Annual
Administrator Salary Update
by Dr. Gaylord Tryon, SAI Executive Director
Each year, SAI provides an update on administrator salaries. We are providing this information so you can use this data when discussing salaries in your respective school districts.
In the Annual Condition of Education Report released by the Department of Education in December, 1999 it was reported that salaries for full-time Iowa public school teachers averaged $21,690 in the base year of 1985-1986 and increased to $35,007 in 1998-1999 (excluding Phase III funds). These figures represent an increase of 61.4 % during that time period. Following is a chart comparing the average teacher salary increase to that of school principals and superintendents over the same time period.
| 1985-86 | 1998-99 | % Increase | |
| Teachers | $21,690 | $35,007 | 61.4% (excludes Phase III) |
| Principals | $35,313 | $58,851 | 66.7% |
| Superintendents | $40,710 | $73,191 | 79.8% |
Following are the average Iowa administrator salary figures and other demographic data for 1999-2000 as reported to SAI by the Department of Education. (These FTE figures represent public school administrators.) The DE obtains this information each year from the Basic Educational Data Survey (BEDS).
1999-2000 School Year
|
Male |
Female |
Total |
Avg. Total Exp. |
Avg. Dist. Exp. |
Avg. Age |
Avg. Sal. |
|
| Superintendents |
313 |
10* |
323 |
26.5 |
7.7 |
51.8 |
74,809 |
| Asst. Superintendents |
26 |
7 |
33 |
26.8 |
13.8 |
51.2 |
76,768 |
| H. S. Principals |
297 |
39 |
336 |
22.3 |
9.5 |
47.1 |
60,441 |
| Asst. H.S. Principals |
129 |
28 |
157 |
21.6 |
12.7 |
47 |
60,886 |
| J.H./Middle Level Prins. |
172 |
44 |
216 |
22.3 |
11.9 |
46.7 |
62,042 |
| Asst. J.H./Middle Level Prins. |
52 |
23 |
75 |
19.8 |
13.2 |
46.0 |
60,165 |
| Elem. Principals |
318 |
245 |
563 |
22.9 |
12.9 |
48.0 |
60,707 |
| Asst. Elem. Principals |
3 |
7 |
10 |
19.5 |
9.6 |
43.4 |
49,317 |
| Other Principals |
20 |
13 |
33 |
22 |
9.2 |
49.1 |
58,866 |
| Other Asst. Principals |
4 |
1 |
5 |
17.2 |
11.4 |
49.4 |
65,016 |
| AEA Chief Administrators |
15 |
0 |
15 |
31.3 |
12.6 |
57.2 |
98,804 |
| AEA Directors |
28 |
13 |
41 |
26.5 |
15.2 |
53.0 |
79,145 |
| Totals |
1400 |
417 |
1807 |
23.4 |
10.8 |
48.3 |
64,274 |
During the 1998-1999 school year, we listed the average administrator salary at $62,474. As indicated in the above graphic, the average administrator's salary for 1999-2000 is $64,274. This represents an increase of approximately 2.88 %.
It's interesting to note the various salary distinctions based on K-12 enrollments as reported in the DE's 1999 Annual Condition of Education Report.
| Enrollment Category |
|
|
|
| <250 |
|
|
|
| 250-399 |
|
|
|
| 400-599 |
|
|
|
| 600-999 |
|
|
|
| 1,000-2,499 |
|
|
|
| 2,500-7,499 |
|
|
|
| 7,500+ |
|
|
|
| State Average |
|
|
|
Other demographic comparisons include the following (FTE):
|
Teachers |
Principals |
Superintendents |
|
| Average Age '85-'86 |
39.9 |
46.6 |
48.7 |
| Average Age '98-'99 |
42.3 |
47.5 |
51.5 |
| Percent Female |
63.5 |
8.7 |
1.6 |
| Percent Female |
69.2 |
28.7 |
3.2 |
| Total Numbers '85-'86 |
30,499 |
1,223 |
424 |
| Total Numbers '98-'99 |
32,307 |
1,182 |
323 |
Some interesting gender comparisons (FTE) for the 1998-1999 school year:
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Average age |
42.3 |
42.5 |
46.8 |
47.8 |
| Percent minority |
1.6 |
1.9 |
5.0 |
3.4 |
| Avg. total yrs. exp. |
14.8 |
17.1 |
20.8 |
23.5 |
| Avg. yrs. dist. exp. |
11.4 |
13.5 |
10.0 |
12.1 |
| Average salary |
34,198 |
36,844 |
57,605 |
59,352 |
Characteristics of certificated AEA staff for the 1998-1999 school year (FTE):
| Percent male |
26.3 |
| Percent female |
73.7 |
| Percent minority |
1.2 |
| Average years total experience |
17.3 |
| Average age |
44.8 |
| Average salary |
42,105 |
State Board
Announces New Student Rights in Expulsions
by Kathy Lee Collins, J.D., SAI Director of Legal Services
Things are changing at the Department of Education. Ann Marie
Brick has reportedly bowed out as Administrative Law Judge, and
the D.E. has contracted with Susan Anderson (not the early childhood
consultant; the lawyer Susan Anderson) to hear and decide appeals
from local school board decisions. One of Ms. Anderson's decisions
appears to announce some new principles of law. It's part of my
job to keep you apprised and, accordingly, out of trouble. So
let's look at the case.
