Are school administrators paid too much?

[jld]

In these difficult budget times, should administrators still get raises? Or should everyone sacrifice?

 

http://www.cbsatlanta.com/news/26198048/detail.html

[TXMary2]

In any economic times, I don't see any reason why a Superintindent should make $200k a year (someone in our former school district). It is ridiculous. Teachers should make more than the higher ups. JMO of course.

[Karenciavo]

I know a number of teachers currently working in the public school system in NJ (9), they all complain not only about admin salaries, but also the number of them. In the last year many teacher positions were consolidated, but the positions of departing admins keep getting refilled.

[jld]

I know a number of teachers currently working in the public school system in NJ (9), they all complain not only about admin salaries, but also the number of them. In the last year many teacher positions were consolidated, but the positions of departing admins keep getting refilled.

 

Why do you think this is?

[Karenciavo]

Why do you think this is?

 

The populace does not stay informed and does not maintain an active interest in the running of the schools.

[Georgiana Daniels]

I'm really close to someone who was a high school administrator (2 years ago.) They ran him ragged and piled more cr** on top of him than is reasonable. He worked upwards of 70+ hours a week. First one into the building in the morning and the last one to leave when the basketball game (baseball, football, choir concert, etc.) was over. He dealt with behavior problems, police, school scheduling, overseeing teachers, all athletic issues, and paperwork galore. He was definitely not overpaid, and the job took a major toll on his health.

[snickelfritz]

I'm not really going to argue one way or the other. BUT I will say that some of the administrator positions require the skill set of someone who can run a corporation. And they work a longer school years than teachers. Superintendents are year-round. There's no way you will get someone to successfully run a corporation on a teacher salary. But I see the problems with the glut of administrators.

 

I live in the school district with the largest high school in the state, so I know I'm thinking on a larger scale. But that's why generalizations are usually a bad idea.

[snickelfritz]

I'm really close to someone who was a high school administrator (2 years ago.) They ran him ragged and piled more cr** on top of him than is reasonable. He worked upwards of 70+ hours a week. First one into the building in the morning and the last one to leave when the basketball game (baseball, football, choir concert, etc.) was over. He dealt with behavior problems, police, school scheduling, overseeing teachers, all athletic issues, and paperwork galore. He was definitely not overpaid, and the job took a major toll on his health.

 

Yes, to all of this.

[Renee in NC]

If there are pay raise freezes for some, they should be for all (within the gov't, not across the board.) In the case in the article, it's a totally different scenario. It isn't that she wants a raise so much as she wants to be paid what the position pays. As she says in the article, she agreed to keep her same salary while she was interim superintendent. However, she has been doing that for more than a year now. Eventually it isn't interim anymore.

 

The $238K is not unreasonable for a school superintendent at all. She is the "CEO" of a "company" that has 143 locations, almost 16,000 employees, and a total budget of $746.6 million. I used a salary calculator that I have found to be accurate and got an average salary of $249K for a Chief Financial Officer in that zip code, so her salary really isn't out of line at all.

[astrid]

I'm really close to someone who was a high school administrator (2 years ago.) They ran him ragged and piled more cr** on top of him than is reasonable. He worked upwards of 70+ hours a week. First one into the building in the morning and the last one to leave when the basketball game (baseball, football, choir concert, etc.) was over. He dealt with behavior problems, police, school scheduling, overseeing teachers, all athletic issues, and paperwork galore. He was definitely not overpaid, and the job took a major toll on his health.

 

Yes. This.

 

astrid

[mcconnellboys]

"Administrators" has come to mean lots more than just principals, asst. principals, or the other roles we used to think of when we heard this term. There are a million people who work in the education industry selecting and shifting around textbooks, dealing with infrastructure, etc. who never deal directly with children. Many, many of these people are waaaaaay overpaid for what they do and their positions are really not even necessary. If all state departments of education were closed, for instance, and all that wasted money directed to individual schools, it would result in immediate improvements in our education system. And that's just one small change that could be made!

