Once again the controversial issue of high-salaried district superintendents has made its way to the forefront of discussion regarding school budgets. Television news reports, chatter among community members, Gov. Andrew Cuomo's criticisms and newspaper articles intensified the argument that the salaries of school superintendents are much too high.
The problem is, to focus on only the superintendent within the organizational structure of most school districts is missing the bigger fiscal picture. In many New York school districts, there are usually three, and sometimes four, assistants to the superintendent earning salaries near that of the governor. This is the real educational bureaucracy that Cuomo has spoken out against in arguing for the consolidation of services and management efficiency within our school districts.
Where I live, in the East Greenbush Central School District, Superintendent Angela Nagle has been vociferous in her comments against the governor's funding policies. In a local newspaper, and also on the district website, she stated that Cuomo's funding plan will continue to lead to "Draconian cuts" forcing districts to reduce personnel and programs. The phrase "Draconian cuts" has become a cliched summation for a school budget whine. It has also lost meaning. It deflects blame while spinning what amounts to self-serving interests.
While articulating the pain resulting from funding policies, Ms. Nagle is part of the exclusive administrator's club, being one of many state district administrators with salaries greater than Governor Cuomo's. According to the NYS School Administrator's Salary Disclosure in 2013, her salary was more than $189,000. The governor's is $179,000. Furthermore, the East Greenbush superintendent maintains a staff of three assistant superintendents, with salaries all above $130,000.
What is truly Draconian is that children suffer with education cuts while the school bureaucracy continues to be enriched.
Have you ever heard a school district administrator argue if we do not get more funding, we will have to cut or consolidate some of our administrators? I haven't.
School districts in several states are administered countywide. Joshua Starr, superintendent of Montgomery County Schools in Maryland, manages more than 100 schools, with more than 151,000 students. And if any one dare suggest consolidation of school administration would be devastating to our children in New York, according to the recently released, often cited, 17th edition of the Quality Counts Report, Maryland has maintained its No. 1 education ranking for the fifth year in a row.
In the months ahead, we will continue to hear that schools cannot maintain programs under current funding. But where is the proposal to merge the administrative services of neighboring school districts to save millions of dollars? What if community members were presented with a referendum with two options:
Proposal 1: Eliminate several teachers and a few school programs.
Proposal 2: Consolidate the central administration of our schools with other districts.
Care to take a guess on the outcome of such a vote? I wish I could have made such a sure bet on the Super Bowl.
The whiny drumbeat of "Draconian cuts" has intensified since the governor's budget address. But remember: the governor does not set up the targets for school cuts. The targets are selected by bulletproof, vested central administrators who are supposed to be advocates for children. But beneath their masks is their real management principle: "I'll advocate for you, just don't take anything from me."
As the school budget season emerges, we will no doubt hear more talk of austerity from those guarding the administrative fortress. No wonder New York taxpayers feel ripped off.
Gregg Weinlein is a retired teacher. greggw97@aol.com