Fitton Center studio named
Sneak peek at 'Runway' finale
'Suor Angelica' rehearsal
Home > Blogs > Springfield Schools News and Issues > Archives > 2009 > April > 06 > Entry
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
Comments
By Rick
April 6, 2009 11:01 AM | Link to this
Yes, working for a school district is not the same as working for a corporation. You serve the district and to know the district you need to live there.By Clark Co Resident
April 6, 2009 11:42 AM | Link to this
I second what Rick said.By Chuck
April 6, 2009 12:07 PM | Link to this
Yes and City / Village / Township Managers and employee’s should have to live in the City / Village /Townships they manage and work in. Instead of it just being a JOB and leaving it at 5:00By flipper
April 6, 2009 12:18 PM | Link to this
But of course. They too can share in the district property taxes and feel the same as everyone else.By Anne
April 6, 2009 12:27 PM | Link to this
Why would they not be required to live in the district?By Anne
April 6, 2009 12:28 PM | Link to this
Why would they not be required to live in the district?By AAA
April 6, 2009 12:37 PM | Link to this
NO!! I do believe they should live close enough to the district to be able to respond. Making someone uproot thier kids and family just to say I live in the district is STUPID!! It makes no difference in the job that a person does. Only the dreamers would disagree…..By CaringAboutAnimals
April 6, 2009 12:59 PM | Link to this
Absolutely!!!By CaringAboutAnimals
April 6, 2009 1:02 PM | Link to this
Absolutely Yes!!! They should live in the community because they need to builld ties to the community and understand this community to understand the children in these schools!!!By Debi
April 6, 2009 2:22 PM | Link to this
Yes. They should at least be reuired to live within the county of their district to understand the community resources and neads.By Ralph
April 6, 2009 2:35 PM | Link to this
If you want the best leader don’t compromise by having them live in the district. Springfield is a dreadful place for spouses and children and it would allow the new leader to give full attention to a most difficult and likely impossibe task….create an educated class of Springfielders! (If any doubt check out the “speak out” section of the op ed page….By Rachael Skelley
April 6, 2009 2:44 PM | Link to this
I agree, Ralph. Springfield is a horrible place to live. It is a dirty town in more ways than one. So, glad to finally move my family out of here in June!!!By he-man
April 17, 2009 11:30 AM | Link to this
Rachel, we are glad you are leaving. Why would we want someone like you being a part of this town. The more people like you we get out of here the better off the rest of are.By Rachael
May 27, 2009 1:32 PM | Link to this
Farewell!