[Mejane]

Are school administrators paid too much?

 

In light of their responsibility, no. However, in light of the fact that many, many schools are failing, if you believe pay should be tied to performance, then yes.

Edited December 21, 2010 by Mejane

[Crimson Wife]

The $238K is not unreasonable for a school superintendent at all. She is the "CEO" of a "company" that has 143 locations, almost 16,000 employees, and a total budget of $746.6 million. I used a salary calculator that I have found to be accurate and got an average salary of $249K for a Chief Financial Officer in that zip code, so her salary really isn't out of line at all.

 

Except the typical superintendent is far less qualified than the typical CFO. The Ed.D. is a joke degree. My MIL has one and I saw the kind of coursework that she did. There was no comparison to the rigor of the coursework that my DH did for his MBA. Perhaps that's why there's so much fiscal mismanagement in the schools.

 

I wouldn't have a problem with my district paying $249.5k to its superintendent if I had confidence that person had the management competence of the typical CFO.

[Caraway]

I'm really close to someone who was a high school administrator (2 years ago.) They ran him ragged and piled more cr** on top of him than is reasonable. He worked upwards of 70+ hours a week. First one into the building in the morning and the last one to leave when the basketball game (baseball, football, choir concert, etc.) was over. He dealt with behavior problems, police, school scheduling, overseeing teachers, all athletic issues, and paperwork galore. He was definitely not overpaid, and the job took a major toll on his health.

 

 

:iagree:

[angela in ohio]

I'm not really going to argue one way or the other. BUT I will say that some of the administrator positions require the skill set of someone who can run a corporation. And they work a longer school years than teachers. Superintendents are year-round. There's no way you will get someone to successfully run a corporation on a teacher salary. But I see the problems with the glut of administrators.

 

Thank you.

 

My dh is a school administrator. He is responsible for hundreds of employees and students. He is seriously overworked, but he feels called to this job. His last position as an administrator, before he was promoted, was actually a job two people used to do. The administration building has been cut to the breaking point.

 

He is making a fraction of what he would make in the professional world for his skill set (believe me, I have begged him to move to the private sector, but he loves the students too much.) He has to have a Specialist's degree, which is a Master's degree plus halfway to his PhD. He will continue to pay for continuing ed throughout his career.

 

My dh had a pay freeze this year, plus an extra 3% the state is taking from his income. The teachers got raises. The administrators were asked to "set the example," and they are not in a position to say no.

 

The school district administration is not primarily responsible for the failure of the schools. The teachers unions, the government, the parents... they all have a part in the failure. All my dh does is fight against the union and the government to try to get students educated. :(

Edited December 21, 2010 by angela in ohio

[Saille]

I'm really close to someone who was a high school administrator (2 years ago.) They ran him ragged and piled more cr** on top of him than is reasonable. He worked upwards of 70+ hours a week. First one into the building in the morning and the last one to leave when the basketball game (baseball, football, choir concert, etc.) was over. He dealt with behavior problems, police, school scheduling, overseeing teachers, all athletic issues, and paperwork galore. He was definitely not overpaid, and the job took a major toll on his health.

 

I don't think individual building administrators (or even superintendents) are what people mean when they talk about trimming fat. A principal who worked on a graduate degree while teaching and moved up to an administrative position has earned his/her stripes. I know how awful their schedules are. However, I've seen a lot of stratification/redundancy at the district level (and I suspect it happens at the state level, as well), so that someone working far less hard than your friend is being paid just the same...and is one of five people doing similar/overlapping jobs.

