I am amazed how arrogant school administrators can be, and hell, I'm one of them.

I tend to believe that people get into public education out of a commitment to public service.  It should be understood, beyond a shadow of doubt, that administrators are absolutely subject to the elected officials, or schoolboard, in their jurisdictions.  Furthermore, there should be no doubt that tax dollars deserve the highest level of accountability.  God knows property taxes are high enough, especially here in Texas, where the state legislature doesn't have balls enough to propose a state income tax to fund education properly. 

Fortunately, property values are average by comparison to states like California and in the Northeast; however, school districts have to be funded primarily from local tax dollars, thus the property tax.  The taxing of a person's property, in my opinion, is obscene.  It discourages property ownership, suppresses the real value of property, and worst of all, it frees the legislature from having to make the toughest decisions about the value of a good education at the state level. 

True, I do believe schools are best organized and developed at the local level, but the state should have a funding apparatus in place which allows for adequate tax funds to pay teachers enough money to stay committed to education and so that some college graduates, who stay out of the profession because of money, might be attracted to commit themselves to this high form of public service.

But, back to my main point.  The money expended by schoolboards for high level administrators is often the equivalent of at least five starting teacher salaries.  It is not at all uncommon to find superintendents making $160K to $180K in districts whose starting teacher salaries are in the mid-30's.  And, why?  Schoolboards are often competing against other districts nearby for the biggest name they can afford.  It is somewhat akin to baseball owners paying outrageous salaries to superstars simply because they know a particular player will fill the grandstands come game time, whether or not the team has a chance in hell of winning the pennant.  A perfect example is Alex Rodriguez of the Texas Rangers.  A shortstop simply can't make enough difference for a team that has no pitching and sporadic hitting.  Can A-Rod fill a stadium?  No, not by himself.  The team has to win.

School districts create a superstar status out of the superintendency by paying such high salaries.  And, who wouldn't become arrogant with that kind of status?  It's a disgrace to treat public service as if it is the same as corporate America.  The whims of the corporate marketplace are far different from the rock-steady needs of children generation after generation.  School districts need leadership who can stay the course, and state education agencies ought to be guarding superintendents from the whims of local board politics so that children might be better served by someone who is committed locally to a particular community for a lifetime of service.  How can a superintendent know what's best for a community when the average term of a superintendent is less than 3 years, which, by the way, is shorter than the term of local schoolboard members who are elected.  If that ain't proof that the superintendency is a political position, then I don't know what is.

In spite of the tenuous nature of the superintendency, the arrogance of power these persons possess snowballs.  Men and women who find themselves in those positions are often found to be guilty of unethical, if not criminal, behavior.  Yvonne Gonzalez, formerly the Superintendent in Dallas spent time in jail for purchasing personal furnishings for her home with school district funds.  Others have been fired or offered early retirement due to public pressure when it is found they are withholding requests for public information, or guilty of such things as sexual harrassment, embezzlement of funds, charging school credit cards with expensive nights out and personal trips, and many other things which no longer surprise us.  Gee, it's like watching the business news about corporate America.  I wonder if that's what "they" intended by implementing corporate culture in school systems.  Something is desperately wrong.

Competency is no longer the desired characteristic of a superintendent.  Instead, schoolboards are seeking a "brand."  By labeling a district with a brand, they can enter the competitive market in such areas as real estate, community growth and business.  A district that has a name brand superintendent is presumed to have a good school system.  It doesn't matter if he or she has only been there six months and hasn't even adopted his/her own budget yet.  Good school systems are of utmost importance when people relocate their children from one town to another.  Businesses go where the people are.

The decision to hire a superintendent is wrought with complications.  Schoolboards now hire search firms who specialize in "nationwide" searches.  Districts who don't go nationwide in their search are thought to be second-class.  "What will people think of us, if we promote someone from within who has been here for a long time and knows our community and who has been a part of our past successes," can almost be heard in the public square.

Another complication in hiring superintendents is that there just aren't enough of them around.  What a system this is!  Teachers' salaries are suppressed so that superintendents can be hired at top dollar, keeping other good young graduates from the teaching profession; fewer people then form the pool of "future" superintendents; and, the patrician class of those who last long enough in the profession are finally rewarded with the crown.

So, if I were a superintendent, I would keep teachers' salaries low, fight for every penny I could get for myself, create budget shortfalls without sacrificing anything personally, and look for the next job as soon I get this one.  This way, I could build my kingdom, and all the teachers could serve me.

Oh, I forgot to mention what happens to the kids.  Oh well, it doesn't matter at the admin building.

8:43:27 PM    

Why is it that so many people freak out when you mention the word myth in reference to the Hebrew bible?  To my way of understanding, myth is a form or truth.  Biblical scholars long ago discovered how closely the creation and flood "accounts" in the Hebrew scriptures resemble the myths of ancient times in terms of the order of the universe. 

Myth need not challenge one's theological underpinnings.  Myth, when it is better understood, enhances one's spiritual formation, and it is comforting and inspirational to know that the god of the universe has forever inspired humankind to create, to write, to believe, and do good works.  Myth has also provided inspiration to do evil, it is true, but arguing that myth=lie is a failure to understand the power and the beauty of truth, and it discourages true inspiration.

1:13:06 PM