Before the season starts.....this is sickening

[johnson86-1]

Weird in the sense that many folks seem to prefer local control and having an appointed superintendent seems to go in the exact opposite direction— with control being in the hands of someone who isn’t necessarily familiar with the needs of an individual school district.

The school superintendent is appointed (or really a more normal verb would be hired) by the school board. Most school boards in Mississippi are elected. A lot of municipal school districts do have the city council appoint the school board members.

SO at worst, you have somebody appointed by local elected representatives hiring your school district superintendent. Usually, you elect a board and the board hires the superintendent.

Which brings up another advantage of elected board members hiring the superintendent. If you have a lot of poverty and lack of education concentrated in one district, that area will basically elect one board member who will have one vote on the superintendent. If you are just doing a district wide election, then that one area with concentrated poverty may be a huge determinant of the school superintendent.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

The same thing could happen in election as well.

 

[johnson86-1]

The Sup needs to be an employee of the district and held accountable by the School Board. Thats how this all needs to work. The School Board is then elected.
The Sup is supposed to carry out the will/ideas/goals of the School Board so if the Sup is elected, their motivation is to stay elected instead of carry out the will of the School Board.


There are already enough people elected at lower levels that nobody knows enough about- I dont want Sups to then be part of that. People will just vote based on name recognition or party or whatever. The Board needs to hire Sups and Sups need to report to the Board.




...are there actually states where Superintendents are elected? How the 17 does that work for being employed by, and reporting to, the board then?

OT. I agree with that, but I also have trouble justifying why it shouldn't be the same way for city councils and mayors, at least for most places in Mississippi. Doesn't seem like you need a political executive for a city with less than 100k. Have the city council be elected and have the city council hire a city manager. The city council then acts like a board (hopefully a relatively hands off board) that sets policy and goals and charges the city manager with meeting them.

I'm sure there are drawbacks that I'm not considering, but that just seems like a more reasonable appraoch.

 

[Cooterpoot]

The school superintendent is appointed (or really a more normal verb would be hired) by the school board. Most school boards in Mississippi are elected. A lot of municipal school districts do have the city council appoint the school board members.

SO at worst, you have somebody appointed by local elected representatives hiring your school district superintendent. Usually, you elect a board and the board hires the superintendent.

Which brings up another advantage of elected board members hiring the superintendent. If you have a lot of poverty and lack of education concentrated in one district, that area will basically elect one board member who will have one vote on the superintendent. If you are just doing a district wide election, then that one area with concentrated poverty may be a huge determinant of the school superintendent.

Most areas with a board can only elect one person on it. That one isn't "The One" as you mentioned, then they really have no recourse for when their school is getting screwed. I could tell you things going on that you wouldn't believe. Things have become way more political and the board now has so much power with few checks and balances available. A lot of counties have districts that are gerrymandered to the point one school has no representatives. They throw it in with a larger district school to give more power to certain people. MS education is a damn mess.
I moved from one of these areas and things are better in a larger, city run district.

 

[Smoked Toag]

The school district my kids went to is one of the better ones in the state, but has one of the lower paid Superintendents in the state. We need to consolidate more districts and use the money saved to go to the classroom. Less than 25% of the education money spent goes to the classroom… 75% of it goes to administration/overhead… we need more education and less Administration.

Why is it one of the better ones? Be specific.

 

[Smoked Toag]

MS education is a damn mess.

Maybe it's public education in general that's the mess? There's nothing inherently different about Mississippi.

 

[Cooterpoot]

Maybe it's public education in general that's the mess? There's nothing inherently different about Mississippi.

You'd be incorrect. There are plenty of high performing public schools. Not enough, but they aren't all bad either.
The funny thing about MS paying supers so much is they are 51st in teacher pay. MS rewards administration, not the people in the classrooms.

 

[Smoked Toag]

You'd be incorrect. There are plenty of high performing public schools. Not enough, but they aren't all bad either.
The funny thing about MS paying supers so much is they are 51st in teacher pay. MS rewards administration, not the people in the classrooms.

What makes a high performing district over another? If it's simply to cut administration and beef up teachers, that seems easy enough. You telling me the people in charge haven't thought of this simple solution? Or maybe....just maybe....there's something else? Perhaps a public school is just a reflection of the....uh.....public?

 

[RBDog82]

Given the performance of Madison County schools, what it’s done for my property values and rental rates, I’ll gladly help pay Charlotte Seals $200k.