 

I'll give you an example. The last district for which I taught was in Ohio, which has regional centers throughout the state. These regional centers were responsible for spec. ed. co-ordination...except, in our county's case, in two small city districts, ours included. We had an office with five special ed. co-ordinators located next door to the Jr. High. They were considered county employees, but were paid out of the district's budget. It was, at various times, unclear who I reported to, my principal or my spec. ed. supervisor. Of the five, I got one that was...well, I'll pass the bean dip. Suffice to say she told me to buy candy with my own money to incentivise my students. A student explicitly threatened me while I was pregnant with my youngest, and she wanted to keep him in my room while they looked for alternative placements. She made it harder for me to do my job the entire time I was there. She intimated that I was the problem, but she'd get upset with me for not following procedures in a two-sided memo she'd single-side copied, for example, and I was teacher of the year in my building that year. It was hard to take so much cr*p from someone who was earning way more than me and doing things like this.

[catz]

I'm really close to someone who was a high school administrator (2 years ago.) They ran him ragged and piled more cr** on top of him than is reasonable. He worked upwards of 70+ hours a week. First one into the building in the morning and the last one to leave when the basketball game (baseball, football, choir concert, etc.) was over. He dealt with behavior problems, police, school scheduling, overseeing teachers, all athletic issues, and paperwork galore. He was definitely not overpaid, and the job took a major toll on his health.

 

:iagree: Granted, we live in a state with better schools. We were extremely involved in the school system while my son attended for 2 years. Many of these people have doctorate degrees and would be making much more for much less stress in the private sector. Until I started attending school board meetings and actually looking at school budgets did I start seeing there was little to no fat in that budget. I'm not saying there problems other places, but I think the vast majority of administrators in my district are earning their keep and then some.

[Oak Knoll Mom]

A student explicitly threatened me while I was pregnant with my youngest, and she wanted to keep him in my room while they looked for alternative placements.

 

This happened to me, but my administrator said nothing could be done because he was labeled with a behavior disorder. I told her one of us wouldn't be in the classroom the next day--take her pick. She very quickly found somewhere else to put him and I never saw him again. I finished out the year and never looked back.

[Georgiana Daniels]

However, I've seen a lot of stratification/redundancy at the district level (and I suspect it happens at the state level, as well), so that someone working far less hard than your friend is being paid just the same...and is one of five people doing similar/overlapping jobs.

 

***

 

It was hard to take so much cr*p from someone who was earning way more than me and doing things like this.

 

You might be right about the higher levels--I have no knowledge of that. Sounds like your supervisor was awful to work for. That would drive me batty.

 

I don't know how other states work, but AZ is so underfunded for education that the districts have been asked to do more with less for a long time. As far as I know (which admittedly isn't much beyond what goes on at the high school level) everyone is stretched thin and doing double duty. However, I know that doesn't apply to every state or situation, and I'm sure there's fat to trim at some point in the food chain.

[Renee in NC]

Except the typical superintendent is far less qualified than the typical CFO. The Ed.D. is a joke degree. My MIL has one and I saw the kind of coursework that she did. There was no comparison to the rigor of the coursework that my DH did for his MBA. Perhaps that's why there's so much fiscal mismanagement in the schools.

 

I wouldn't have a problem with my district paying $249.5k to its superintendent if I had confidence that person had the management competence of the typical CFO.

 

It doesn't have anythng to do with how much education the person has - I based it solely on the responsibilities of leading an organization that big aqnd the amount of time/energy/expertise it takes.

[JessieC]

I'm really close to someone who was a high school administrator (2 years ago.) They ran him ragged and piled more cr** on top of him than is reasonable. He worked upwards of 70+ hours a week. First one into the building in the morning and the last one to leave when the basketball game (baseball, football, choir concert, etc.) was over. He dealt with behavior problems, police, school scheduling, overseeing teachers, all athletic issues, and paperwork galore. He was definitely not overpaid, and the job took a major toll on his health.

 

I totally agree with this. I worked in schools for years and would never be an administrator. It is a hard, hard job with ridiculous hours--they deserve to be compensated for sure!

 

Jessica

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I think $200,000 plus salaries for school administrators is way too much IMHO. I realize many are hard working but when you compare them to federal government workers' salaries, pensions, and benefits, they often are paid more and have deluxe benefits on top of it.

