The Authority Vacuum: How Superintendent Churn Creates Risk-Averse Principals

When I asked Principal Hussain Ali to let my daughter take a math assessment in his building—a routine request that any principal could approve—he escalated it to the district office.

When I asked him to advocate for my daughter’s acceleration, he said he was “happy to” but only through a formal district appeal process.

When I requested a meeting to discuss his role as principal versus district implementer, he offered to meet—but only with a district representative present.

Over and over, a simple pattern: escalate, defer, comply.

And I kept wondering: Why won’t this principal make a decision?

Then I looked at the superintendent’s office.

Four Leadership Structures in Four Years

Oak Park Elementary School District 97 has had four different superintendent leadership structures since 2021:

2015-2021: Dr. Carol Kelley (6 years) 2021-2022: Dr. Griff Powell & Dr. Patricia Wernet (co-interim superintendents) 2022-2025: Dr. Ushma Shah (3 years) August-September 2025: Patrick Robinson (acting superintendent, 1 month) September 2025-Present: Dr. Griff Powell & Dr. Patricia Wernet (co-interim superintendents, again)

That’s not a typo. The same interim superintendents who served in 2021-2022 are back in 2025-2026 because the permanent superintendent resigned abruptly in August 2025—days before the school year started.

Principal Ali has worked under five different superintendents or superintendent teams in the five years since he was hired in March 2020.

The Pattern Gets Worse

The two most recent permanent superintendents didn’t just leave. They left under clouds.

Dr. Carol Kelley departed in 2021 for what seemed like a prestigious position: superintendent of Princeton Public Schools in New Jersey. Less than three years later, she resigned from Princeton after what news reports described as a “short and tumultuous tenure” involving allegations of covering up race-based curriculum changes.

Dr. Ushma Shah resigned in August 2025 after receiving a two-year contract extension just six months earlier. In her resignation letter, she cited the board’s plans for “punitive action” against her and a breakdown of “mutual respect.” The board denied seeking any punitive action and said they were “in shock” at her resignation.

Whatever happened, a superintendent who received a contract extension in February was gone by August.

That’s not normal.

What Happens When Leadership Is Unstable

When superintendents come and go every few years—and when their departures are controversial or abrupt—it creates an authority vacuum at the school level.

Principals don’t know:

• Will this decision be supported by the next superintendent?
• Will this policy still exist in six months?
• If I exercise discretion, will I be overruled?
• If I make an exception, will it be cited against me later?

The safest answer becomes: Don’t decide. Escalate.

And that’s exactly what I’ve seen in my interactions with Principal Ali.

The Pattern: Escalation Over Advocacy

Let me walk you through what this looks like in practice.

March 2025: Mid-Year Partial Enrollment Request

My daughter wasn’t getting appropriate math challenge in first grade. The district had denied her access to a 2nd grade enrichment program in February despite 99th percentile MAP scores.

So in early March, I requested mid-year partial enrollment—I would homeschool her in the afternoons while she attended school in the mornings. Illinois law (105 ILCS 5/10-20.24) explicitly allows part-time attendance. District Policy 7:40 supports it. The district even has a May 1st deadline for partial enrollment requests for the following school year.

March 4: I submitted a formal request to Principal Ali, citing the statute and policy.

March 5: Ali responded warmly: “We look forward to collaborating with you on this.” He promised to consult the registrar and my daughter’s teacher.

March 7: Complete reversal. Ali denied the request, citing the May 1st deadline. No mention of extenuating circumstances. No individualized consideration. Just: “District policy says May 1st.”

March 7 (later that day): I responded with IASB (Illinois Association of School Boards) guidance showing that the May 1st deadline is discretionary—boards can accept late requests for “extenuating circumstances or demonstrated academic need.” I cited a District 64 report documenting this practice.

March 12: Ali escalated to Assistant Superintendent Patrick Robinson, saying the matter was “out of my purview.”

