In a superintendent search, there will be an inevitable point when we ask, “How much should we be prepared to pay this candidate? It’s a logical and important question, worthy of some analysis.
Every school district in Michigan must publish certain financial data in a common format. In Grosse Pointe we go well above this minimum. But one of the requirements is to show the direct compensation and total compensation of employees who earn more than $100,000. Invariably superintendents fall into that category.
Collecting superintendent compensation data is tedious, but not difficult. Analysis (report below) show us where our compensation package stands against others, which may then inform potential changes as we get closer to negotiations.
I limited my analysis to the top 50 largest public school districts in the state. GPPSS is 31st largest, so we are just below the middle of this group. A couple districts don’t have superintendents (famously Detroit) and I was not able to find data on a couple others. So I have data for 46 of the top 50 largest districts.
The simplest analysis compares direct compensation, with no regard for differences in revenue per pupil or enrollment. By this measure, GPPSS ranks 31st highest among the 46, paying $172,453 – about $8,000 or 5% below the average of the 46 (and incidentally equal to our enrollment ranking).
When factoring other compensation vehicles (annuities, deferred compensation, health, retirement, etc) GPPSS’ ranking drops slightly (meaning slightly less lucrative) to 33rd out of 46. We paid $17,000 less, or 8% below, this group’s average.
Other views are more interesting. District’s have only one superintendent, so expressing that investment on a per pupil basis will scale down as enrollment increases. On average, the 46 districts spend about $22 per year per pupil on their superintendents. GPPSS spends about $26. This ranks us 21st, just above the middle.
To prove a point, Utica Community Schools, the second largest district in the state, ranks a high 4th in total superintendent compensation, but last among this group on cost per pupil.
For one last view, I took the the total superintendent compensation and represented it as a percentage of total district revenue. This still skews the results lower for the very large districts, but manifests some of the revenue per pupil disparities in Proposal A. By this measure, GPPSS is just below middle, 27th highest of the 46 – a mere 0.003% below the group’s average. This is probably the most telling of all these statistics. Being too far above or below this average indicates a significant difference from the norm.
In contrast, South Lyon Schools has the 3rd richest superintendent total compensation package among this group. They spend more per pupil on their superintendent than all 46 – more than double the group average. Proportional to revenue, they are 137% above the average of the 46 making them number one. In fact they are 16% above even the second ranked district, Roseville Schools.
Since we’re almost always asked about GPPSS’ “like” school districts, Bloomfield Hills is not on the list because they are not among the Top 50. But their direct compensation package would rank them about 30th on this list and their indirect might move them up a little, but not too much.
Birmingham is on this list, ranking 13th on total compensation and even higher (4th) on investment per pupil. But they receive quite a bit more in per pupil revenue than GPPSS even. So the proportional statistic is more relevant. They rank 23rd in that category, just 4 slots higher than GPPSS. If GPPSS decided to pay our superintendent in equal proportion to Birmingham, our package would increase about $24,000 per year.
What conclusions can we reach in Grosse Pointe? Tough to say, because as usual in this business, determining the value for the dollar invested is among the great education debates – whether it be superintendent, teacher, or custodian compensation. Some want this to be pure science, I think it’s art and science.
From a strictly financial standpoint, we rank near the middle in every category. I don’t know if I’d feel great to be at the very top or the very bottom of a list like this. Given the performance of our superintendent, I feel we are definitely getting great value for our investment, the same as I feel about all of our employees.
The GPPSS superintendent’s compensation package generally reflects our district’s administrative costs – we’re not too high and not too low despite being in the top 10% in terms of revenue per pupil. I think there is generally good news in that.
As it relates to our next superintendent, I for one want to attract the best possible person to lead our district and students. That person will deserve a competitive wage – and they will get it.
The person I want to attract is not primarily motivated by the compensation package, but rather by the possibility to advance the Grosse Pointe Public School System and seeing that as the greatest reward for the opportunity. If they do that well, eveything else will take care of itself.
3 responses to “Superintendent Search: The compensation question”
Brendan
Excellent report a good base for looking at the compensation package for the new superintendant
Big variable not in the survey…. how long each person has been in that spot… a new person versus a 10 year veteran superintendent will be different…
True, but that data is not publicly available/accessible. I did post before that the national average tenure of superintendents was fairly short. Can’t remember off-hand, but it was 3-4 years. I expect increases in superintendent compensation happen in greater scale with turnover in the position as opposed to annual raises.
This is particularly true in Michigan over the last several years as budgets have been so tight. Some people may not want to believe it, but school boards are not throwing raises around willy nilly – particularly not for superintendents.
Ann Arbor again is a good foil. Their next superintendent will get a huge raise over the previous one – one that could have never happened if the previous one had stayed. So it may be counterintuitive. Shorter tenure may increase pay more. That would be my hypothesis in Michigan.
Brendan