Just over half of the board members (52.1%) responding to last week’s School Board Notes survey on superintendent salary caps support some type of constraint on administrator salaries, although most of those favoring controls do not completely agree with the governor’s proposal.
When broken down by region, a majority of board members in central and southern New Jersey supported some type of cap on administrator salaries. In contrast, a wide majority of board members from the northern counties felt that local school districts should have complete discretion over how they compensate administrators.
Superintendents, school business officials and other administrators overwhelmingly opposed the caps, regardless of region, and provided interesting observations about the proposal.
Cost-of-Living Adjustments Support for regional cost-of-living adjustments was strong throughout the state and among school board members and administrators. However, a majority of board members in all regions, including the south where salaries are generally lower, did not believe that the proposed caps would help to level the field among districts when recruiting superintendents.
Losing Superintendents Just over three-fifths (60.4%) of the responding board members from northern New Jersey felt that their districts would lose their current superintendents if the caps, as now proposed, went into effect. That concern was less prevalent among board members in the central (46.3%) and southern (31.6%) regions.
Hearings Slated The state Department of Education will conduct four regional hearings on the proposal, starting on Thursday, Nov. 18. NJSBA believes the caps are not necessary, considering other fiscal constraints on school districts.
Survey Results
Following are some of the results form last week’s survey:
Which statement most closely reflects your position on the issue of administrator salary caps?
Board Members-North
 |
School districts should have complete discretion over administrator compensation – 58.3%
Some control is needed – 27.1%
Completely agree with administration plan - 14.6% |
Board Members-Central
 |
School districts should have complete discretion over administrator compensation – 42.6%
Some control is needed – 38.9%
Completely agree with administration plan – 18.5% |
Board Members-South
 |
School districts should have complete discretion over administrator compensation – 28.9%
Some control is needed – 50%
Completely agree with administration plan – 21.1% |
The salary caps proposed by the governor would place my school district at a disadvantage when hiring a superintendent.
| Board Members |
Agree |
| North |
69.8% |
| Central |
53.7% |
| South |
42.1% |
| Statewide |
59.6% |
Superintendent salaries have gotten out of hand.
| Board Members |
Agree |
| North |
54.2% |
| Central |
61.1% |
| South |
55.3% |
| Statewide |
56.4% |
The governor’s plan should be amended to provide for regional cost-of-living adjustments.
| Board Members |
Agree |
| North |
80.2% |
| Central |
72.2% |
| South |
60.5% |
| Statewide |
73.9% |
My district will lose its current superintendent if the caps, as now proposed by the governor, go into effect.
| Board Members |
Agree |
| North |
60.4% |
| Central |
46.3% |
| South |
31.6% |
| Statewide |
50.5% |
Respondents’ Comments Optional comments from survey respondents ranged from total opposition, to expressing the need for additional criteria in establishing salary controls, to full support for the proposal. A selection of comments follows.
… this is a response to a few excesses which do need to be dealt with, but not in this manner. Our board sees what our superintendent does on a daily basis and we negotiate each contract in light of that performance.
The governor's plan should also take into consideration experience, education, and other duties that a superintendent may need to provide based on the smaller size of a district. Many CSA's are also the principal, curriculum director, grant writer, and head of maintenance. This all takes time and expertise to fulfill these duties.
The proposal does not take the "degree of difficulty" into consideration. Some districts have more challenges than others, making it harder to attract talent.
All taxpayer funded jobs should have caps.
I do believe the salary should be capped. However, the level set by the governor is too low.
While I feel something more realistic in terms of compensation and associated "packages" is warranted for ALL SCHOOL PERSONNEL, I do not believe salary "caps" to be the answer.
Capping superintendent salaries without also addressing salaries of assistant superintendents, building principals, and other administrators will only deplete the already thin pool of good candidates for the superintendency.
Agree with the proposed legislation 100%
The caps are an example of why simple solutions to complicated problems are usually imperfect, unworkable and counter-productive. Reigning in such costs as part of overall belt-tightening is understandable, but taking away a district's autonomy on the issue is not good practice or good government…. It shows a complete lack of…understanding for what the job is… Where are…the intelligent and sophisticated conversations we need to have about how to fund, refinance, and control the cost of education?
My issue is not so much with what Superintendents make, but the number of superintendents and school districts we support.
The limit on the salary for shared services of a superintendent will defeat the state's goal. Who will be willing to work with 2 boards, requiring 2 times as many board and committee meetings, and the addition of school-related night activities for $10,000?
…another example of Trenton applying a blanket 'solution' across the entire state, accounting for only the enrollment in a district. Does the governor have any idea what these people do? How many hours they spend in their schools, and at games, activities, events? Finally, the state is providing NO funding to many of these districts. Why in the world should they dictate how local money is spent????
School districts would be far better served if tenure was eliminated and we were able to clean house…
It is about time we received help from the state. Administrative costs have gotten too high, limiting the amount BOE can spend in the classroom.
While not completely opposed to state-wide salary caps, it needs to go further into the administrative team. We will likely have directors and principals making more than a superintendent. It sets the stage for an unequally compensated administrative team.
Education is a public service. Educators are public servants. The educators have great job security. The public has been sucked dry by excessive salaries in the schools. I am sick and angry about public employees saying they don't make enough money.
The salary cap does not take into consideration that in smaller districts the superintendent most likely fills additional roles… For example, many superintendents…are also serving as building principal and/or director of Special Education Services and/or director of student activities and/or director of testing and assessment and/or grant writer and administrator and/or assume direct responsibility for curriculum and professional development and/or... The unintended consequence may be that if a superintendent's salary is capped then he/she may not be amenable to going beyond the 'job description' and districts will find the salary budget to cover the abdicated responsibilities exceeds the current "uncapped" superintendent salary.
Since when is Trenton better at determining how a school district should spend its money? We hardly get any state aide, we are limited to a 2% increase, we really don't need their help with this. |
