SENATE PASSES BILL REQUIRING APPOINTED SUPERINTENDENTS
JACKSON – Legislation modernizing school governance through appointed superintendents passed the Senate in a large bipartisan vote today, Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves said. Senate Bill 2438 moves to the House for consideration.
The bill, authored by Education Chairman Sen. Gray Tollison, R-Oxford, mandates that school boards hire superintendents to run daily operations. The change would take effect Jan. 1, 2019.
"I appreciate the work of Chairman Tollison and the entire Senate in moving this important legislation," Lt. Gov. Reeves said. "Limiting the pool of qualified educators to political boundaries hampers many school districts' opportunities for success. Districts should be able to perform broad searches to find leaders who will inspire teachers and encourage students to learn."
Few states have elected superintendents managing schools. Of the last eight school districts taken over by state officials for academic or financial mismanagement, six were managed by elected superintendents.
There are currently 55 elected superintendents in the state, which serve with elected school boards. The bill does not prohibit local boards from appointing current leaders.
The Senate has passed the bill several times in recent years; however the measure has not survived the House.
Sent from my BlackBerry Passport
14 comments:
Love the last sentence...
55 Superintendent posts to appoint? Does Phil Bryant have enough friends and relatives to fill the posts?
1:38. Your comment is relevant. Maybe he has a son that wants the Madison County School District appointment. Probably a teachers aid somewhere.
1:38 and 2:17...superintendent would be appointed by the local school board (and not single-handedly by the governor).
Tate, why stop with superintendents? Why do we need to elect an Auditor? Why do we need to elect Transportation Commissioners? Why do we need to elect a Treasurer? I could go on. If you really want to modernize our government, then grow a pair and really do something about it.
I'm curious. Some don't want the people to
Vote on who is superintendent but, they want a body that's elected by the people to select the superintendent. What's the difference? Just want to see what people say.
The difference is a person has to reside in the district before they can run for superintendent. In my district the pool of qualified candidates is maybe six people, two of whom are already retired. Nobody is going to quit an administrative job and establish residency somewhere else to spend six months campainging for a position the likely wont get. By letting a locally elected board appoint the superintendent they can select the best candidate regardless of where they currently live.
Get ready for more of this: "Votes to hire the new superintendent fell along racial lines with the two white board members voting to hire John and the three black members voting to hire Jim".
Cue the music to: "McComb votes to fly current state flag".
10:16 can you give me an example of a local school district whose board conducts a national search. One of our local school districts that has an appointed superintendent and their board didn't look any further than their own list of former graduates.
JPS always does a national search and we see where that has gotten them.
JPS is the worst of all possible worlds. An appointed school board appointing a superintendent. There is no accountability for anything at JPS and the results speak for themselves. $1.2 million anyone?
The street committee said that the reason Gray was hired was so he would keep Sergeant's (sp?) hired at that cushy downtown job. Remember, the school board blew off Barksdale's offer to supplement the salary so they could hire a top notch superintendent. Gray has also been living in a home owned by Robert Gibbs. He was connected to a company, NCS, that had a waste-removal contract as partners with Wastepro.
There is NOTHING stopping school boards from hiring their elected superintendents if they convert to an appointed SI. The goal of the law is to open up the hiring choices and talent pool for school districts.
So now, instead of the people having control over the superintendent, the superintendent is controlled by the board. If he doesn't hire their family members, buy the products from the companies they contribute to them then he is fired. Basically we are solving one problem and replacing it with another.
Damn. Reading these comments makes me believe we should just shut down our democratic form of government. Nobody is going to be satisfied. You elect a superintendent who is a good campaigner or has a lot of relatives but has no qualifications for the job and they don't like the result. You change it to an appointed job, appointed by an elected board, and they want to bitch that the elected board is going to do nothing but take care of themselves.
Guess we should just put all the bitchers here at JJ in charge and to hell with the rest of the population. Otherwise, they are going to bitch,bitch, bitch and blame it all on Butler Snow or the Barbours.
Appointed superintendents makes good sense. Who should appoint them? I would saw an elected board of education that is not in the job for the payment from the job. School board positions don't pay much except for a per diem. Will all the elected school board members be top quality, good meaning people? Certainly not. But it would be a damned lot better than what we have now.
Rack him.
Post a Comment