In the Globe piece today, we learn that superintendents are getting even higher salaries then previously thought.
[For superintendents] the average total compensation is $147,500, according to a Globe analysis of contracts for 162 superintendents in Eastern Massachusetts.
This includes salary and perks such as annual car allowances of $6,000, retirement annuities of $13,500 on top of their pensions, one time housing allowances of $150,000, longevity bonuses and performance bonuses of up to $20,000 annually.
During a time when we have heard nothing but how Mitt Romney has devastated our schools by reducing local aid and how our school systems need more money, superintendents have been racking in more and more money.
The average value of their perks has gone up 17 percent in the last three years.
During the same period, base salaries rose an average of 12 percent
As an additional kick in the nuts, those of us that have been engaged and attended our town meetings have been mislead about the perks and salaries.
School committees are using the perks as a way to increase a superintendent’s overall compensation without public scrutiny, a practice openly acknowledged in a guide to superintendent contract negotiations prepared by the state’s school committee association. Base pay, sometimes published in towns’ annual reports or discussed as part of the school system’s budget, is typically the only figure most taxpayers see. They would have to comb through the fine details in a contract to determine what the perks were or added up to.
When it comes to public positions like school teachers, superintendents and governors, many people fall into what I call the CEO trap. And the superintendents are no different.
School Committee members and superintendents, who like to compare the district’s top job to a chief executive officer, say school chiefs’ perks pale in comparison to the private sector.
“Look at the responsibility. I’ve got 16,000 kids and a $150 million budget, and 2,000 employees,” said Basan Nembirkow, the Brockton superintendent, who receives $179,200, including perks. “What do you want to pay someone like that?”
Schools are NOT the private sector and superintendents et al should have no expectation to be paid like a CEO in a private company. If they wanted to be paid like a CEO they should have went to business school instead of getting a degree in teaching or school administration. I am a geologist, I hold advanced degrees, my wife is a CPA, who do you think makes more? She does, by almost double. Do I go around saying I should make more because I cleanup the environment and she moves numbers around in a spread sheet? No!! I knew the pay scale coming in and made the choice that doing something I like and was passionate about was more important then the salary. Why do superintendents have any expectation to be paid like CEOs? They’re not CEOs!
How much money are we wasting on school administration that could be used to better educate the students?