 

[johnson86-1]

You'd be incorrect. There are plenty of high performing public schools. Not enough, but they aren't all bad either.
The funny thing about MS paying supers so much is they are 51st in teacher pay. MS rewards administration, not the people in the classrooms.

How do superintendent salaries compare to other states? Everything I can find says Mississippi is bottom 5 in that also, but the numbers are way off, so it's not ranking the right data. Can't find anything off hand that looks like the right data.

 

[Leeshouldveflanked]

Why is it one of the better ones? Be specific.

Top 10 District in Math, ELA and Science in Mississippi on MAAP Assessment. Selected one of Top 10 School Districts in USNews and World Report. Also the school my kids went to finished #1 in Math and ELA in Mississippi.

 

[paindonthurt]

But we keep hearing education problems are due to funding.

If you make that much money, you should at least perform.

 

[paindonthurt]

But are they worth 200k if their district is rated as D.

 

[mstateglfr]

But that's like saying the people shouldn't have been allowed to vote on the flag. We elect people to handle that. Yet, the people did a better job than the elected officials. It's generally always that way really. But you're a big government guy, so I get it.

What?

- whether to change the flag wasn't voted on. It was decided and then there was a vote to decide which flag will be the new one.

- when people did vote on the flag over 20 years ago, they chose to keep it. That doesn't help your argument.

- I am not a big government guy, contrary to what is claimed here. I am simply more pragmatic than many here and less extreme. It's relative.

Now that those points are out of the way, I will again point you to why it is illadvised for a Sup to be elected- because they need to be employed by the board. They must be accountable to the group which oversees the school district's mission and guidance. A Sup's job is to move forward with thr board's vision.
This can't happen if the Sup does not report to the board. Who can fire the Sup?...are you saying it's better to let a bad Sup run out their term and run for re-election with the chance of being re-elwcted based on public ignorance and apathy, than to have a Sup be employed at will by a board?

The other major issue with electing a Sup instead of them being hired by the board is that it severely narrows the search for talent. Significantly narrows it, actually. Nobody is going to move to another state just to run in an election. Someone will move to another state after being interviewed and accepting a job.



The district management structure you propose doesn't exist based on what I have seen. Montana has a 'Sup' who oversees all education I the state and is elected, I think. But that is a different use of the term Superintendent.
There needs to be a CEO of a district who reports to a board and is subject to employment by that board.

Are any Sups in MS(or elsewhere) elected?

 

[Smoked Toag]

Top 10 District in Math, ELA and Science in Mississippi on MAAP Assessment. Selected one of Top 10 School Districts in USNews and World Report. Also the school my kids went to finished #1 in Math and ELA in Mississippi.

I asked you WHY it was a high performing district.

 

[GloryDawg]

The Sup needs to be an employee of the district and held accountable by the School Board. Thats how this all needs to work. The School Board is then elected.
The Sup is supposed to carry out the will/ideas/goals of the School Board so if the Sup is elected, their motivation is to stay elected instead of carry out the will of the School Board.


There are already enough people elected at lower levels that nobody knows enough about- I dont want Sups to then be part of that. People will just vote based on name recognition or party or whatever. The Board needs to hire Sups and Sups need to report to the Board.




...are there actually states where Superintendents are elected? How the 17 does that work for being employed by, and reporting to, the board then?

Football

 

[bulldoghair]

Top 10 District in Math, ELA and Science in Mississippi on MAAP Assessment. Selected one of Top 10 School Districts in USNews and World Report. Also the school my kids went to finished #1 in Math and ELA in Mississippi.

Which school are you referring too?

 

[ChinaDogSunflower]

The gubment shall not infringe on the Right to post on SixPackSpeak

 

[paindonthurt]

They can pay them whatever they want. I agree.

But don’t ***** about funding.

 

[Hot Rock]

I think part of the problem with public schools is that we make former failed or even successful coaches the principals and then superintendents instead of real teachers.

80 to 90% of coaches barely graze the doors of a classroom. They find their way to a field house before noon after sitting in study hall or a history class where they barely show up. Then we put them in charge if schools.

When a real teacher shows up to work the classroom is their priority and they spend countless hours studying how to teach. A coach doesn’t spend those hours learning to teach. They spend those off hours studying game film or coaches clinics not how to teach better.