You may have read or heard about the middle school (7th grade)
boy in the Northwood-Kensett district who delivered a shoe-box
sized package to his least-favorite former teacher at school one
morning, necessitating immediate evacuation of the building. The
package contained 3 "fireworks" (cannon blasters), a
glass baby food jar with "cook-stove fuel" (petroleum
distillate), a small tin of gunpowder, and a fuse emerging from
the box. The student wrapped it in Christmas wrap, added a loving
(anonymous) note, and taped a lighter to the package suggesting
the teacher light the fuse.
An agent from the fire marshal's office, using a "water cannon,"
either drowned the device or caused it to explode. At that point,
the agent told the administration that, in his view, it constituted
an explosive device, part of the definition of "firearm"
under the Gun Free Schools Act (GFSA). That law, as you know,
requires states to require school districts to expel for a calendar
year any student who "brings" a firearm to school, with
the exception that special ed. students are to be handled separately
and according to the IDEA (special ed. law). Superintendents are
entitled to recommend modifications to the 12-month expulsion
requirement on a case-by-case basis.
The principal, John Dayton, figuratively put on his deerstalker
cap and did enough sleuthing to focus his suspicions on a student
named John Lawler, whom Mr. Dayton confronted about the package.
The student denied responsibility. The principal then involved
law enforcement. Later Lawler admitted to police that he had brought
the "device" to school and left it for his former teacher.
The student was formally charged with a delinquent act and was
taken to Mason City for an evaluation and then to a juvenile detention
center.
Back in the district, Superintendent Jerry McIntyre sent home
a notice to John Lawler's family two days after the December 8
incident that there was to be a special board meeting to take
up the question of whether the boy had violated the Weapons Policy,
and enclosed that policy describing the mandatory 12-month expulsion
for "firearms." Jerry also advised the parents of their
right to counsel and right to bring witnesses or whomever they
chose to the hearing. The letter was mailed 4 days prior to the
hearing.
The student already had an attorney to assist him in juvenile
court. After receiving the notice from the superintendent the
boy's mother contacted that attorney. He was unavailable, he declined
to come, or otherwise indicated he would not be in attendance
at the school board hearing, but offered legal advice on how she
should proceed. The student was not able to be in attendance because
he was being detained by juvenile authorities.
Law enforcement had apparently been ordered by the juvenile court
to keep all of their reports on this incident confidential. Therefore,
as neither the police chief nor the fire marshal's agent could
testify at the hearing, the superintendent and principal related
the incident to the board, including the (hearsay) statements
made by the fire marshal's agent that the package contained an
explosive device capable of causing serious injury. The board
officially found as fact that John Lawler had brought this device
to school and that it met the definition of "firearm"
for purposes of the Weapons Policy. They failed to take final
action on the expulsion, however, because they wanted to learn
whether they were limited to 12 calendar months or, instead, could
impose an even longer expulsion. Some apparently believed that
a finding that the Weapons Policy had been violated by a student
bringing a firearm (explosive device) to school was all they had
to do; the law then kicked in to impose the 12-month expulsion.
Unfortunately, that is not the way it works.