 

Federal government GS workers have a top pay of about $150,000.00 in DC area (and less depending on the location) which usually takes decades to reach and have more responsibility IMHO at those top levels. Also, federal workers' benefits and pensions are very modest when you compare them to city, county, school, and state benefits and pensions. Also, the Secretary of Defense only makes $191,000/year. The Secretary of State makes $186,000/year. The Vice President of the US makes $208,000/year. So yes, I do think $200,000 and more a year is too much IMHO. I thinking $60,000 to $120,000 a year is more reasonable depending on the locality IMHO.

 

My 2 cents:)

Edited December 22, 2010 by priscilla

[Crimson Wife]

I thinking $60,000 to $120,000 a year is more reasonable depending on the locality IMHO.

 

The Bay Area is ridiculously expensive. If you adjust the "raw" salary numbers for the purchasing power using the U.S. national average, that $249.5k district superintendent salary works out to be the equivalent of $136.4k. IOW comfortable but definitely not rich.

 

You aren't going to get anybody remotely competent out here to take the job if it only paid $120k.

[Pink Fairy]

I think if you look at the working hours of most site administrators, they are probably underpaid. My dh, a teacher, considered going into administration, even going so far as to take a couple of college classes. But that was early in his career, and we decided that the long hours, lack of job security, and high stress level just weren't worth it. The administrators he's worked with are absolutely run ragged, and usually only last 2 or 3 years at most.

 

Upper level district administrators are another story. I do believe that most are overpaid, and that money would be better spent in other areas.

[jld]

The Bay Area is ridiculously expensive. If you adjust the "raw" salary numbers for the purchasing power using the U.S. national average, that $249.5k district superintendent salary works out to be the equivalent of $136.4k. IOW comfortable but definitely not rich.

 

You aren't going to get anybody remotely competent out here to take the job if it only paid $120k.

 

Don't you have subsidized housing for teachers in SF? Couldn't administrators be extended this benefit? Isn't housing the main factor driving up the cost of living in SF?

[Crimson Wife]

Don't you have subsidized housing for teachers in SF?

:smilielol5::smilielol5::smilielol5:

 

If my district offered subsidized housing for teachers, then they wouldn't be spending hours each day commuting from far away. The only teachers I know who live close are married to business executives/lawyers/doctors/etc.

[jld]

I thought I read that there was subsidized housing in SF for teachers. It might be an idea . . .

[jld]

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/sfusd-looks-assist-teachers-housing

[kitten18]

No, I don't think school administrators are paid too much.

 

Also, the Secretary of Defense only makes $191,000/year. The Secretary of State makes $186,000/year. The Vice President of the US makes $208,000/year. So yes, I do think $200,000 and more a year is too much IMHO. I thinking $60,000 to $120,000 a year is more reasonable depending on the locality IMHO.

The difference with those people is that they will all have multimillion dollar book deals and/or the opportunity to earn a very good living on the speaking circuit when they leave their jobs.

[Meriwether]

I think $200,000 plus salaries for school administrators is way too much IMHO. I realize many are hard working but when you compare them to federal government workers' salaries, pensions, and benefits, they often are paid more and have deluxe benefits on top of it.

 

Federal government GS workers have a top pay of about $150,000.00 in DC area (and less depending on the location) which usually takes decades to reach and have more responsibility IMHO at those top levels. Also, federal workers' benefits and pensions are very modest when you compare them to city, county, school, and state benefits and pensions. Also, the Secretary of Defense only makes $191,000/year. The Secretary of State makes $186,000/year. The Vice President of the US makes $208,000/year. So yes, I do think $200,000 and more a year is too much IMHO. I thinking $60,000 to $120,000 a year is more reasonable depending on the locality IMHO.

