It’s hard to find good help. This saying has been around for ages, and it’s had such staying power because it’s true.
School superintendents are no exception to this rule. There’s a finite pool of people who have the experience and level of dedication necessary to oversee the operations of a school district ”“ not to mention the education and certification ”“ so when a quality superintendent is found, districts tend to hang onto them for as long as possible.
That’s the case in Biddeford, where Superintendent Jeremy Ray was hired last summer to replace longtime Superintendent Sarah-Jane Poli upon her retirement. City officials, including Mayor Alan Casavant, say they’re very pleased with Ray’s work and they want to keep him on board.
There’s just one hitch: The city has a residency requirement for Biddeford School District superintendents, and Ray lives in Saco.
Biddeford tried to remove this charter provision by putting it to voters in November, but to no avail ”“ voters wanted to keep it. Ray was supposed to make the move within six months of his being hired in July, but had put it off in hopes the voters would make the change.
Now he’s postponed the move once again, hoping that a bill put forth by Casavant, who is also a state representative, will kill the residency requirement statewide.
The timing of this bill submission is unfortunate, as some Biddeford residents see it as a blatant disregard for their vote this past November. Casavant has said he doesn’t believe some people understood the implications of their vote ”“ and while that’s probably true for some, unfortunately, it’s raised the hackles of those who purposefully voted to retain the residency requirement.
For now, we’d like to see Ray respect the will of the Biddeford voters, and continue to try and abide by the contract he signed by making the move to Biddeford as soon as possible. In the long run, we agree with Casavant that this requirement should be wiped out statewide, but the voters here have said they want to keep it in place, so the city should respect their will until such a time as the law is changed.
This issue is not unique to Biddeford ”“ it’s happening throughout the country in municipalities with residency requirements ”“ and we’d like to see Maine take the lead here by implementing Casavant’s bill.
Requiring a superintendent of schools to live within the district is an outdated provision that does not serve anyone well.
In the realm of public education, the school district and its taxpayers want the best person possible holding the reins. If the best candidate happens to live over the district line or even an hour away, it is not in the taxpayers’ best interests to hire someone less qualified simply because they live nearby or are willing to move.
The value of having someone who is talented, knowledgeable and dependable trumps any other considerations, especially considering the competition between districts for quality leaders and the difficulties of running a district today, given state and federal restraints and budget concerns.
Experience and knowledge of the local and state laws, as well as knowledge of the district itself, are all important attributes for a superintendent to have, but where they sleep at night does not necessarily have bearing on these qualities. It’s worth noting that Biddeford only requires one other employee, the city manager, to live in the city. It’s arguably more important that the fire and police chiefs live in town, but no such provision exists for them, creating a double standard.
What is the benefit of requiring the superintendent to live in the actual city of employment? It seems to be simply an issue of personal impact ”“ taxes and the education of their own children or grandchildren. If a person lives in the town, they have a personal interest in the impact of their budgets ”“ on both taxes and the children in the schools.
While that is an important argument, we’d like to suggest that making a responsible budget with a palatable tax impact and minimal impact on the students is a job requirement, so if the superintendent can’t do it, he or she can be replaced. Also, voters have the final say on the school budget, so if they feel the superintendent is too far removed and is pushing through a budget they can’t support, they can vote it down. Even so, it’s hard to imagine any quality superintendent who has the attitude of, “Well, I don’t live here, so who cares!”
It makes sense, of course, to have a superintendent who lives within the same state and the same area. It’s tough to draw lines, however, such as county or city: Consider the case of Ray, who Casavant said actually lives closer to City Hall than Poli did, but is just over the city line.
Aside from the overarching concerns about superintendent quality, a residency requirement is particularly out of touch because of the practical concerns it raises. It’s not so easy to sell a house nowadays, and it also makes no sense to do so ”“ and to pull one’s children out of their school system ”“ when your new job is located in the town next door.
Community involvement, such as being at school events, is also a component of the job that can be achieved without living in district. If a superintendent is doing his or her job well, it should not be the district’s concern where that person lives.
We hope Casavant’s bill finds wide support and is implemented so that school districts can get the best leaders they can find and focus on what’s best for the children rather than where they go home to at night.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
