elsewhere?' That's where I'm at, at this point.

Q: What better place is there to make some of the changes you're talking about, rather than inside the department?

A: When you look at the authority with the state superintendent in Indiana, I would argue that that's very difficult to do. It's not because of the person in that position. It's the authority of that position at this point. It's not a question of the person in the position and their intent. It's a matter of, 'will the governance structure allow it?'

Obviously, I have a voice and I will continue to use my voice to do what's best for students but as far as actually getting things done and trying to really push the envelope with certain policies, policy changes... we'll continue to fight that good fight but it's very difficult just based on the structure.

Q: Have you given any thought to what might be next?

A: (I'm) keeping my options open. Our big concern right now that is we have a very good team at the department of education. The communication has gotten better, the guidance has gotten much better. So the things we've done well we'll continue to do well, but trying to keep our team in tact is our first responsibility to the field.

I know anytime you make announcements like I did, that becomes a risk. I'm very cognizant of that. We'll see. I'll continue to serve kids. I know many of the people on our team will continue to serve students regardless of where that position may land us.

Q: Have you heard from people in the department who are concerned or looking to move on?

A: Sure. Any time you deal with government you deal with that risk when you have that person in the leadership position leaving. Government is very interesting. It's very tricky. When you do make such announcements — I knew it was early, I knew it was a big announcement — you have a lot of people who are concerned with what's next. So, we're trying to have a lot of conversations but our charge right now is just to keep as many great people in the places we can that's possible.

Q: You've talked a lot about your frustrations. Is there something you'll miss about the job you have now?

A: Given all the authority that has been stripped and the governance structure that's so difficult, when you look at the work we've accomplished, it's impressive. I enjoy that. I enjoy being a resource to schools. But mostly, I know that because of the work of the department there are opportunities that students have that they might not have had without our work. I'm really proud of what we've accomplished and we'll continue to work hard and I will miss working with great people in the field and some of our great partnerships, but more than that just serving students to help build that capacity with opportunity.

Call IndyStar education reporter Arika Herron at 317-444-6077. Follow her on Twitter: @ArikaHerron.