But as for Granite City's lead educator, is it more important that they live in 62040 Zip Code (which pretty much also encompasses GCSD) or is it more important that the district hire the person who can best tend to the educational needs of GCSD?
I'd honestly not worry so much about where the top educated person lives, and worry more about what this person can do for the people in the classrooms.
One smart person who lives outside of Granite City could be fine, as long as they're helping to make the people within Granite City be educated... that will help make Granite City a better community...or make the future students able to afford to move elsewhere, we can't control that.
At the end of the day, the only control the taxpayers of Granite City have is the job description of the superintendent's job description and the ability to hire or remove her.
The remuneration is hers and hers to do with as she pleases.
Why would I support a residency requirement for city workers and not for the head educator?
For the skilled union positions of police and fire, there are more people to go around - and it's still likely to find many qualified people within the zip code.
For educators, you need the best person for the job. If you kept it within 62040 always, you may have a hard time filling some positions. This is not an indictment on Granite City; there are Granite City residents who also teach in other districts.
But if you said 'Granite City only' it would impede a principal at the 11th hour....when some teachers walk out of their contracts and take on other jobs.
Keep that residency requirement and then try to get someone who can teach physics or calculus...at the 11th hour or even some of the grade school needs too.
A residency requirement COULD (not saying it WOULD) truly keep the school from having the staffing it needs.
Again, it's not so much how the earned remuneration is spent by the educator....it's the effective performance of how that remuneration is spent that taxpayers should be worried about.