You may have seen today's piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer about proposed salary caps for school district administrators in New Jersey.
In an effort to push forward with its education-overhaul agenda, the Christie administration announced public hearings Monday on proposed salary limits for top school district administrators?.. About 70 percent of school district heads earn above the proposed caps, according to the state.
What would that look like?
The proposed pay limits vary by district size. School systems with up to 250 students would cap superintendents' salaries at $120,000. Districts with 6,501 to 10,000 students would be limited at $175,000. The state education commissioner may approve a higher salary for a superintendent whose district has more than 10,000 pupils. Superintendents could earn $10,000 for each additional district they oversee. They also could receive a $2,500 stipend if their district includes a high school.
My initial reaction to this story, other than choking on my chocolate-covered soy nuts when I read that the Camden Schools chief makes $239K (!!)? was that maybe salary caps are a good idea in places like New? Jersey, where corruption in public education makes the dysfunction of Jersey Shore look like a children's show. There was a bit of a back-and-forth in the world of Fordham email, something like this:
Terry:?? Markets work on this front and I don't like the idea of caps.
Me:??? Maybe I'm too hooked to the storyline of The Cartel, but some supes in NJ make in the $400s and this is just ridiculous! It's public money.
Terry:??? Is the best way to address this a cap for all supers no matter the challenges? I'll admit $400k seems ridiculous but do taxpayers vote for these salaries locally? I'm having trouble with the idea of the state setting the market value for district leaders.
Me: ??? Yes? but when you have salaries this ludicrous some kind of measure (maybe not a cap) seems necessary. Set an initial cap and then give $75K or $100K in bonuses contingent on results.
Terry:??? Make cuts to the districts and then let the supers explain their salaries during times of cuts to the overall system.
His final idea is interesting ? deliver cuts to the districts, which are arguably already overfunded, and then let leaders explain that to the taxpayers. Clearly salary caps are a blunt instrument that might have perverse incentives, but does Gov. Christie's idea have merit? Or is it a bad idea and likely to drive out good leaders? If so, how do you justify paying chiefs of the some of our nation's most failing districts that much money??? Flypaper readers, what do you think?
- Jamie Davies O'Leary
