Next Tuesday, on Election Day, the ninth item down on Idaho’s 2026 ballot is the race for the Superintendent of Public Instruction—the state’s chief education officer.
This person is responsible for shepherding curriculum development and reform, overseeing teacher licensing and credentialling, liaising between the local districts and federal government, and championing student needs in policy and legislation. Doing all of this well requires a high degree of expertise in how schools are run and how education ought to operate. Is a partisan election really the best way to promote that expertise?
The job is also growing more demanding. As the federal government dismantles the U.S. Department of Education, the responsibilities for data, compliance, and support for districts are increasingly falling to the states. States with stable, professionalized education leadership will be far better positioned to absorb that work than those without it.
Every state has a chief education officer (the official title varies), but Idaho is one of only 12 states that elects this person. And it is one of only 8 states that does so on a partisan ballot, forcing serious candidates to choose between campaigning as a Republican or a Democrat.
In today’s political climate, this places state education policy squarely in the fray of partisan politics. Education, of course, has always been political, but education debates are increasingly becoming Red vs. Blue debates. High-profile partisan contests like this likely make this polarization worse—not better. In research I conducted with Rebecca Jacobsen on local school board elections, voters were nearly 50 percentage points more likely to choose a copartisan when party labels appeared on the ballot, even though a majority of voters of both parties told us those elections should be nonpartisan. There is little reason to think that the state-level is any different.
It doesn’t have to be this way. In the other 38 states, the chief education official is appointed. Whether by the governor or a board of education, appointment offers some insulation from partisanship, providing at least some cover to operate outside of the messiness of polarization. Indeed, recent polling shows that, outside the culture war issues, Americans still overwhelmingly agree on the importance of school safety, supporting student belonging in schools, promoting career and technical education, and addressing teacher shortages. These are issues an appointed superintendent could focus on without a party platform to answer to.
This debate has nothing to do with the candidates running in this particular election. Instead, it’s more about the potential candidates who won’t even be considered. Appointment could open up an entirely new slate of candidates—smart, talented educators and policymakers who simply don’t want to navigate the realities of a grueling, partisan campaign. Research in political science shows that women, moderates, and highly qualified candidates are less interested in running in contentious, high-stakes contests. Education is no exception. When North Carolina school districts adopted partisan elections, fewer candidates ran.
Many argue that elected officials are more accountable to the people than appointed bureaucrats. However, appointed officials are hardly unaccountable—they depend on elected officials to pass their budgets, to enact legislation, and to keep their jobs. They answer to a governor or a board that, in turn, answers to voters. Idahoans would not lose their voice in education; they would instead exercise it through the officials they already elect. An appointed superintendent can specialize in the work itself and more effectively advocate for all Idaho students and educators.
At the end of the day, the issue boils down to what we think should guide this person’s decisions. In political science, we might think of this as a tradeoff between a system that prioritizes democracy and one that prioritizes expertise. Neither is without cost. But democracy would continue to shape education in several ways—through school boards, the legislature, and the governor’s office. Elevating expertise over partisanship in this one office would be a testament to educators: what they do is important, difficult, and deserves leadership chosen for expertise rather than party label.
Cameron Arnzen is an assistant professor of political science at North Central College in Naperville, Illinois. He studies American politics, education policy, and federalism. He grew up in New Plymouth, Idaho and attended The College of Idaho.
