This kind of money withot the check of accountability for student achievement? It is no wonder that schools are held in such low esteem by the public. As the NEA continues to fight against accountability their credibility sinks in the public eye. With money like this involved it will only continue to do so. Salaries may be high in the private sector but their accountability check is the free market. Not very forgiving at all.
Second of all, if you check around, there are more than a few public school officials here in CA who are very well compensated. A friend of mine works as an administrator just below the sup in one district, and pulls down $225K/year plus some impressive benefits. All told, I would peg my friend's total compensation (salary, benefits & everything else) at $275-$300K.
Actually the governator doesn't accept payment for his services. That's right, it doesn't go to charity, but back to the people of California. He has enough money I guess? Oh I see Anon beat me to it.
In a newspaper article in the Dallas Morning News it was discovered that head football coaches were making two to three times the average classroom teachers' salary. And, they were making barely less than the principals of the largest category of high schools. And I am sure that is simply due to a state law that limits it. Of course, that doesn't account for the sports camps that they run every summer for over 500 kids at $125 a pop. And that isn't a fundraiser for the team, it's a fundraiser for the coaches.
You've said nothing I didn't already know, anonymous. But it doesn't answer my question: is this one superintendent worth more than the governor?
That's a trick question, right? Running a state without a governor might be tough although I for one would be willing to give it a try. But a superintendent who's "worth it"? Contradiction in terms.
Back when the district administration consisted of hardly more then the superintendent their existence might have some value if they limited themselves to doing the scut work but once they became policy paladins any claim to utility went out the window.
Detroit Public Schools has had the benefit of various superintendents whose policies have resulted in a 25% graduation rate. I fail to see how the job could be done any more poorly then that without committing felonies, i.e fraudulently claiming to be a public servent, etc.
But as for your question, it is one of the great mysteries of capitalism, especially American capitalism, that apparent imbalances exist in compensation. Similar "imbalances" exist at all levels, yet the marketplace seems to work fairly well in most respects.
Our respective positions are another illustration of that imbalance. I'm paid a little less than twice as much as you are to reteach essentially the same mathematics to K-12 grads.
Why is there any school administration beyond that needed to run particular schools? It isn't like there's any economies of scale - much less any educational reason - to have more head-office bureaucrats.
I say fire 'em all and turn all schools into charters...
9 comments:
This kind of money withot the check of accountability for student achievement? It is no wonder that schools are held in such low esteem by the public. As the NEA continues to fight against accountability their credibility sinks in the public eye. With money like this involved it will only continue to do so. Salaries may be high in the private sector but their accountability check is the free market. Not very forgiving at all.
First of all, Schwarzenegger declines to take his salary.
Second of all, if you check around, there are more than a few public school officials here in CA who are very well compensated. A friend of mine works as an administrator just below the sup in one district, and pulls down $225K/year plus some impressive benefits. All told, I would peg my friend's total compensation (salary, benefits & everything else) at $275-$300K.
You've said nothing I didn't already know, anonymous. But it doesn't answer my question: is this one superintendent worth more than the governor?
Actually the governator doesn't accept payment for his services.
That's right, it doesn't go to charity, but back to the people of California.
He has enough money I guess?
Oh I see Anon beat me to it.
In a newspaper article in the Dallas Morning News it was discovered that head football coaches were making two to three times the average classroom teachers' salary. And, they were making barely less than the principals of the largest category of high schools. And I am sure that is simply due to a state law that limits it. Of course, that doesn't account for the sports camps that they run every summer for over 500 kids at $125 a pop. And that isn't a fundraiser for the team, it's a fundraiser for the coaches.
I'd say so.
You've said nothing I didn't already know, anonymous. But it doesn't answer my question: is this one superintendent worth more than the governor?
That's a trick question, right? Running a state without a governor might be tough although I for one would be willing to give it a try. But a superintendent who's "worth it"? Contradiction in terms.
Back when the district administration consisted of hardly more then the superintendent their existence might have some value if they limited themselves to doing the scut work but once they became policy paladins any claim to utility went out the window.
Detroit Public Schools has had the benefit of various superintendents whose policies have resulted in a 25% graduation rate. I fail to see how the job could be done any more poorly then that without committing felonies, i.e fraudulently claiming to be a public servent, etc.
Detroit also has an imploding pension system:
Detroit Pension System: Time Bomb, part 1
Detroit Pension System: Time Bomb, part 2
Detroit Pension System: Time Bomb, part 3
But as for your question, it is one of the great mysteries of capitalism, especially American capitalism, that apparent imbalances exist in compensation. Similar "imbalances" exist at all levels, yet the marketplace seems to work fairly well in most respects.
Our respective positions are another illustration of that imbalance. I'm paid a little less than twice as much as you are to reteach essentially the same mathematics to K-12 grads.
Why is there any school administration beyond that needed to run particular schools? It isn't like there's any economies of scale - much less any educational reason - to have more head-office bureaucrats.
I say fire 'em all and turn all schools into charters...
Post a Comment