Governor Christie's inconsistent policy on salary caps lets charters use public funds to pay high salaries.

How is it fair that charter schools are exempt from Governor Christie's cap on superintendent salaries? If he truly wants to walk the walk and really believes that no one who runs a school district should make more than the governor, then how does he justify the exemption for charter schools? If he truly believes that what he calls high salaries are a misuse of public funds, how are charter schools -- also funded by public money -- allowed to pay their leaders more than the governor?

According to the story in today's Bergen Record:

The director of a Teaneck charter school with about 300 students was paid more than $200,000 last year. In Englewood, the head of an even smaller charter school, with 200 students, earned $152,000 in public money for working part time.

Governor Christie has moved to cap the salaries of superintendents at much larger traditional public school districts, but has proposed no such ceiling on tax-supported charters.

To some, the exemption shows how charters — publicly funded but independently operated — are given a pass when it comes to state regulations meant to ensure fiscal accountability.

"It's patently inequitable," said Bruce Baker, a Rutgers professor who has studied charter school financing.

Read the rest of the article here.

Only in New Jersey...

Buyer beware: Superintendent salary caps are a bad a idea.

Hey, I thought Republicans were supposed to be about less government intrusion into our lives! Why on earth does Governor Christie think he knows better than the residents of Ridgewood what goals we expect our superintendent of schools to achieve, and how we should compensate our superintendent for his achievement of those goals? I'm joining a growing number of New Jerseyans in saying, "Back off, big guy."

Superintendent Salary Caps 101. What are they?
Governor Christie has proposed establishing caps on the salaries paid to school superintendents. Seventy percent of superintendents in New Jersey are currently earning more than the proposed caps. In Bergen County 62 superintendents’ salaries exceed the proposed caps.

Christie's capped salaries would be set based on district enrollment. In addition, superintendents could receive non-pensionable merit pay -- as much as 15% of salary -- if he/she achieves goals. This would be a one year increase to the salary. In addition if the district has a high school, the superintendent would receive an additional stipend of $2,500.

The proposed salary caps are:
Student Enrollment..........Maximum Salary
0 – 250 students..........$125,000
251 – 750..........$135,000
751 – 1,500..........$145,000
1,501 – 3,000..........$155,000
3,001 – 6,500..........$165,000
6,501 – 10,000..........$175,000*

*The Commissioner, could also approve, on a case by case basis, a waiver of the maximum salary amount for districts with a total enrollment of 10,000 or more.

Superintendents could also earn $10,000 more for each additional district they supervise.

School boards would not be permitted to increase a superintendent's base pay (for example, with longevity increases) beyond these salary caps. Additionally, no superintendent contract that includes a compensation package above these salary caps could be extended; at its expiration, the new compensation package of the superintendent would need to conform to this new policy.

Click here to view the contract for Ridgewood superintendent Dan Fishbein, which is approx. $40,000 over the cap. Dr. Fishbein has declined his salary increase for the past two years.

Strangely, Governor Christie has stated that this proposal does not need legislative or NJ State Board of Education approval and that it can simply be added to regulations. It would become effective February 7. Wow...if it's that simple, why doesn't he just rewrite all the laws and do away with that pesky representative legislature...or state Board of Education. That would sure streamline things!

What's wrong?
As a taxpayer, I do understand the wish to deal with our state's high property taxes. Really, I do. But as a school board member who has been elected to provide leadership to our school system, I have real concerns about this plan. Here are a few:

1. Some of New Jersey’s most experienced superintendents will choose to resign or retire rather than continue to work at the same job with the same responsibilities for less money. This state is going to experience an exodus of qualified superintendents (and it's already hard enough for districts to fill superintendent positions). As the chairman of one nationwide search firm told the Star-Ledger, "The fact of the matter is the pool of really good superintendents is smaller than the 17,000 school districts across the country. If you want mediocrity, they are out there and will continue to be. But if you want people who will really make a difference, this [caps] will hurt."

2. Some of New Jersey’s superintendents will choose to leave New Jersey, and commute relatively easily to jobs in New York, Connecticut or Pennsylvania. This drain on leadership will have negative consequences for our schools.

3. In some districts, high school principals and district administrators will have higher salaries than superintendents.

4. Why is he only focusing on public school superintendents? What about charter school superintendents? What about private special ed school directors? They both are paid with taxpayer dollars?

5. Over the past few years, superintendents have found their jobs further and further complicated, thanks to dwindling resources, reduced state aid, tax and spending limits, and more. In some, smaller districts, superintendents serve multiple roles, such as principal or special education director. Christie's proposed salaries do not seem to reflect the realities of the job.

