text: How much does your district's superintendent earn? - Schools
  How much does your district's superintendent earn?
  By Kristen V. Brown on January 20, 2014 at 9:21 AM
  Capital Region school district superintendents earn big — especially in Albany, Schenectady and the region's wealthier suburbs. Even at salaries approaching $200,000, though, Capital Region superintendents earn modest amounts compared to other parts of the state.
  Superintendent salaries are the topic of today's Learning Curve column. See the chart below for a view of how local superintendent salaries stack up to one another (to view the data, click here.) Above, see the same information arranged on the map.
  To view a searchable database of state superintendent labor contracts via the Empire Center, click here.
  Source: Data provided by school districts to the State Education Department for compensation of employees budgeted to be paid more than $126,000 for 2013-14. (Kristen V. Brown/Times Union)
  They should be required to live in the the school district
  Kudos to Lori Kaplan for freezing her pay.
  Albany, Schenectady and Troy, with average household incomes of under $39,000, can least afford to pay the salaries and fringe benefits their superintendent's receive. Niskayuna, Shenendehowa and East Greenbush, with district wide household incomes in excess of $90,000, can most afford the salaries their superintendents receive. The rest fall somewhere in between the extremes. My question concerns performance. How many of these school superintendents have their salaries and fringe benefits tied in to a formula triggered by how well their district's students perform from one year to the next? None, I'll bet. ROF.
  They, meaning school superintendents, building principals, teachers and all other full time, tenured, employees should be required to live in the district where they work. In many places (Boston and Chicago immediately come to mind) this is a precondition for employment. Not only does spending their incomes where they work help the local economy, they get to know the people who live their and, in many cases become leaders in their own neighborhoods The same holds true for municipal employees too, Jeff.
  To tell you the truth, I don't care how much they individually earn. People who do their jobs well should be well-compensated. My questions would be more like the following:
  What exactly do these superintendents do?
  What purpose do their positions serve other than providing advancement opportunities for teachers?
  How does what they do actually help children learn?
  Why wouldn't children be better off if the superintendents were fired, and the money saved used to hire more classroom teachers?
  Those are the things I'm more interested in knowing.
  Vastly overpaid exemplars of excessive public spending, the end result of an apathetic and un-involved citizenry who don't ask the hard questions of their public servants that ought to be asked. Absent those checks and balances, they seek only more money and more benefits from the beleaguered, but hapless citizens, that could, if they only exercised the willpower, put a stop to it.
  No superintendent needs to earn more than $99,000/year.
  You may want to figure in benefits. The results would be very different.
  In the large majority of states, there is but one school district per county. So instead of over 700 districts each competing for tax dollars and limited resources as in New York, over 40 states have systems which take advantage of economies of scale. Instead of one superintendent per district, its one superintendent per county. Instead of one business office per district, its one per county…and so on. In the age of Walmart, Google, and Yahoo, with telecommunications changing the way we operate, we continue in NYS to operate our schools as if we were in the 18th century. As a result, our cost per pupil is double the national average. You want to lower taxes? Then consolidate all district under the counties… It doesn't mean we close schools or fire teachers, all it means is the administrative costs become more reasonable. In Albany County, we could end up with 17 or 18 high schools, some offering choices, such as one school for the arts, one for technical training, again as in most other states. Imagine lower costs, more choices for the students, and better programs. Its a "no brainer"
  Sheila…read the chart…benefits are clearly shown…..
  @Jeff and Hawkny:
  Superintendents do not get tenure – they are subject to their contracts and agreements with the school board. Why should teachers have to live within the district they teach? If that were true would lower income districts ever get good teachers then? Probably not.
  Albany at just under $250,000, this for a FAILING district is pathetic… And a $212.9 million budget…Ridiculous…
  It would be interesting to see these salaries compared to Nonprofits or businesses of like scale. In a large district the superintendent is really CEO of a broad scope of issues and dollars. These salaries are perhaps deserved. I do think the model of classroom educator to principal to superintendent should be amended. Candidates need experience outside the walls of academia under their belts if they are to lead students in preparation for the workplace.. There is no other workplace like education. The superintendent should be a community business partway et, building bridges to partnership with entities in his neighborhoods. Former basketball coach does not cut it.
