Circumstances surrounding the issue of local school district superintendent appointment, as opposed to election, are discussed in this report. Also examined are the efforts in six southeastern states--Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee--to create systems in which all district superintendents are appointed. Data were collected through interviews with legislative staff members, liaisons for the departments of education, and members of the educational interest community in each of the six states to gather information about educational governance structures, legislation, and political dynamics. Proponents of superintendent election assert that the process maintains public control of schools, is more responsive to citizens' needs, and decreases high turnover and abuses of power. Those in favor of appointment point to the school board's personnel selection qualifications, the efficiency of the decision-making process, the creation of a professional rather than political superintendency, and the clear delineation of accountability. Empirical evidence for both cases is inconclusive. However, the historical context of the South and its traditional distrust of outside control present a formidable challenge to eliminating the electorate from the superintendent selection process. Appendices provide Tennessee and Florida Senate legislation and statutes. (31 references) (LMI)