Coaches should be never be allowed to be a principal or a superintendent because they simply have not focused on education and learning the best methods of teaching.

We end up with Thursday night football games before big tests. Or shutting down study time for games. They focus on games and not how to teach children or solutions to problems in education. Right now we have kids showing up in middle school that do not know their multiplication tables (Covid effect). No solution in sight unless individual teachers do something. Why? Coaches don’t teach and they are in charge of things.

Just simple things like announcements that Interrupt class time constantly to tell students to be at practice on time show where their heart lies.

I don’t question coaches dedication to their craft. Heck they work more hours and are gone more than most any of us. It’s just that they aren’t teachers and they should not be put in charge of our schools.

 

[Smoked Toag]

I think part of the problem with public schools is that we make former failed or even successful coaches the principals and then superintendents instead of real teachers.

80 to 90% of coaches barely graze the doors of a classroom. They find their way to a field house before noon after sitting in study hall or a history class where they barely show up. Then we put them in charge if schools.

When a real teacher shows up to work the classroom is their priority and they spend countless hours studying how to teach. A coach doesn’t spend those hours learning to teach. They spend those off hours studying game film or coaches clinics not how to teach better.

Coaches should be never be allowed to be a principal or a superintendent because they simply have not focused on education and learning the best methods of teaching.

We end up with Thursday night football games before big tests. Or shutting down study time for games. They focus on games and not how to teach children or solutions to problems in education. Right now we have kids showing up in middle school that do not know their multiplication tables (Covid effect). No solution in sight unless individual teachers do something. Why? Coaches don’t teach and they are in charge of things.

Just simple things like announcements that Interrupt class time constantly to tell students to be at practice on time show where their heart lies.

I don’t question coaches dedication to their craft. Heck they work more hours and are gone more than most any of us. It’s just that they aren’t teachers and they should not be put in charge of our schools.

You've got some DAMN good points here. There's no doubt there's a lot of popularity contests, and ex-players and ex-coaches are often looked at as gods. There's very little true skill development going on in the public school sector, in any shape or form. Administration is a talent/aptitude, as is teaching, and coaching. They require different people who actually have those talents.

 

[mstateglfr]

I think part of the problem with public schools is that we make former failed or even successful coaches the principals and then superintendents instead of real teachers.

80 to 90% of coaches barely graze the doors of a classroom. They find their way to a field house before noon after sitting in study hall or a history class where they barely show up. Then we put them in charge if schools.

A lot of coaches attain their Administratice License and then become Sups?
Thats...wild. I dont think I know Iod a Sup who was a coach turned Sup.

Every Sup I know has advanced degrees and spent time in school districts in various capacities(teacher, curriculum dept, etc) before then attaining their Admin Licesnse and working their way to a Sup be being things like an assistant Hs principal, HS principal, Associate Sup, etc etc.


What you describe is tough to even imagine since eitnis so clearly not how the process should work.

 

[mrbinsdog]

The fat cat report gave some recommended solutions

A lot of coaches attain their Administratice License and then become Sups?
Thats...wild. I dont think I know Iod a Sup who was a coach turned Sup.

Every Sup I know has advanced degrees and spent time in school districts in various capacities(teacher, curriculum dept, etc) before then attaining their Admin Licesnse and working their way to a Sup be being things like an assistant Hs principal, HS principal, Associate Sup, etc etc.


What you describe is tough to even imagine since eitnis so clearly not how the process should work.

All seemed good

 

[Cooterpoot]

A lot of coaches attain their Administratice License and then become Sups?
Thats...wild. I dont think I know Iod a Sup who was a coach turned Sup.

Then you aren't looking very hard.

 

[mstateglfr]

Then you aren't looking very hard.

I actually was in a short conference this morning with 4 administrators who work in the largest district in the state and one serves in a leadership of the regional Area Education Association. None know of someone who went from being a coach to a Superintendent. Two said they know many who were teachers and also coached a sport before gaining their Admin license. That, to me, is not at all whats being discussed here.

Again, if someone who is a coach is being hired to oversee an entire school district based on nothing more than their connections, then the board is the root issue as they are not hiring the best qualified applicant. At the same time, it is not exactly easy to gain an Administrative License(at least its a lot of work in my state) so if someone has gone thru that process, they arent 'just a coach' and they have put countless hours in for both education and experience.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Depends on the situation.

On a related note, I know of at least three former head football coaches who later became university presidents.