Bill spells out qualifications for education commissioner / LJWorld.com

Kansas Legislature

Legislation would require hiring person with experience in schools

January 26, 2006

Topeka — Sparks continue to fly months after the controversial hiring of Kansas Education Commissioner Bob Corkins.

On Wednesday, legislation surfaced that would prohibit the State Board of Education from appointing a commissioner who didn't have a background in education.

"We need to have a discussion about qualifications," said Rep. Jim Ward, D-Wichita, one of the supporters of House Bill 2711. "Our new commissioner does not have a lot of experience in education."

In October, a 6-4 majority on the education board stunned many state officials and educators by hiring Corkins over several veteran education administrators - and at a salary of $140,000 per year.

Before being named education commissioner, Corkins was the staff member of a think tank that provided legislators with research and policy papers, some of them critical of school spending. He had no experience in the education field and had actively opposed recent increases in school funding and spoken out against the Kansas Supreme Court for declaring the school finance system unconstitutional and ordering more funding.

Under the new bill, the state education commissioner would have to have certain qualifications.

The measure would require that the commissioner be either a licensed teacher or school administrator, or have significant training or experience in the field of education.

Corkins said he would probably fail to meet those qualifications.

But Corkins said he didn't want to get involved in debate over the bill.

"I'll be happy to leave that question in the Legislature's hands," he said. "My only job security, and I've always said this, has been my own ability."

Asked whether he felt the bill was targeted at him, he said, "It's not an issue that concerns me or this department."

Ward said that with half of state funding, about $3 billion, going to public schools, the state needed a qualified commissioner knowledgeable about school curriculums and standards.

"This is a critical position. What tools do we expect the commissioner to bring to the table?" he said.

The measure was introduced by the House Education Committee at the request of Democrats. Committee chairwoman Kathe Decker, R-Clay Center, said she didn't know much about the measure and was unsure whether she would have a hearing on it.

Sen. Jean Kurtis Schodorf, R-Wichita, chairwoman of the Senate Education Committee, has been critical of Corkins.

"I'll take a look at it," Schodorf said of the bill. "But it's a little late now."

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

26 January 2006
at 8:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kmaster (Anonymous) says…

Since Bob was a car salesman at Crown Toyota in Lawrence, maybe the BOE thought that was one of the qualifications.
26 January 2006
at 11:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

badger (Anonymous) says…

This won't oust Corkins unless they make him reapply for his job. If it covers the criteria for appointment, it's too late to apply those to him now. If it covers the criteria for holding office, I think that it's a little ridiculous to make laws that affect future hiring practices for what appears to be the sole purpose of ousting someone they don't want in the job.

It makes sense, if they think the current process allows for someone incompetent to be appointed, to alter the process. However, why didn't a background in education concern them before? Are people to believe that they just woke up this morning and said, “Hey, I don't like that the commissioner has no experience in education. I want to make a law to prevent that in case the opportunity of it happening again comes up”?

Laundry lists of criteria created based on the shortcomings of current employees will sink a company, and I think they'll hurt the state, too.

Now, if it's just that dissent over Corkins has sparked a 'what do we really want?' discussion, well and good. I just have a hard time believing that it's just one of those times when argument touches off the desire to really think about things, and a much easier time believing that people said, “Hey, what are some reasonable criteria we could establish for this job that would put Corkins' lack of qualification for it on paper?”