6. Minnesota tried capping superintendent salaries to a level that could not exceed that of the governor. After 10 years, leadership had deteriorated so much, the state legislature abolished the law.

6. If you look at the actual list of things for which a Board of Education is statutorily responsible, it's not that long. One of the most important items on the list is hiring, setting goals for, evaluating the performance of, and negotiating compensation for a superintendent. This responsibility should remain in our community, undertaken by members of the community who are elected to do so.

Share your thoughts.
Several people have asked me how they can comment on the proposal to cap superintendent salaries. If you're interested, you can comment in person or in writing:

In-Person Testimony:
Monday, November 29, 2010
6:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M.
North Warren Regional High School auditorium, 10 Noe Road, Blairstown, NJ 07825

Thursday, December 2, 2010
6:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M.
Cumberland County College Conference and Events Center
3322 College Drive, Vineland, NJ 08362

Tuesday, December 7, 2010
6:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M.
Burlington County Institute of Technology
Westampton Campus auditorium
695 Woodlane Road, Westampton, NJ 08060

Written comments by December 31, 2010 to:
Eric Taylor, Director
Office of Statute and Code Review
New Jersey Department of Education
River View Executive Plaza
Building 100, P.O. Box 500
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0500

New Jersey School Boards Association questions need for administrator salary caps.

From the most recent issue of School Board Notes:

Proposed salary caps for New Jersey superintendents and other central office school administrators are unnecessary and could prevent school boards from securing the best possible leaders for their education programs, according to NJSBA’s review of the proposal. The review took into account recent statute and regulations that have dramatically increased state oversight of local school district finances.

NJSBA President Ray Wiss will formally present the Association’s position to the state Department of Education on Nov. 18 during the first of four regional hearings on the proposal.

Unnecessary NJSBA supports certain aspects of the plan, including the concept of merit-based bonuses tied to educational goals and incentives for small school districts to share administrative services voluntarily. However, recent additions to state law and administrative code, such as the 2-percent property tax levy cap and the Accountability Regulations, render the proposed salary caps unnecessary.

“In practical terms, the new 2-percent tax levy cap, which is part of the governor’s toolkit to control government spending, coupled with reductions in state revenue make it financially imprudent for a school board to grant excessive compensation packages to administrators,” said Marie S. Bilik, NJSBA executive director. “Clearly, a school board that did so would have much to explain to its taxpayers and voters.

“In addition, the 2008 Accountability Regulations require all new contracts for central office administrators to receive approval from the state’s executive county superintendents. Such approval is granted only upon compliance with state-developed criteria that limit compensation, including benefits and salary increases.”

That review process is far-reaching and brings into question the need for rigid salary caps, according to NJSBA. In fact, Governor Christie relied on it last week when he instructed the executive county superintendents not to approve any superintendent contract extensions that exceed the salary caps and which would begin before the Feb. 7 effective date of the regulations.

Disadvantage “We share the goal of controlling the growth of all school district salaries and would consider reasonable constraints,” Bilik explained. “However, the limits proposed by the state might put some New Jersey school districts—especially those in areas with a high cost of living and which border other states—at a disadvantage when hiring superintendents and other administrators.”

When the proposed salary caps were introduced in the summer, NJSBA stressed that the role of the board of education is not to advocate for administrators’ salaries, but to ensure quality school leadership.

Low Administrative Costs Spending on school administration has not been a problem in New Jersey, according to federal statistics.

The latest report from the U.S. Department of Education places New Jersey’s overall spending on education administration below that of 42 other states. Compiled by the department’s National Center for Education Statistics, the data show that New Jersey public school districts devote 9.5 percent of their operating budgets to central office and school building administration, compared to a nationwide average of 10.8 percent. At the same time, the state’s spending on instruction and student support services (71.9 percent of total expenditures) is higher than the national average.

The Proposal The salary caps would be implemented through “commissioner regulations” as an amendment to the state’s Accountability Regulations without the need for approval by the state Board of Education.

Under the plan, salary caps would range from $125,000 for districts with fewer than 250 students, increasing incrementally to $175,000 for those with 6,501 to 10,000 students. Districts with more than 10,000 students would be able to apply for a waiver from the commissioner of education to exceed the top cap. The plan would also allow additional compensation in a district that operates a high school and for an individual who serves as superintendent for two or more districts. (A description of the proposal appeared in last week’s School Board Notes.)