IBJNews

Bill relaxing state superintendent rules advances

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana House has approved a bill that would end the requirement that local school superintendents hold a state superintendent's or teacher's license.

The House voted 58-40 on Tuesday in favor of the bill that supporters argue would give more flexibility to local school boards over whom they could hire as the top district administrator.

Republican Rep. Todd Huston of Fishers said school boards could still require their superintendents to hold a state license, but the bill would give them the option of hiring an experienced nonprofit or business leader.

Democratic Rep. Terri Austin of Anderson said state law already allows for temporary superintendent licenses and that the bill would wrongly remove any state standards for school district leaders.

The bill now goes to the Senate for consideration.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Now you've got it
    @Z. You've hit the nail on the head! That's exactly what our Republican supermajority in the legislature wants to do: cut, slash, and burn public education, so that their corporate buddies can come in and take it over. And as for the argument that a successful business background makes you qualified to run non-business institutions, remember what happened when Mitch Daniels hired a bunch of Galyans execs to run the BMV? Disaster. Just because you can run a business doesn't mean your skill set is transferable to other areas.
  • White House Confidential
    I love DC Indy's comment that Obama never did anything before he was elected President...that is code for I don't know what he did and because I just don't like him and my guy lost, I brought him into this discussion to slam him and anyone who voted for him even though it has nothing to do with whether or not it is a good or bad law...I guess because the Bush's inherited influence in the oil business and owned a baseball team and knew people and got appointments, and because Romney's "business" acumen (can you say "corporate raiding"?) was so well noted during the recent election, business acumen has suddenly become a requirement for the Presidency? Please...most of the Presidents we have elected over history were attorneys, soldiers, teachers, a tailor...a lot of them didn't "run" anything or prepare budgets until they got involved in politics. Most of them got involved like Obama did, at the local or state level, and eventually morphed into national politics. It does not happen by accident, but lots of them were not "business people", and many of them did less than Obama did before they got there. Obama is no more or less qualified than most of the people who have held the office despite what DC Indy says. Look it up and see what most of them did...not everyone was Thomas Jefferson (re:Renaissance man) or truly distinguished prior to ascending to the highest office. Lots of them were pretty ordinary people for a a good portion of their life. The fact is, Obama is not relevant to the discussion of whether or not a School Superintendent in Indiana should have a license. You made no point at all...the truth of the matter is, no matter what the job is, if you waited until you were 100% qualified for any job to apply for it, you would never even try...no one has skill in every area that the President needs to have expertise it, that is why they appoint advisors...as for a Superintendent of Schools, I suppose the legislature can determine what the rule is, and the house has advanced the bill. But since the same Indiana voters who elected Pence and put the state electoral in Romney's column did not see fit to re-elect Tony Bennett, is the will of the people being done? I doubt it somehow, but it likely won't stop this measure, bad or good, from steamrolling through...
  • What Difference is a License?
    So now the Democratic party (i.e. teachers' unions) are arguing that you need professional qualifications and a license to run a school corporation? Obama has never run ANYTHING in his whole life, had absolutely no executive experience, never got a budget approved, and yet he got elected to the most powerful executive position on Earth, twice, by the same people arguing that a person who runs a school corporation needs experience and a license. Absurd beyond belief.
  • relaxing state superintendent rules
    Sounds like dumbing down from the top to me. As for "an experienced nonprofit or business leader . . ." what would such a person know about running an institution of learning, other than cut, slash and burn?

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:
 
thisissue1-092914.jpg 092914

Subscribe to IBJ
ADVERTISEMENT