IBJNews

Bill advances to loosen Indiana superintendent rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

School superintendents would no longer have to hold an Indiana superintendent's or teacher's license under a bill endorsed Tuesday by an Indiana House committee.

Supporters argued that the proposal would give more flexibility to local school boards over whom they could hire as their top district administrator. Opponents of the change said they worried that the state would be lowering its expectations by allowing superintendents without classroom experience.

The House Education Committee voted 9-4 to approve the bill, sending it to the full House for consideration.

Rep. Todd Huston, R-Fishers, described the change he sponsored as deregulating local school boards, which could still require applicants for superintendent positions to have a state license.

Huston pointed to U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who wasn't a teacher before becoming CEO of the Chicago Public Schools and then the country's top education official.

"I don't think this bill lowers standards. I think it gives flexibility and opens up the pool of applicants to be as large as the local school board thinks is necessary to best meet their school needs," said Huston, who was a chief of staff to former Republican state schools superintendent Tony Bennett.

School district superintendents are currently required to have a teacher's license and complete graduate school work in school administration.

Rep. Shelli VanDenburgh, D-Crown Point, said she shared the opinion of teacher groups that the importance of classroom experience was being discounted.

Derek Redelman, the Indiana Chamber of Commerce's vice president on education policy, said that the state's nearly 300 school districts should be able to decide whether they want a top administrator with more management experience.

"When you create licensing requirements here at the state, that ... is the assumption that they're all the same," Redelman said. "What this does is to give flexibility to match skills to very different needs."

Rep. Vernon Smith, D-Gary, said a school district superintendent needed to be an education leader able to oversee tasks as varied as staff and curriculum development, textbook selection and analysis of test results.

"Everybody cannot just do that, just walk in and do that," said Smith, an education professor at Indiana University Northwest in Gary. "... What we are doing here is diluting the profession, and I can never vote for a bill like this."

The new proposal follows steps backed by the Republican-controlled Legislature in the past couple years that make it easier for teachers to switch subject areas and to obtain teaching licenses without a college degree in education.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • RE: Superintendent Rules
    No. This person doesn't have to have ANY education-related license. That's why I mentioned the possible candidates. Just look at the influence that the Mind Trust guy has had - who is a lawyer.
  • Superintendent Rules
    The change is that the person doesn't have to have an INDIANA license. I assume he has to have licenses fromn SOMEWHERE. Right?
    • Yeah Right!
      You can't tell me that it's a coincidence that this bill comes right at the time that IPS is in search of a superintendent. The current board will now be able to bring in a non-educator (Mind Trust guy, business leader, charter school proponent???) to lead IPS. That will be the first step in dismantling the district into various corporate, profit entities.

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

    2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

    3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

    4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

    5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

    ADVERTISEMENT