To shorten a long story, the parents sought to return John to
school upon his release from the juvenile detention center in
early February, but they were told that the school had no legal
obligation to educate John because he was expelled. Later, after
the student's mother obtained new legal counsel, an agreement
was worked out whereby the student was given textbooks and assignments,
and the family was given the names of some individuals who would
be able to assist with tutoring. The student's attorney asked
the school to delay the final determination of his expulsion until
after the juvenile charges were resolved, and the school agreed.
In August, John Lawler was adjudicated delinquent (juvenile court
lingo for "guilty") beyond a reasonable doubt of 1st
degree arson.
The school board met again on September 9, nine months after their
initial hearing establishing John's guilt of a Weapons Policy
violation. This time the student was present and represented by
his new attorney. After the hearing the board officially voted
to expel John Lawler "through the 1999-2000 school year."
The student's mother appealed to the State Board of Education.
After reviewing the State Board's precedent on student rights
in expulsions, the ALJ recommended (and the State Board adopted)
a decision overturning the expulsion because the student's due
process rights had been violated. I'm more than passingly familiar
with the State Board of Education's decisions, and I am concerned
about some conclusions in this decision.
First, the ALJ and panel found that the initial notice of the
board meeting/expulsion hearing was insufficient in terms of the
amount of lead time before the hearing. The purpose of giving
notice sufficiently in advance of a hearing is to enable the individual
to contact an attorney and obtain legal advice. Mrs. Lawler had
done both. Therefore, the sufficiency of notice should not have
been an issue in the case and in fact it was not raised by Mrs.
Lawler at the December school board hearing. The fact that she
was "unrepresented by counsel" at that time was not
due to the short notice. It was due to her son's attorney's declining
to be present. While that lawyer's advice to Mrs. Lawler could
have been to seek a continuance or contact other counsel, it was
not. Instead she was advised to ask for a closed hearing and present
no defense, advice which she followed. The State Board's decision
is tantamount to questioning the wisdom of an attorney's legal
advice, a role I doubt it wants to or should undertake.
The State Board's decision is also critical of the notice "because
it did not contain a summary of charges with sufficient specificity
to prepare a defense," but the district officials in attendance
at the State Board's hearing said Mrs. Lawler never had a question
about what John Lawler was accused. In legal lingo, that means
he was not prejudiced by the absence of that information in the
notice. No one complained that they weren't sure what had happened
or of what the student was accused. That's a clear case of "no
prejudice" (akin to "no harm, no foul").
The State Board found that the notice was also flawed in that
it "failed to mention the right to cross-examine adverse
witnesses" and "no list of witnesses was provided."
There was no corresponding finding that Mrs. Lawler was denied
the opportunity to question (cross-examine) witnesses at the December
board hearing, and the State Board's own precedent -- enunciated
two pages prior to this pronouncement does not include the
requirement that a list of anticipated witnesses be given in order
to satisfy due process.
My second area of concern is that the ALJ and panel suggested
that John's absence from the first hearing was problematic in
terms of the Constitution. ("In addition, since John was
not available to attend the hearing, there was no meaningful opportunity
to present evidence on his behalf.") I would think they would
need to have some evidence that had John been present, he and
his mother would have taken a different tack in order to conclude
there was a due process violation. Again, it sounds as though
the hearing panel questioned the wisdom of the legal advice given
to Mrs. Lawler by John's attorney. I doubt the State Board wants
to go there.
Is the State Board saying an expulsion hearing cannot take place
in the absence of the student? I don't believe the case law supports
that concept. Certainly many of you have had expulsion or other
student discipline hearings when the parents or legal representative
came but the student did not. In this case Mrs. Lawler talked
with John's attorney who could have suggested that she request
a continuance until John could be present. But that didn't happen.
One more basis for the reversal was the school board's failure
to issue what lawyers call "Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law." This would typically be a letter to the student
and his/her parents, or it could be a more formal document, where
the allegations were spelled out ("that John Lawler brought
an explosive device to school and left it with a teacher on or
about December 7 or 8, 1999, in violation of Board Policy #903"),
the conclusion that this occurred ("a preponderance of evidence
exists to believe that John did violate this policy") and
the penalty decided upon by the school board ("John is expelled
from school for the 1999-2000 school year and may not return to
school until the 2000-01 school year.") The State Board's
decision, if it stands, establishes a new requirement that the
Findings and Conclusions "must at the very least give the
student a summary of the witnesses who testified and the evidence
upon which the Board based its decision." The ALJ and panel
then rejected the idea that typical board minutes would suffice
for this purpose.