March 21: Robinson denied the request, claiming the district’s strict interpretation was “within the parameters of the IASB guidance”—despite that guidance explicitly preserving discretion.

The timeline: 17 days. By the time the district said no, the school year was 73% complete.

The result: I started bringing my daughter to school 1-2 hours late every day so I could teach her math at home. The district later used this daily tardiness pattern to classify her as “homeschooled.”

What School-Level Authority Would Look Like

Here’s what this interaction would have looked like if Principal Ali had exercised site-level authority:

March 4: Thomas requests mid-year partial enrollment.

March 5: Ali reviews the request. He sees:

• Illinois statute allows part-time attendance
• Board policy supports part-time enrollment
• IASB guidance says deadline is discretionary
• Parent has demonstrated academic need
• Student fell short of enrichment program in February (extenuating circumstance)
• Parent willing to address any logistical concerns

March 7: Ali makes a decision: “Yes, let’s set up a partial schedule. Here’s what we’ll need to make it work…”

March 10: Partial enrollment begins.

Instead, it took 17 days and escalation to the assistant superintendent to hear “no.”

The Same Pattern Everywhere

Mid-year partial enrollment wasn’t an isolated incident. The escalation pattern shows up repeatedly:

August 2025: Acceleration Advocacy

When I asked Ali to advocate for my daughter’s acceleration appeal, he said: “I’d be happy to advocate for her. The process for me to do so does include an official appeal to Mrs. Creehan [Director of Teaching & Learning].”

Translation: “I can’t advocate for your child unless the district office tells me to.”

October 2025: Assessment Access

When I asked Ali to let my partially-enrolled daughter take the district’s math module assessments (routine proctored testing), he immediately escalated:

“I need to escalate to our district teaching & learning team. I’m not fully certain of the correct process… I want to make sure we handle eligibility, test security, scoring, and record-keeping correctly.”

This wasn’t a complex accommodation. This was: “Can my daughter take a test in your building?”

Ali’s response: Escalate to district.

District’s response: Classify her as “homeschooled” and deny access.

November 2025: Meeting Request

When I requested a meeting to discuss Ali’s role as advocate versus implementer, he said: “I need to defer to our District 97 Core Instruction team, specifically Patrick Robinson… Could you please work directly with the district office on this question?”

He offered to meet only if a district representative was present.

Translation: “I won’t discuss my decision-making authority without district supervision.”

Risk Management vs. Student Advocacy

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: Principal Ali isn’t advocating for students. He’s managing risk.

Every decision he makes seems designed to minimize his personal liability rather than maximize students’ educational opportunities:

• Escalate routine requests so the district office owns the decision
• Defer to district personnel so he can’t be overruled later
• Cite policy strictly so discretion can’t be questioned
• Refuse meetings where his authority might be challenged

This isn’t occasional caution. This is a consistent operating model.

And it makes sense when you consider the context: four different superintendent structures in four years. Two controversial superintendent departures. An institutional environment where long-term leadership is absent and policies may not survive the next transition.

Why would a principal take risks in that environment?

The answer is: he wouldn’t.

What This Costs Students

The cost of this risk-averse culture isn’t abstract. It’s measurable.

My daughter:

• Denied enrichment access in February 2025 despite 99th percentile MAP scores (95% threshold required)
• Denied mid-year partial enrollment in March 2025 despite statutory right and demonstrated need
• Denied assessment access in October 2025 despite being a partially-enrolled student
• Denied acceleration in May 2025 despite scoring 63% on rubric (needed 80%)

At every turn, the answer was: No. Because policy. Because risk. Because we need to check with the district.

Never: “Yes, because this student needs it. Let me figure out how to make it work.”

The Questions Nobody Wants to Answer

To Oak Park District 97:

1. How many decisions that could be made at the school level are being escalated to the district office?

2. How much of principals’ time is spent seeking permission rather than exercising authority?

3. What message does superintendent instability send to building leaders about taking initiative?

4. When principals defer every non-routine decision to the district, what does that say about trust in site-level leadership?

