State weighs school board requirements

  • Follow Metro

ATLANTA --- State officials are considering whether to restrict who can run for school boards after an Atlanta-area school district lost its accreditation.

The proposal, included in a report about improving local school boards that was requested by the state Board of Education, is feeling a backlash from some people who fear the requirements are antidemocratic and, in some instances, illegal or unconstitutional.

Most controversial are proposals that board candidates have high-school diplomas or GEDs, submit to drug testing and not work for any public or private school system.

State Superintendent Kathy Cox said the education requirements were "judgmental" and didn't necessarily have anything to do with whether board members would act appropriately.

A provision that would allow the state board to seize control of local districts also has gained attention.

Supporters of the measures say clashes between school boards and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, including that group's recent decision to strip accreditation from Clayton County, show an urgent need to toughen state oversight.

"Somebody has to do something and set some standards here," said Brian Burdette, a state board member from Greensboro.

Only a handful of states require school board members to have a high-school diploma or its equivalent. Elizabeth Partoyan, the director of research and member services for the National School Boards Association, said a 2007 survey returned by affiliates in 34 states found only four states had the education requirement.

Still, many question whether the rule would be that much of a hurdle. Jeannie "Sis" Henry, the executive director of the Georgia School Boards Association, said "the vast majority" of school board members in the state would meet the requirement, even though existing members would be exempt under the report's recommendations.

The school board association is troubled by other ideas in the report, including a provision that suggests barring anyone employed by a public or private school or school system.

"You're talking about singling out a large group of people and saying that they cannot run," Ms. Henry said.

A requirement that candidates submit to drug testing could be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has nullified a similar requirement for legislative candidates.

The groups who helped write the report -- the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, the Georgia Partnership for Excellence in Education and AdvancED, the parent company of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools -- say lawmakers might be able to find a way to craft the law so the court could accept it.

Ms. Henry is also skeptical about giving the state Board of Education power to seize a school district. She said it would be better to try to help districts before things got bad enough to require a takeover, and she said there were several unresolved questions, including what would trigger a takeover, how long it would last and how the state would reinstate local control.

Reach Brandon Larrabee at (678) 977-3709 or brandon.larrabee@morris.com.

Comments

Riverman1

Reminds me of when we switched from elected county school superintendents to appointed ones. It is simply another way to limit the voice of the people. Why not say board members have to be college graduates if having a high school diploma is a plus? This proposal by the State Board of Education is about as looney as Kathy Cox's proposal awhile back to eliminate the word "evolution" in the schools. By the way, there are many former educators on the 14 State Board of Education and keeping those employed in education from being on County Boards of Education seems ironic.

ZenoElia

Okay. Let me try to wrap this around my head. I can't get hired w/o a min HS or GED diploma and usually w/o a [filtered word] test, but lawmakers in state and federal levels of gov't don't have to pass a pee test and Education Board members don't have to have a min HS level education? R U KIDDING ME? No wonder our tax monies get mis-spent. Somebody please just gimme a break. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. This is some sick joke we have played on ourselves.

karmakills123

Putting uneducated..unqualified persons in charge of your childrens education and taxpayer monies is not only stupid but explaines RC schools students and graduates.

MyOpinion2

Check out free best selling book on line about education parents/educators should know, http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/

disssman

Man they are getting serious. Next thing you know they will require that Judges not have anything to do with lawyers and not have been working in courts. Of course I am sure they already submit to drug testing like all members of law enforcement, Don't they?

FallingLeaves

Unbelievable! What kind of example are they setting! No wonder there are problems in the school systems. Certainly the bare minimum should be a GED!

jamesnewsome

First let me qualify my comments by stating that I have served as a board of education member for 8 years and as vice-chairman for 6 years. Every constitutionally elected office in this state has to meet minimum legal requirements to insure that the office is occupied by a qualified person. I fully support more stringent requirements for BOE members and I am disappointed that the GSBA (GA School Boards Association) of which I am a member is not more proactive in leading the way to improve the minimum qualifications for board candidates. I would welcome mandatory drug testing for all school board members as well as school employees. I would also welcome minimum educational requirements and especially tightening of local residency requirements. Unfortunately I have little confidence that the State DOE is the proper agency to make suggestions for improving local boards. The vast majority of school board members do an excellent job. It is unfortunate that Clayton County's board has given everyone a black eye. It is also unfortunate that other Clayton County situations will probably occur before action is taken.

workingmom

I agree with you jamesnewsome. In my opinion a GED is not enough education for someone who is a member of any BOE. Maybe in the past, it would have been sufficient but in today's world when a 4-year degree is necessary to get a job instead of just a high school diploma, we need qualified people in these positions. Fortunately most of the board members, as you stated, do an excellent job but there is always room for improvement with any position.

papag_wchs

What really needs to happen is for educators to regulate and oversee other educators. Education is the only profession where any Joe the plumber can come and tell those with degrees, even advanced degrees, what to do. It is wrong and it needs to change. Imagine the local carpenter sitting on the board that oversees doctors. He doesn't understand the medical world. The same with education. Allow educators to be the true professionals they are by allowing them to regulate themselves. And please, don't get me wrong. I do think that there should be some oversight and involvement from parents, business people, and other stakeholders, but somehow, someway, anyone being able to sit on a local BOE is just wrong. It is wrong for our teachers and it is wrong for our students. Also, don't get me wrong. There are some board members who do a great job. The situation in Clayton is just shameful. I have friends who work there and they are going through a time with this mess. It is because of vindictive people and those who have personal grudges and vendettas against others that bring the system down. Let us get it together and start putting our children first!

FallingLeaves

In my opinion a GED is not enough education for someone who is a member of any BOE, but they were talking about allowing LESS THAN a GED. Now I'm wondering what the qualifications of OUR board members are! I didn't think anyone would even consider themselves for a school board position without AT LEAST a four year degree. I actually had the naivete to think our sitting board members had MORE than that. Do they? If not, this explains a lot.

workingmom

Well said, papag. If board members are to be responsible for approving teaching positions and helping to make decisions about what is happening in classrooms, they need to be informed and present in the schools. It is wonderful to see members of a BOE who are former educators because they have actually been in the classrooms at one time and know what it is like to teach a classroom full of students all day long while juggling paperwork, additional duties, etc.

FallingLeaves

I think it should be NECESSARY for Board Members to be former educators for the reasons mentioned above at 10:04pm. If there was one candidate without classroom experience and one with, I always chose the one with classroom experience. If it was two candidates with the same amount of education, and one was a non-teaching professional who did not volunteer in the schools and one had been a full-time homemaker and mother who volunteered in the schools, I picked the mom. I figured moms who volunteered in the school system were more engaged in the educational process than non-teaching professionals who didn't volunteer.

lifelongresidient

i would go one step further, by requiring a minimum number of college/university credit hours in civis, pol science, and economics. this will allow the board members to understand how their monetary decsions effect the local county and its budget, and the effect continued wasteful spending on stadiums, gyms and wasteful and ineffective "programs" on schools tht graduate less than 40% of its students and can't even have sufficient enuff student pass the crct and the effect on the local taxpayers who are paying for this. keep it up rich cnty and you will join clayton county real soon

Online Database by Caspio
Click here to load this Caspio Online Database.
Loading...