I also have a concern about the juvenile judge's order silencing
the law enforcement officers, in effect prohibiting them from
testifying in the administrative hearing before the school board.
If this becomes a pattern (it has happened before, most recently
and notably in PCM when the county attorney told the arresting
officer not to testify at the student's school board hearing)
I think we're going to have to go to the legislature for some
assistance. The juvenile and criminal justice wheels typically
turn much more slowly than ours do. We can't constitutionally
afford to await the outcome of a student's trial before taking
action. We should be able to find a way to share information without
prejudicing the student's case in either venue.
On the "up" side, the hearing panel rejected Mrs. Lawler's
contention that because some of the board members had children
who attended the elementary school where the explosive device
was placed, those board members were automatically prejudiced
and therefore incapable of rendering an impartial decision.
In conversations with the district's administrators and legal
counsel, I understand that Mrs. Lawler's strategy at the State
Department hearing was to characterize John's decision to deliver
this highly combustible package to his former teacher as a "prank"
or a "joke." It appears that the panel and State Board
were not willing to agree with that characterization. But a year
and a half expulsion is a long time in the life of a 7th grader,
if it's even legal to exclude him for that period. Instead of
finding the term of expulsion too lengthy or unauthorized by law,
what appears to have happened is that the State Board's hearing
panel focused on errors, some that weren't even raised as issues
by Mrs. Lawler and her capable counsel, and the panel and State
Board overturned the decision on the basis of those errors. What
bothers me from a legal perspective is that the panel appears
to have been caught up in procedural flaws that arguably or actually
didn't prejudice the student, (or at least the decision didn't
include a finding of prejudice in every instance) then used those
mistakes as the basis for reversal.
Having sat in the ALJ's chair, I can tell you it's very easy to
be a "Monday morning quarterback," and re-call the game,
especially in those instances when schools have failed to use
attorneys to help them prepare for or walk through the big stuff.
The expulsion proceedings in this case were far from perfect,
to be sure. But an expulsion decision should not be reversed because
of errors made unless those errors actually harmed the student's
ability to get a fair hearing. In this case, it appears we have
had some new demands placed upon school boards; at the very least,
some serious legal questions exist.
The Northwood-Kensett district has since sought a rehearing, which
was granted in part and will be held on March 13. Perhaps the
panel will use this opportunity to clarify some questions that
the first decision raised.
Top
A Tale of Three Meetings
by Dr. Marcus Haack, SAI Associate Executive Director
Lately I've noticed an interesting pattern as I run from one
meeting to another. A common thread is beginning to emerge related
to our future as an educational community and the future of our
state. Let me briefly share what I heard in three different settings.
Musings from the Governor. . .
Each year at the Teacher of the Year awards program the governor
shares a few comments about the importance of teachers and a quality
educational system. While it's always an honor to be in the governor's
presence (regardless of who the governor is), the stump speech
is usually "routine."
This year was different. Governor Vilsack began his remarks by
walking us through a list of programs that have been proposed
(and in some cases enacted) which are designed to improve education
in the state. Some of those programs included early childhood
education funding, class size reduction, infrastructure assistance
via the local option sales tax, etc. After mentioning each of
these programs the governor would pause and softly state, "Surely
now we've taken care of the problem. But no, we also have to address
the problem of. . ."
After the "walk" through his list of problems and attempted
solutions the governor stated what all of us know: We can't continue
to deal with Iowa's problems, nor can we develop a preferred future
for this state, by relying on old ways of thinking. The only way
we can resolve Iowa's problems related to Iowa's educational system,
quality of life, stagnant population trends, outward migration
of young people, availability of high paying (high skilled) jobs,
etc. is to collectively embrace change. In the governor's words,
"And if we don't get it right the first time, we'll change
again until, by working together, we find a way to solve our problems."
. . .and from the Director of the DE
Department of Education Director Ted Stilwill was a presenter
at a Senate Education Committee meeting a couple of weeks ago.
This isn't unusual. During the first few weeks of every legislative
session, representatives from the DE are asked to provide legislators
with information which will guide them in their work during the
session.
