The Other Side of Superintendent Bashing

By PATRICK W. MARTIN

YESTERDAY, I, along with the other public school superintendents in the state, received a directive from the state Department of Education to send a copy of my employment contract to the state for review. The directive indicated that “the results of this review will be utilized to revise the standards for review of contracts in the future.”

I realize that this review is being prompted by perceived excesses in the contracts of several superintendents throughout the state. But I find it disturbing nonetheless.

Superintendent contracts are being singled out because superintendents as a group have limited political power and thus are easy targets. Those in power can “review” and alter superintendent contracts without fearing any meaningful retribution. What are the superintendents going to do, cry “injustice”? We have been painted in the media as indulged fat cats. So the powers that be can accrue some political capital by publicly chastising us.

Would the same powers that be review teacher contracts across the state, seeking provisions deemed to be overindulgent and wasteful? Would they tell the teachers that teacher contracts of the future will have to conform to “standards” set by the state? What if one of those standards for teacher contracts was that annual salary increases could not exceed 2 percent? This would never happen because the state teachers association would rise up (rightfully so) with tens of thousands of voices and decry the standards as impediments to free and fair collective bargaining.

And make no mistake about it, government officials and politicians who backed such a review of teacher contracts would soon be replaced.

Compare the amount of taxpayer dollars that conceivably could be gleaned from “revising” the 612 superintendent contracts in the state with the amount of money that could be accrued from a similar revision of the contracts of tens of thousands of teachers. The comparison is not even close.

A school superintendent’s job is challenging, and superintendents are paid what the market will bear. In other words, if a locality believes that the “going rate” for a superintendent is too high, why doesn’t the locality simply hire an individual who will take the job for half the going rate?

The answer is that localities realize the importance of having a knowledgeable professional who will assume the ultimate responsibility for the proper education of their children. It is an awesome responsibility (arguably the most important responsibility in a community) and, in an effort to save some money, appointing an individual willing to take a cut-rate price is understandably troubling to boards of education.

In the same way that our country does not limit what a doctor, lawyer or other professional can charge for services, I believe it is undemocratic to limit superintendent compensation packages.

If the public and press believe that a certain superintendent’s remuneration is excessive, they are free in our society to decry that remuneration publicly. The public, through its elected board of education, can change the remuneration through free-market bargaining with the superintendent when the superintendent’s contract comes up for renewal. If they desire, board of education trustees can decline to offer contract extensions to superintendents.

I believe it is unfair and un-American to establish contract standards that limit free-market bargaining simply because public school superintendents are easy targets ripe for political point- making.

***

Patrick W. Martin is Ringwood schools superintendent.

(c) 2008 Record, The; Bergen County, N.J.. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.