| ||||||||||||
Star Ledger editorial 8-4-10 ‘Adjust cap on superintendent salaries by region’
‘Arbitrary pay limits for New Jersey public school administrators?’ Rutgers University study
"GSCS Concern (excerpt from GSCS 7-24-10 Email-Net): to lose knowledgeable leadership at this time cannot help but destabilize our schools, just when stability is needed more than ever
The most major policy decision to impact public education school finance in recent history was struck with the Governor's signature on the 2% property tax cap bill. Governor Christie and Commissioner of Education Bret Schundler immediately followed that up with an announcement of a new cap system on the salaries of current school superintendents and other high level administrators (non-tenured assistant superintendents and business administrators, e.g.). This proposed cap could reduce the current salaries of about 70% of today's superintendents, and the plan could be in place by December 20th of this year. Legislation is not required to effect this restructure, in effect a revised code can justs be implemented by the Department of Education.
GSCS' prime mission is for high quality public education for New Jersey's students. The abruptness of these policy changes, lack of public input and public analysis of their consequences, however, is a great worry to our members, our parents, our communities.
A predictable result of this proposal will be an ever-diminishing pool of applicants for the position of superintendent of schools in New Jersey, just when experienced administrators are needed at the local level more than ever. This is especially true given the deep aid cutbacks on all districts, major layoffs and program cancellations hitting school districts, coupled with the onset of a hard 2% cap on property taxes staring this fiscal year. And suburban districts are the hardest hit.
To transition during these severe fiscal times and to be able to maintain quality education is our member districts' most important and necessary goal. To lose knowledgeable leadership at this time cannot help but destabilize our schools, just when stability is needed more than ever. GSCS is concerned that this proposal is precipitous and that the potential negative consequences for quality education are probable and all too real..." For articles, click here on
Star Ledger editorial 8-4-10 ‘Adjust cap on superintendent salaries by region’
Published: Wednesday, August 04, 2010, 6:12 AM
For dozens of school superintendents — particularly those in the most costly areas of the state — the governor’s proposed salary cap would mean a hefty pay cut, according to a report by Star-Ledger reporters Claire Heininger and Lisa Fleisher.
Sixty-two of the 66 superintendents in Bergen County would have their salaries slashed (some by nearly 30 percent), and in Essex County, 17 out of 20 would have to work for less.
In South Jersey, most salaries comply: Eighteen of the 21 superintendents in Gloucester County and and 17 of the 23 in Atlantic County make less than the new limits. Of the nearly $10 million in projected annual savings, most would come from districts in the northern part of the state.
While The Star-Ledger supports Gov. Chris Christie’s effort to tether gravity-defying salaries, pay checks go further in some parts of the state than others. Christie calls his plan, which ties pay to the number of students in a district, a “rational sliding scale.” It’s rational (or certainly more rational than the current sky’s-the-limit system), but it doesn’t slide enough.
Given two school districts with the same number of students — one in North Jersey and the other in South Jersey — superintendents’ pay shouldn’t be identical, because the cost of living can be dramatically higher in the north. Legislators, when they act on the governor’s proposal, should allow some regional wiggle room — not enough for salaries to skyrocket again, but enough for pricey areas to attract talented administrators.
Superintendents insist the salary cap will send colleagues fleeing to New York and Connecticut, where salaries remain high. Maybe it will. Maybe it won’t. But it’s time to hit the reset button on superintendent salaries, which are nearing $300,000 annually for the state’s highest-paid. The new top base salary for superintendents would be equal to the governor’s pay — $175,000 annually. Bonuses would be based on performance.
There is precedent for regional cost differentials. A cap on administrative spending growth, in place since 2004, is based partly on a factor that considers cost differences in northern, central and southern New Jersey. And the current school funding formula considers county-by-county cost differences in calculating the cost of an “adequate” education.
Frank Belluscio of the New Jersey School Boards Association worries the cap will place some school districts “at a disadvantage because of their geographical location.” But with just a tweak, it doesn’t have to be that way.
‘Arbitrary pay limits for New Jersey public school administrators?’ by Rutgers Professor Dr. Bruce Baker
Attached is information provided by Dr. Bruce Baker and his position/research on salary caps.
Public school administrators are an easy target. Almost any public employee making a “whopping” six figure salary these days is an easy target. Indeed most of the general public does not earn as much as a school superintendent. But, as I’ve pointed out in the past, it’s not necessarily appropriate to compare the general public average wage with that of school teachers or school administrators. It is obviously more appropriate to compare wages among similarly educated individuals and to compare them with others in the same labor market. This is much easier done with teacher salaries, because there are enough of them to calculate averages using census data which samples only a small portion of the population. It is more difficult with administrators 1) because there aren’t as many of them, so census data are less useful, and 2) because administrators may migrate further to take leadership positions – for example, from New York State to New Jersey, or even across the country for a large district superintendency.
I read today on NJ.COM that the Governor has proposed fixing New Jersey school district administrator pay according to the following scale, which adjust maximum salaries by school district size.