 

My 2 cents:)

 

 

Crimson Wife has a point but not every region is like SF. In my parents' town, the superintendent makes over 120,000. For a school system of approximately 300 kids. And he decided to make himself Activities Director for an additional salary. And he (the school board, really, but at his request) hired his wife for some non-job which I can't recall right now.

 

The average household income in that town is probably 40,000 or less.

 

I don't know about all superintendents, but that one is overpaid.

[asta]

The Bay Area is ridiculously expensive. If you adjust the "raw" salary numbers for the purchasing power using the U.S. national average, that $249.5k district superintendent salary works out to be the equivalent of $136.4k. IOW comfortable but definitely not rich.

 

You aren't going to get anybody remotely competent out here to take the job if it only paid $120k.

 

SF is not more expensive than DC. (Sec State, SecDef, etc.)

 

 

a

[Heather in Neverland]

Well golly...I need to have a talk with my boss...as a school principal I make the equivalent of $30,000 USD a year and that INCLUDES my housing allowance. :D

[Mom0012]

I think $200,000 plus salaries for school administrators is way too much IMHO. I realize many are hard working but when you compare them to federal government workers' salaries, pensions, and benefits, they often are paid more and have deluxe benefits on top of it.

 

Federal government GS workers have a top pay of about $150,000.00 in DC area (and less depending on the location) which usually takes decades to reach and have more responsibility IMHO at those top levels. Also, federal workers' benefits and pensions are very modest when you compare them to city, county, school, and state benefits and pensions. Also, the Secretary of Defense only makes $191,000/year. The Secretary of State makes $186,000/year. The Vice President of the US makes $208,000/year. So yes, I do think $200,000 and more a year is too much IMHO. I thinking $60,000 to $120,000 a year is more reasonable depending on the locality IMHO.

 

My 2 cents:)

 

That really puts it in perspective, doesn't it?

 

Lisa

[catz]

I think $200,000 plus salaries for school administrators is way too much IMHO. I realize many are hard working but when you compare them to federal government workers' salaries, pensions, and benefits, they often are paid more and have deluxe benefits on top of it.

 

Federal government GS workers have a top pay of about $150,000.00 in DC area (and less depending on the location) which usually takes decades to reach and have more responsibility IMHO at those top levels. Also, federal workers' benefits and pensions are very modest when you compare them to city, county, school, and state benefits and pensions. Also, the Secretary of Defense only makes $191,000/year. The Secretary of State makes $186,000/year. The Vice President of the US makes $208,000/year. So yes, I do think $200,000 and more a year is too much IMHO. I thinking $60,000 to $120,000 a year is more reasonable depending on the locality IMHO.

 

My 2 cents:)

 

I have a close friend who's military husband works in the Pentagon and lives in the DC area. They get a HUGE housing allowance that is not listed as part of their base income. Their income is WAY up there with the housing allowance (well above 120K). The housing allowance is based on rank and job title. So anyway incomes on government positions can be misleading IMHO. These people are not living like kings - they have a modest 3 bedroom house in a nice neighborhood.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I have a close friend who's military husband works in the Pentagon and lives in the DC area. They get a HUGE housing allowance that is not listed as part of their base income. Their income is WAY up there with the housing allowance (well above 120K). The housing allowance is based on rank and job title. So anyway incomes on government positions can be misleading IMHO. These people are not living like kings - they have a modest 3 bedroom house in a nice neighborhood.

 

The military may have housing allowances, but federal government workers do not. I will have to investigate for the others I mentioned:) I am curious if the Secretary of Defense is eligible for this as well:)

[jld]

Crimson Wife has a point but not every region is like SF. In my parents' town, the superintendent makes over 120,000. For a school system of approximately 300 kids. And he decided to make himself Activities Director for an additional salary. And he (the school board, really, but at his request) hired his wife for some non-job which I can't recall right now.

 

The average household income in that town is probably 40,000 or less.

 

I don't know about all superintendents, but that one is overpaid.

 

:iagree: Sounds like there might be corruption, too.