What was different this time was the fact that very little of
the presentation or the discussion dealt exclusively with education.
Rather the discussion touched on a wide array of problems facing
the state, not the least of which was a lack of adequate resources
for schools. The issues included quality of life, immigration
patterns, an aging population, a lack of high paying jobs for
graduates of Iowa's schools, and loss of our young people to other
states.
While everyone agreed there were no easy solutions for these problems,
you could sense a growing awareness among those in the room that
we can't deal with one issue in isolation from other issues. There's
a connection, a relationship, a pattern that weaves these issues
(and their solutions) together.
. . .and among school superintendents
In February the City Superintendents held their annual legislative
meeting in Des Moines and I was on a panel of lobbyists who shared
insights about the current legislative session. Part of my presentation
included the notion that we need to develop a vision for a preferred
future for our state which begins with adequate support for children
and their education. (No, 4% allowable growth ISN'T adequate!)
Following my comments the superintendents spent a considerable
portion of their meeting discussing not only the need for a vision
for education, but a larger, more encompassing vision for the
state. Economic development was one of the issues at the top of
their list, for without economic/career opportunities for Iowa's
graduates, we'll simply continue to watch as our best and brightest
graduates leave the state for greener pastures. Not content to
simply talk about the problem, the superintendents at that meeting
decided to take the initiative to begin drafting a vision statement
which can help shape future legislative initiatives.
So there you have it. Three meetings with differing audiences
and different speakers. All focused on education, but realizing
that there's something bigger that needs to be addressed collectively
if we are to make Iowa a better place. The old way of doing things
has run its course with limited results. Are we all prepared to
embrace change, to eliminate old rivalries, to dismantle traditional
barriers, to truly collaborate, to believe that we're all in this
together? Think about it... and stay tuned!
Top
Realtors control a critical "gate" in your communication and public relations network. As one of the first points of contact for many newcomers to your community, their attitudes and perceptions about your schools create powerful impressions on people making decisions about where to live.
This holds true, to a lesser extent, for families relocating within your community, especially if they are not already familiar with area schools. Realtors may strongly influence young families buying their first home. Their comments about local schools and taxes may also influence established families and retirees changing residences.
Additionally, realtors may be key communicators within your business community in general. They tend to nurture a wide network of contacts and to be active in local service organizations.
Strengthening your relationships with these gatekeepers can pay off with improved public relations, increased enrollment, and stronger public support for your schools. Following these simple steps with realtors (and just about any other constituency!) is a good investment:
Ask Them
Get to know your realtors. What markets do they serve? Which school
districts? How do they rate you and your competitors? What kind
of information do they need for their clients? What are they hearing
about you?
Ask to see a sample of print materials they give clients. Check their web sites-not just local ones, but also national services that rate communities and their services, including education.
Identify any misperceptions and gaps in knowledge, as well as positive perceptions, realtors have about your schools. They may be making false assumptions based on out-dated information and experiences. Once you see how they view you, you can reinforce the favorable messages and minimize the negative ones.
Educate Them
Accentuate the positive. Make sure realtors know the strengths
of your schools and your staff today. Invite them for tours of
buildings. Host breakfast meetings with realtors, staff, and parents.
Showcase your student accomplishments and awards for programs
and staff. Add them to your mail/e-mail/fax list for regular
updates about your schools. If you have needs or challenges, let
them know what you're doing to remedy the situation.
Join Forces
Give your realtors the tools to meet their needs and yours. They
want to sell houses; you want students, taxpayers, and supporters.
You both want ongoing relationships with satisfied customers.
They'll appreciate information ready to hand to their clients-a
fact sheet, a brochure, a map of school locations. It doesn't
need to be fancy, but it should look as good as you can make it.
You'll be making a first impression in many cases, while competing
with other area districts, public and private, for consideration.
Offer to link their web site to yours. And don't forget links to other community information sites such as your Chamber of Commerce site.
Establish a "first contact" for realtors to arrange school visits with clients, making sure your building staff are primed for that critical first impression of the school.
Engage Them
The best way to get realtors on your side and telling your story,
is to make them part of the team. Seek them out for committees,
add them to your key communicator list, ask for advice and participation
on significant initiatives. The same attributes that make them
good communicators for you make them terrific resources.
Together, you'll gain satisfied customers who are SOLD on your
schools!