Division I regional track finals
Fenwick graduation 2012
Ponitz graduation 2012
Home > Blogs > Springfield Schools News and Issues > Archives > 2009 > April > 06
Monday, April 6, 2009
Should boards require superintendents to live in their district?
It wasn’t clear last week whether Springfield schools has an official policy requiring superintendents to reside in the district, but board President Donna Picklesimer has said that it is the board’s intention to choose someone who would move to Springfield.
I believe all three finalists have said that they would move here — I know for certain that two of them have said it to me.
I’m checking today to see if the board has an actual policy or not in anticipation of a decision at week’s end. Superintendents are the only position a board can legally require to reside in the district. The logic is that living in the community strengthens ties to the community and would possibly lead to a longer tenure.
Do you think boards should require that their superintendent live in the district?
UPDATE: Okay, it looks like Springfield does not have an actual policy on record requiring residence in the district for a superintendent, according to the district. Picklesimer said last week they expected the finalist to move here but I don’t know if the board will create an official policy.
Permalink | Comments (14) | Post your comment | Categories: Springfield City Schools