5. Who benefits from this risk-averse culture? Is it students?

The Connection Is Clear

I’m not saying superintendent turnover directly causes every problem I’ve documented. But I am saying this:

When leadership is unstable, decision-making authority flows upward.

Principals don’t exercise discretion because they don’t know if that discretion will be supported.

Site-level problem-solving disappears because the next superintendent might reverse the decision.

Routine accommodations get escalated because “checking with the district” is safer than taking ownership.

And families like mine—families whose kids need flexibility, advocacy, or exceptions to rigid policies—fall through the cracks.

What Stable Leadership Would Look Like

Stable superintendent leadership would create an environment where:

• Principals have clear authority to make site-level decisions
• Policies aren’t reversed with every leadership transition
• Building leaders can exercise discretion without fear of being overruled
• Student needs are prioritized over bureaucratic risk management
• Advocacy means taking action, not just escalating to the next level

Oak Park District 97 doesn’t have that environment.

The district has had:

• Two permanent superintendents in 10 years (average tenure: 4.5 years, below national average of 6-7)
• Three leadership transitions in four years (2021-2025)
• Two controversial superintendent departures
• Two years of interim leadership relying on the same retired superintendent team

And the result? Principals who won’t make decisions without district permission.

The Bigger Picture

This isn’t just about my daughter. This is about every student whose needs don’t fit neatly into the district’s standardized procedures.

Students who need:

• Mid-year schedule changes
• Flexible acceleration pathways
• Access to assessments or enrichment programs
• Advocacy when policies are applied too rigidly

In a stable, empowered environment, building principals could handle these requests directly. Problems would be solved locally. Students would get what they need without navigating district bureaucracy.

In Oak Park’s current environment, every request becomes a multi-level escalation. Every decision requires district approval. Every family becomes an advocacy project.

And students wait. And wait. And wait.

What I Want to Know

To Principal Ali:

When you escalate a routine request to the district office, do you believe that’s the best outcome for the student? Or is it the safest outcome for you?

When you say you’re “happy to advocate” but only through formal district channels, do you see yourself as an advocate or an implementer?

When you refuse a meeting unless a district representative is present, what does that say about your authority as a building principal?

To the Oak Park District 97 Board:

You’ve hired five superintendent structures in five years. Two permanent superintendents left under controversial circumstances. You’re now relying on the same interim team for the second time.

Do you see the connection between this instability and the risk-averse culture it creates?

Do you understand that when principals won’t make decisions, students suffer?

Are you willing to examine whether superintendent turnover is creating an environment where site-level advocacy becomes impossible?

Where We Go From Here

Oak Park District 97 is currently searching for a permanent superintendent. Powell and Wernet will serve through the 2025-2026 school year.

That’s good—stability matters. But stability alone won’t fix the culture that four years of turnover created.

The next superintendent needs to ask:

• Are building principals empowered to make site-level decisions?
• Do principals have clear authority and support to exercise discretion?
• Is the district’s culture oriented toward student advocacy or risk management?
• How many decisions that could be solved locally are being escalated unnecessarily?

And the board needs to ask:

• Why can’t we keep a superintendent for more than three years?
• What are we doing that creates such instability?
• How is that instability affecting students?

Because right now, the superintendent’s office is a revolving door.

And principals are responding the only way that makes sense in an unstable environment: Don’t decide. Escalate. Minimize risk.

Students deserve better.

Related Posts:

• The Acceleration Gap: 276 to 26
• The Glitch: When the Math Test Fails at Math
• The Wrong Tool: Why Screening Tests Don’t Belong on Acceleration Rubrics

This is part of an ongoing series documenting one family’s experience with gifted education acceleration in Oak Park Elementary School District 97. All facts are based on emails, rubric documents, and official communications obtained through public records requests and direct correspondence with district officials.

Names of school officials (principals, district administrators) are used as they are public officials performing official duties. Student and parent names are withheld to protect privacy.