There's a lot of buzz over Susan Gourley's $228,591 salary -- and most of it isn't positive. The griping is understandable. For one thing, that money would cover salaries for five or six teachers. In addition, Dr. Gourley has been all but invisible to the community. When the only thing we hear about her is that she's pulling in nearly a quarter million, well, folks aren't going to jump up and down in jubilation.
Dr. Gourley's pay seems too high to me, but of the superintendents' paychecks I've been aware of over the years, they have all seemed too high. I suspect we are paying approximately what we "have" to pay for quality administrative leadership. If anybody has data to the contrary, I'd love to see it.
Comments
See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.
I didn’t need any additional reasons to not ever vote for a school bond issue, but I’ll take this one and file it away as a pretty darn good one.
Honestly, if we don’t pay that kind of salary, we won’t get good administrators. It may not be right, or good, or just, but something would have to change on much more than a local level. If we just decided to pay less to administrators, the good ones will go elsewhere.
I often think this about college administrators as well- many make a LOT of money. Maybe they’re worth it- it’s hard to tell. But it’s the norm, and near impossible to opt out of. I think this problem is huge, and extends to all parts of the government, but I’m at a loss as to what to do about it.
For my two cents, I don’t think it’s too far outside of what should be expected. Someone with that kind of responsibility in the private sector would probably make more than that. Of all the government programs we have, education is worth paying for. It’s frequently true that you pay for what you get, and giving a highly competent person a fraction of what they could get elsewhere is sure way to get them to leave.
Share your thoughts with the community.
Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.