In the past few months, I’ve found myself advising several superintendents whose contracts were suddenly not renewed. This, despite leading districts with vision, professionalism, and deep community engagement. These weren’t struggling leaders. They were, by any fair measure, doing excellent work. They were learner-centered, collaborative, and committed to instructional leadership. Despite this, they were not renewed.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that something deeper is happening beneath the surface of these decisions. School leaders are no longer being evaluated primarily on performance or outcomes.
The question haunting them (and me) is why did they not get renewed? What is happening in society that is fundamentally different than in the past?
The issue, as I see it, is a widening “governance gap” between two competing visions of American governance that have been in contention in America since the founding of our government.
The Governance Gap
America has always wrestled with two competing visions of governance. One is epitomized by Thomas Jefferson and the other is personified by Alexander Hamilton. The Jeffersonian model is a governing philosophy rooted in trust of the people, local control, minimal centralized authority, and a deep skepticism of institutional power, especially when it becomes distant or technocratic. At the opposite end of the scale is the Hamiltonian vision which is a governing philosophy rooted in trust of institutions, centralized systems, professional expertise, and the belief that order and national coherence require structured power.
As you can see from the graphic above, over the course of American history, there has been a push and pull between these two competing visions of governance. In the graphic, as a Hamiltonian increase in bureaucracy for the Federal Goverment usually corresponded to a decrease in Jeffersonian ideals.
For example, the institutions making up the Federal government have increased in size and scope almost unabated since the Civil War. Meanwhile, there has always been a strong Jeffersonian undercurrent in American political thought, but the undercurrent, especially in the last 90 years, has not led to a corresponding reduction of governmental institutions.
In fact, today we find governmental institutions are more prevalent (and strong) than ever, while the people and political leaders are the most Jeffersonian as at any point in American history. The gap created by this phenomenon is called the governance gap, and is now playing out in full force in public education.
School leaders aren’t failing because they lack skill or vision. They’re struggling because they’re trapped between a political philosophy that distrusts systems and a governance model that depends entirely on them efficiently operating the system.
Public schools are one of the most visible, sprawling examples of Hamiltonian governance. They rely on funding formulas, standardized systems, credentialed authority, and institutional legitimacy. They were designed to serve the common good.
Even when leaders are working to innovate by expanding student voice, reimagining learning pathways, forming partnerships with the community, they are still seen by many as representatives of a bureaucratic apparatus that can’t be trusted.
This mismatch between the leader’s intention and the public’s perception is more than just frustrating; it’s destabilizing. It erodes trust. It leads to hostile board meetings, skeptical parent groups, and burned-out leadership teams. Most dangerously, it paralyzes bold action. Leaders stop considering bold action and start managing risk. They retreat into compliance, into keeping the peace, into keeping their job. A downward spiral of mediocrity ensues.
The result is a less resilient, more brittle public education system.
This is why the governance gap matters now. School leaders are trying to lead through a structure the public is more skeptical of, using tools that no longer inspire, under scrutiny that no longer distinguishes between trust and authority. And unless we name this tension for what it is, we’ll keep misdiagnosing the problem and missing the chance to lead differently.
What you can do
There is a way to lead through the governance gap.
The first step is to recognize, and name, the problem. The governance gap is real and must be acknowledged. When the governance gap is as wide as it is today, a bridge must be built to reconcile the two competing visions.
Building the bridge starts by school leaders realizing narratives trump data. Storytelling is a powerful tool in a school leader’s toolbox. Data represents the Hamiltonian system that people do not trust. Stories speak to the Jeffersonian vision because it contextualizes the school into the local community.
Second, operating within the governance gap implies trust is more important than authority. Authority reeks of “the system” to the Jeffersonians who believe institutions are prone to overreach into personal freedom. Trust replaces authority as the new value for school leaders. Creating partnerships with community organizations, empowering all stakeholders to have a true voice in the school, and creating micro innovations that are responsive to your local context are the strategies to help govern through the governance gap.
So, what do you think of this idea? Talk it over with your team and let me know!