Proposed pay limits for school administrators
School enrollment / maximum pay
up to 250 / $120,000
251 – 750 / $135,000
751 – 1,500 / $150,000
1,501 – 3,000 / $165,000
3,001 – 10,000 / $175,000
More than 10,000 / to be determined by the Department of Education
As far as I can tell, these maximum salaries are completely arbitrary, but for pegging the highest to the Governor’s salary. Note that the Governor’s salary like the President’s salary is not based on any competitive labor market for Governors (e.g. the wage required to recruit/retain a high quality governor) or based on any negotiation. Governors’ salaries are pretty much arbitrary and the price in lost wages that one pays for being governor for a brief period in his/her career. So pegging salaries to the Governor’s salary on the basis that it somehow represents the competitive wage for the public executive with greatest level of responsibility is just absurd.
So, let’s take a look at New Jersey administrative salaries from a few different perspectives. Most of the analysis I present below come from previous posts, reports and analysis. Not much time for new content here today.
First – are New Jersey administrative salaries a major cost driver of school district budgets? Are they eating away at the edges of other spending categories? Here’s a chart from some analysis I did on New Jersey while still working at the University of Kansas (getting ready for my move). This chart shows us two things. First, between 1998 and 2005 (and similar in more recent years – not in chart), administrative expenses as a share of expenses have not climbed. Further, administrative expenses as a share of total expenses in the former Abbott districts were relatively low compared to other groups.
Second – relative to growth in regional non-teacher (non-administrator) wages, based on average wage growth in the National Center for Education Statistics Comparable Wage Index, have district and school level administrator wages in New Jersey grown out of control?
This first graph shows adjusted wages for district level administrators. Hmmm… pretty flat. Some lag, followed by some growth for superintendents.
Okay then, how about those elite superintendents at the top of the New Jersey food chain? From 1997 to 2008, their wages grew to an average that exceeded $200,000. But again, adjusted for average regional wage growth, those wages were relatively flat over time.
Then what about New Jersey building level administrators? Well, actually, their wages seem to have declined slightly over time, but are also relatively flat.
Third - These figures don’t speak to the competitiveness of district or school administrator wages on the regional labor market, except to say that their wages have not become more competitive over time. How might we compare the competitiveness? One interesting comparison is to compare the wages of private independent school headmasters in New Jersey to superintendents in the districts that are home to those private independent schools. This chart is from my 2009 study on private school costs which I have discussed on many occasions in this blog. This graph shows that in most cases, the private independent school headmasters’ salaries far exceed those of local public school superintendents. Note that most of these private schools have between 500 and 1200 students, which on the pay scale above would put them at a maximum salary of $135,000 to $150,000. It seems that the private school marketplace has identified a somewhat higher wage than this for recruiting top leadership talent. And these salaries are now quite dated.
Migration between private independent school leadership positions and public school superintendency is not all that common, but not unheard of. It is more likely that New Jersey districts would be in a position to compete for top regional school leaders with nearby New York State school districts. Here’s an article from the New York Times from 2006 on administrator salaries in New York, which already far exceeded the proposed pay scale above: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/23weadmi.html?fta=y&pagewanted=all
And here’s a list of New York State superintendent salaries over $250,000 and between $225,000 and $250,000, from: http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/mgtserv/admincom. Most are in southern New York State.
And a quote from an earlier post of mine:
In Illinois, primarily in the Chicago metro area, 10 administrators exceeded the 300,000 mark – most working in affluent suburban districts. http://www.championnews.net/salaries.php. In Texas, the top 4 superintendents in 2007-08 were compensated over 300,000 in base salary.
So, let’s review:
New Jersey administrative salaries do not seem to be the major driver of school district budgets over time. They have not crept out of control and consumed larger shares of school district budgets.
New Jersey administrative salaries have not grown with respect to regional wage growth over time. Adjusted for regional wage growth, district and school level administrative salaries have been relatively flat.
New Jersey public school district superintendents tend to be paid much lower salaries than those of private independent school headmasters for private independent schools geographically located in their district. Further the private independent schools tend to be much smaller in enrollment than a typical public school district.
Relatively large numbers of nearby superintendents in New York State earn salaries in excess of the highest New Jersey superintendent salaries, and far in excess of the maximum on the proposed salary scales above.
These findings raise significant concerns about the proposed salary schedule above specifically and about the broader concept of “fixing” or capping school district administrative salaries. Districts must be able to adapt to the competitive labor market context.
The concerns raised herein don’t address the additional issue that the competitive wage for a school administrator might also vary widely within the state of New Jersey, from the New York metropolitan area to the Philadelphia or Atlantic City areas.
Declaring a wage to be “appropriate” does not make it so. Mandating non-competitive wages for school administrators may lead to significant recruitment and/or retention problems for New Jersey school districts. More likely, such mandates will lead to a plethora of new games to skirt the mandated caps.