[Renee in NC]

That really puts it in perspective, doesn't it?

 

Lisa

 

They also have cars with drivers.;) Much like senators, they don't take the jobs for the pay. I know my uncle made much less as an undersecretary than he did as a VA administrator, but that didn't stop him from taking the job.

 

Also, those are not the highest salaries in the gov't. Doctors, hospital administrators, etc. for the VA make much more than that. About 30% of US Gov't employees are not subject to the GS system at all.

 

I won't argue that there aren't too many administrators in the school system - our system here is district-level heavy. The amount of work that is dumped on teachers in the name of budget cuts is ridiculous, especially considering that there are too many people above her telling her what to do. Some schools have so many vice principals they don't know what to do with them all.

 

A school superintendent, OTOH, is an executive who administrates a very large organization. If we want to pay less than the private sector for those jobs, then we need to expect lower quality candidates. In some cases, that happens anyway:glare:, but I digress. The superintendent here makes $171K - according to the same calculator I used before, he is way overpaid compared to the private sector here (and our school system is much smaller than Dekalb.)

 

My father works for a city gov't and he has "cadillac benefits" too. However, his position isn't even supported by tax money! They are required to operate with the fees they generate - if they can't, people get laid off.

[jld]

I won't argue that there aren't too many administrators in the school system - our system here is district-level heavy. The amount of work that is dumped on teachers in the name of budget cuts is ridiculous, especially considering that there are too many people above her telling her what to do. Some schools have so many vice principals they don't know what to do with them all.

 

 

 

A friend was a principal for a Catholic school, and also taught there full-time. She managed to do all the administrative work, plus teach. The Vice-Chancellor of the college I went to insisted on teaching at least one class every semester, so she would not lose touch with the students and teachers. This is the attitude to have, I say.

 

From what teachers tell me, there are too many in administration. I'd love to see those positions trimmed and the money put into hiring more teachers and decreasing class sizes, not down to just 25, but more like 12-15.

[Renee in NC]

A friend was a principal for a Catholic school, and also taught there full-time. She managed to do all the administrative work, plus teach. The Vice-Chancellor of the college I went to insisted on teaching at least one class every semester, so she would not lose touch with the students and teachers. This is the attitude to have, I say.

 

From what teachers tell me, there are too many in administration. I'd love to see those positions trimmed and the money put into hiring more teachers and decreasing class sizes, not down to just 25, but more like 12-15.

 

None of my ds are in a class with more than 16 students. They receive art, music, and PE on a regular basis as well. I imagine that is why the school budget is so high here for the number of schools in the district.

 

A ps principal has way more paperwork and accountability than a private school principal. I don't doubt that a small private school could be administrated during the summer and in a few hours a week. I don't think that is realistic for a public school, though, unless you allow them to operate like private schools.

 

Private schools do not have to meet NCLB, do not have to educate special ed students, do not have to provide an education to everyone, and can expel trouble students. Private schools with a comparable number of students as a public school usually have several administrators and support personnel. They may or may not be paid as much as their ps counterparts, depending on the area and the type of school.

[jld]

None of my ds are in a class with more than 16 students. They receive art, music, and PE on a regular basis as well. I imagine that is why the school budget is so high here for the number of schools in the district.

 

A ps principal has way more paperwork and accountability than a private school principal. I don't doubt that a small private school could be administrated during the summer and in a few hours a week. I don't think that is realistic for a public school, though, unless you allow them to operate like private schools.

 

Private schools do not have to meet NCLB, do not have to educate special ed students, do not have to provide an education to everyone, and can expel trouble students. Private schools with a comparable number of students as a public school usually have several administrators and support personnel. They may or may not be paid as much as their ps counterparts, depending on the area and the type of school.

 

That is great for your kids, Renee! Classes are at least 25 in our home area.

 

I'll ask my friend what she thinks about the administration needs. I know she definitely did not make what the ps people were making. At the same time, she really loved her job.