  Superintendent jobs are very political and filled with connected elite. While salaries seem high such positions require doctorate degrees and years of experience. Maybe the TU might want to compare these salaries to that of corporations in NYS getting tax breaks and other pork at taxpayer expense. Doing so would make these salaries seem low. If one compares these salaries to one without a HS diploma then naturally they seem excessive….it all depends.
  Superintendent is a complex job that few understand. They get paid a lot of money because you have to be a CEO, CFO and great educator. People love to crab about superintendents' salaries because they are just crabby.
  If you think schools need a superintendent – and why wouldn't they? all big organizations need someone at the helm for things to run smoothly – then districts need to be paying this much. I was semi-recently involved with the hiring of a superintendent for one of the districts on the higher end of this list. Let me tell you, even with the excellent pay and benefits, we had very few applicants. As for applicants that were highly qualified for the job? Maybe two or three. Given the long hours and the cr*p superintendents have to put up with, without tenure, I would not take the job of superintendent of a large district even though the salary is approximately 5 times what I currently earn.
  @ hawkny
  It would seem to me that Albany, Schenectady and Troy with their many challenges would need the best possible (expensive) superintendents. Just because poverty levels are very high doesn't mean we shouldn't try to recruit the best professionals to meet the needs of a school district. An effective education system may be the best way to reduce generational poverty.
  I agree with several other posters that perhaps salaries should be tied to performance. There seems to be too much status quo mediocrity.
  I also agree that superintendents have very challenging jobs.
  I have a real problem with what these school superintendents are paid. Where I have family teaching in Chenango County – the Norwich Schools superintendent is paid $152,000 annually for a school of 2100 students, while a group of school districts to the east of Norwich (Edmeston, Morris, Gilbertsville-Mt.Upton, and Unadilla Valley) spend over $500,000 annually for four superintendents for 2200 students. The four smaller schools have a larger administrative staff combined then Norwich City School and Norwich is considered top heavy at the administrative level in that region. The amount of money saved annually in consolidating whole administrations would be staggering.
  RICO Cases Galore says:
  The public is soooo… left in the dark regarding true administrative costs and how school districts are run. Criminal enterprises could learn from them.
  Yeah, complain about the salary of the head honcho. Then add another 25% on top of that for pension, health insurance ( also paid into retirement), life insurance policies for themselves and family members, etc. etc..
  Now add a MAIN ASSISTANT Superintendents for " Instruction " He or she will make @ 25K less that the Superintendent, depending on the district. Now add another 25 on top of their salaries because "by contract" they all get the same "benefits".
  Now add a more ASSISTANT Superintendents for " human resources", "business" "transportation " Grounds maintenance" you name it.. Now add another 25 on top of their salaries because "by contract" they all get the same "benefits". Go ahead check it out, how many in your district? We have SEVEN.
  Now add " Curriculum Area Supervisors" You need at least one for math, english, science, social studies, special education, the list goes one. They are one notch below the ASSISTANT superintendents, but get the same benefits.
  Now add Principals, gotta have ONR head honcho per building . Another 100K ( PER BUILDING) plus add 25% because they get the same benefits.
  Now add ASSISTANT principals. Got FOUR of them in my daughter's high school. At least one for each middle school ( but hey we save in the Elem.'s, the principals are on their own there, just more secretaries AND aides to do the real work there..) Salaries plus add another 25%…
  Add that all up. We are just getting started.
  Who does the "effectiveness evaluations: of all these people? THEY DO EACH OTHERS!! Wonderful system, no one loses their jobs! NO ONE! How many administrators were laid off in the last few years , while teacher positions were cut by 10, 20. 30 40%?? Did you schools lose clubs? Art? Music? How many of the big $$ guys were let go?
  Board of Education oversight? PUHLEEZE. They are told what the administration wants them to hear and they buy it hook, line, and sinker.. Great system huh?
  OK, here's the plan we came up with to "tighten our belts" 'Save the taxpayers money" We lay off teachers, bus drivers, lunch ladies, special education aides, monitors, cut programs , increase class sizes, but here's the great thing NOT ONE ADMIN has to lose theirs! WOOHOOO!! Look around, have you seen ANY administrators in your districts lose their jobs over the past few " difficult " years?
  They "lay off' the teaches that rock the boat, line up jobs for family members, cover each others' arses and then are "forced to make tough cuts" in the monthly propaganda mailings that send out to the taxpayers to show "how hard" THEY have it..
  They have a better deal than organized crime has going. They are stealing it "legally", plus with a pension to boot..