Time to Put the Public into DPI

---

Wisconsin’s Constitution still requires voters to elect a state superintendent of public instruction. That official then runs the Department of Public Instruction, one of the most powerful agencies in state government. The arrangement persists with surprisingly little debate, despite being widely misunderstood and increasingly disconnected from how modern state government actually works.

At some point in time, a fair question must be asked. Does this structure still make sense for Wisconsin?

That point in time is now. The answer is no.  

Electing a statewide schools chief may have reflected good governance a century ago. Today it looks more like a constitutional artifact. The model fragments executive authority, muddies accountability, and has helped produce a Department of Public Instruction that too often feels distant from the public it is supposed to serve.

Wisconsin should amend its constitution to eliminate the elected superintendent position and place DPI within the governor’s cabinet, led by a secretary appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate.

That is not a radical notion. It is how most large government functions are already organized.

Accountability should not be this confusing

Ask a typical Wisconsin voter who is responsible for the direction of K-12 education. The answer comes quickly. The governor.

That expectation is entirely reasonable. Governors propose education budgets, sign legislation, and campaign on education priorities. When controversies erupt or performance disappoints, voters do not instinctively look toward DPI. They look toward the governor’s office.

Yet Wisconsin’s Constitution assigns supervision of public instruction to a separately elected superintendent who operates outside the governor’s chain of command. Authority and responsibility are divided in a way that leaves voters with a blurred picture of who actually owns outcomes.

When power is fragmented, accountability inevitably weakens. Governors can distance themselves. Superintendents can deflect toward statutes and funding constraints. The public is left navigating an arrangement where responsibility is supposedly shared but rarely claimed.

Government should not work this way. In fact  it does not work this way.

An election model that no longer fits reality

Wisconsin’s elected superintendent system reflects assumptions from a very different era of state government. Administrative agencies were smaller. Policy portfolios were narrower. Public instruction occupied a less complex regulatory landscape.

That world is long gone.

Today’s Department of Public Instruction exerts enormous influence over standards, assessments, compliance requirements, and regulatory guidance affecting every public school district. Its decisions shape classroom realities and local administrative burdens statewide. By any practical measure, DPI functions like a major cabinet agency while operating under a governance model designed for another century.

Statewide superintendent elections add another complication. These contests are held in spring cycles with lower turnout and limited sustained debate. Most voters could not tell you when the race occurs, let alone describe the office’s actual scope of authority. Organized interests, by contrast, follow the elections closely and participate accordingly.

This is hardly a recipe for broad democratic accountability.

A department that often feels removed from the public

The larger concern is less about election mechanics and more about institutional behavior.

For many Wisconsin families and local officials, DPI increasingly appears less like a responsive public agency and more like a distant authority issuing directives from Madison. Frustrations over guidance, priorities, and regulatory tone are no longer rare complaints. They have become common refrains.

Any large bureaucracy, left largely to itself, tends to turn inward and outside voices carry less weight.

Wisconsin’s constitutional structure has reinforced precisely those conditions. DPI’s separation from the cabinet, coupled with diffuse accountability, has fostered a department culture that many citizens view as insulated from ordinary voters and everyday classroom realities.

Public education is meant to serve families and communities. It cannot afford to feel detached from either.

What reform would actually accomplish

Bringing DPI into the governor’s cabinet would immediately clarify responsibility.

The governor would fully own education leadership, both politically and administratively. Voters would gain a far clearer understanding of where credit and blame belong. Elections would carry more tangible meaning. Campaign promises would connect more directly to agency direction.

Executive coordination would also improve. Education policy intersects with workforce development, fiscal planning, and social services. Cabinet governance exists to align precisely these kinds of overlapping priorities.

Most importantly, public pressure would matter more. Agency leadership appointed by the governor would operate within a more direct chain of accountability, increasing incentives for responsiveness to citizen concerns.

Constitutional reform is difficult by design

Amending Wisconsin’s Constitution is intentionally rigorous. A proposed amendment must pass two consecutive legislative sessions before reaching voters in a statewide referendum. The governor cannot veto the proposal.

That process demands consensus and persistence. It also ensures that structural reforms reflect sustained public support rather than passing political winds.

If the current system is worth preserving, voters can say so. If it is not, voters should have the opportunity to decide.

Put it to the people and let the will of the people be the law of the land.

The predictable objections

Some will argue that eliminating an elected superintendent diminishes voter control. In reality, consolidating authority under the governor strengthens voter influence by clarifying who is responsible. Democracy functions best when lines of accountability are clear rather than diffused.

Others will warn about politicization. That ship has sailed. 

Education policy is already political, shaped by legislative priorities, budget battles, and ideological debates over standards and governance. Cabinet oversight does not inject politics into education. It makes responsibility more visible.

Tradition will also be invoked. Tradition alone, however, cannot justify preserving a governance structure that increasingly obscures accountability and fuels public frustration.

A relic worth reconsidering

Wisconsin’s elected superintendent system persists largely through constitutional inertia. Longevity is not proof of effectiveness. This reform should garner bipartisan support, as nobody knows which party will hold the governor’s office in 2029 when the current superintendent’s term ends. This reform would be neither personal nor political.

Education stands among the most consequential responsibilities of state government. It demands clarity of leadership, coherence of strategy, and unmistakable accountability to voters.

A cabinet-level Department of Public Instruction led by an appointed secretary would better reflect modern governance realities. It would align authority with responsibility. It would strengthen democratic clarity. It would reduce the structural conditions that allow bureaucratic detachment to take root.

The process should begin as soon as practicable and without delay.