 

I think administrators with the attitude that the VC at my college had are respected by the people who work for them. And when the administrators stand with the teachers, sacrificing with them, I think they are even more respected.

 

http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_15143979?nclick_check=1

Edited December 22, 2010 by jld

[Granny_Weatherwax]

The $238K is not unreasonable for a school superintendent at all. She is the "CEO" of a "company" that has 143 locations, almost 16,000 employees, and a total budget of $746.6 million. I used a salary calculator that I have found to be accurate and got an average salary of $249K for a Chief Financial Officer in that zip code, so her salary really isn't out of line at all.

 

That may not be unreasonable for such a large district but a similar salary for a superintendent of a district one tenth that size (our local district) is outrageous. Our district is broke and just asked for another tax increase in order to cover its expenses.

 

BTW - the driver's ed teacher, who doesn't even work a full day, makes over $100,000.

[LisaKinVA]

I have a close friend who's military husband works in the Pentagon and lives in the DC area. They get a HUGE housing allowance that is not listed as part of their base income. Their income is WAY up there with the housing allowance (well above 120K). The housing allowance is based on rank and job title. So anyway incomes on government positions can be misleading IMHO. These people are not living like kings - they have a modest 3 bedroom house in a nice neighborhood.

 

Active duty military cannot be compared to civillian pay. We don't get housing allowances, etc.

 

My husband is responsible for lots of ships... budgets in the billions. He's a civillian. We aren't making $100,000 a year, and live 75 minutes (when there is no traffic) from his office. We make ends meet, but not much more. DH almost has 15 years with this gov't agency. Essentially, his position is what allows the military to "downsize." So, when I hear about the military "downsizing" -- I kind of groan... because it usually means more responsibility for my dh, and no increase in pay. His office has been understaffed for as long as we've been in the DC area.

 

My father has been in federal service since 1984. He is a 14, he "passed" on a 15, because there was virtually no difference in pay, but a whole lot more responsibility... having to move without notice, being "on-call" 24-7, etc. He runs a division... he testifies before Congress, he testifies in court. He teaches and trains. But, he has one HUGE perk... he gets to work from home 4/5 of the time. Everyone tells him he should work "forever" under those conditions... but he wants out. I think he has a timer set for his "retirement." :lol:

 

Most federal employees will never have speaking engagements, or book deals... they get what they get. The upper level "management" is usually very "underpaid" compared to what a coporate manager would make. I think it tops out around $150,000. We do pay for a portion of our health, dental, etc., the leave plan is more generous than in many other places (dh will earn about 5 weeks of paid leave next year... that does not include sick leave).

 

Making life more complicated, it is even more difficult to get rid of "bad" employees.... the ones that will *never* get promoted... the ones who show up, punch the clock, and spend more time gabbing and on ciggy/coffee breaks than getting their work done. The ones everyone "knows" are unreliable, and everyone "wishes" would transfer somewhere else, so they could put someone in their position who would DO the work.

 

I really have to go wrap presents...

[Renee in NC]

That may not be unreasonable for such a large district but a similar salary for a superintendent of a district one tenth that size (our local district) is outrageous. Our district is broke and just asked for another tax increase in order to cover its expenses.

 

BTW - the driver's ed teacher, who doesn't even work a full day, makes over $100,000.

 

I said that somewhere - that some superintendents are paid way too much for the size and location of the district!

 

The highest paid teachers here don't make anywhere near $100K.

[Crimson Wife]

Interesting link about the proposed plan for SF Unified to start offering a few teachers subsidized housing. We live in the 'burbs, however.

 

And D.C. is quite a bit cheaper than the S.F. Bay Area. If the cost-of-living for the U.S. average is set at 100, then D.C. comes in at 138 and SF comes in at a whopping 186. The only city with a higher cost-of-living than SF is NYC (212 :eek:). A salary of $250k in SF has the same purchasing power as a salary of $337k in DC- big difference!