Tying the Contract Knot - employment terms for superintendents

School Administrator, Feb, 2001 by Kimberly Reeves

The superintendent's employment terms require new vigilance in an age of unpredictable relations with boards

The contract that took Mike Moses to the helm of the troubled Dallas school district in January has probably made him the highest paid superintendent in the country.

To lure the former state education agency head away from his post as deputy chancellor at Texas Tech University required a package that included what some might consider to be perks. On top of a base salary of $280,000 per year, the school board agreed to an annual $10,000 annuity if Moses meets board expectations and a housing allowance to keep his family in Lubbock until one of his children graduates from high school in May.

Other provisions in the five-year contract include a $1,000-per-month car allowance, a $450-per-month cell phone allowance and round-trip tickets to Lubbock for weekend visits.

Compensation, however, was only one factor in Moses' decision to move to Dallas, a school district that has seen four superintendents in the last five years. His total compensation package could be as high as $360,000 his first year, but Moses says money was not the draw for his move back into a superintendency.

"What's more important than compensation to me is the working conditions of the contract, especially the support the school board will have for the superintendent," says Moses, who was district superintendent in Lubbock, Texas, from 1989 to 1995. "The channels for communication have to be addressed in the contract."

Moses struck from his proposed contract a clause that required him to keep "good rapport" with the board of education. Board trustees cited that clause when they fired Bill Rojas from the superintendency last summer. Moses says he recognized the board had poor relations with prior superintendents, and he intends to change that. But if he should be forced to leave, Moses and his lawyer have written a contract that protects his interests.

Few New Wrinkles

Oddly, for all the front-page news made by the turmoil between superintendents and school boards, there's been little change over recent years in the instrument that is often the deciding factor in many of the battles: the superintendent contract. An informal survey of state superintendent associations and lawyers that represent superintendents shows that the superintendent contract, for the most part, has changed little over the last decade.

Mandatory evaluations of superintendents are becoming more common, usually at the behest of state lawmakers. Meanwhile, pay-for-performance measures seem to be gaining in interest but they remain rather limited in use among superintendents. Some state legislatures have tossed out evergreen contracts. Other states are offering renewable contracts up to five years in length. Retirement language intended to lure the superintendent for a lifelong stay has been deleted. And a few states, like New York, have added fair dismissal procedures for superintendents. In many cases, state lawmakers have set the new standards.

Only a decade ago, superintendents in Minnesota had the same rights to tenure as teachers and principals did. Now the language of contracts is dramatically different. Instead of a "continuing" contract and "termination for cause," superintendents are on a "term" contract subject to "termination at the discretion of the board at the end of the contract period."

That was a good move overall, but it did have fallout, says Charlie Kyte, executive director of the Minnesota Association of School Administrators and earlier a superintendent for 20 years in two Minnesota school districts. When Kyte left the Northfield school district after 12 years, he was the longest-standing superintendent within 500 miles.

"The new system did allow people who weren't qualified to be pushed out of the system, but two other things happened," Kyte says. "First, some very good superintendents had to face up to the political reality of the job. The second thing that happened was that it became more difficult for superintendents to be courageous and trend-setting because when they do they often have the combination of the teachers unions and the school boards ganging up on them now."

Multiple-year contracts in Illinois are now performance based, measured against academic achievement in the district and student performance. Walter Warfield, executive director of the Illinois Association of School Administrators, says his state's 850 superintendents have received the changes favorably.

"Superintendents consider themselves accountable every day they show up to work," Warfield says. "I think many of them see the goals in their contract as an extension of their daily accountability."

But a performance-based contract does not guarantee tenure. A school board can dismiss a superintendent who meets goals or keep a superintendent who doesn't. Good superintendents still come under fire for reasons that may be unwarranted, Warfield says.

"You can't say to yourself that just doing a good job in a district, even based upon some specific goals, is going to keep you out of job trouble," he adds. "It's like that coach who wins but who is fired because he doesn't win enough."