Annual Administrators
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, 1998 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 $34,084 in 1997-1998 (excluding Phase III funds). These figures represent an increase of 57.1 % 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.
| 1985-1986 | 1997-1998 | % increase | |
| Teachers | $21,690 | $33,275 | 53.4% (excludes Phase III) |
| Principals | $35,313 | $57,060 | 61.6% |
| Superintendents | $40,710 | $70,337 | 72.8% |
(Editor's Note: The 72.8 % increase in the average superintendent's salary is an inflated figure. This inflation is due in part to the increase in the number of shared superintendents and in part to the higher rate of turnover for superintendents. When school districts hire a new superintendent, there is a tendency to pay the new person at least or more than what was being paid the previous superintendent. Also, the lower percentage increase in teachers salaries reflects the practice of replacing retiring teachers with lesser experienced teachers.)
Following are the average Iowa administrator salary figures and other demographic data for 1998-1999 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).
1998-1999 School Year
| Superintendent | 329 |
11* |
340 |
26.0 |
6.5 |
50.4 |
73,191 |
| Asst. Supt. | 30 |
10 |
40 |
25.2 |
11.5 |
48.8 |
75,715 |
| H.S. Principal | 308 |
43 |
351 |
22.1 |
8.8 |
45.9 |
58,480 |
| Asst. H.S. Prin. | 123 |
34 |
157 |
21.4 |
12.9 |
45.6 |
58,696 |
| J.H./M.L.Principal | 175 |
42 |
217 |
22.4 |
11.7 |
45.7 |
59,944 |
| Asst. J.H./M.L. Prin. | 52 |
18 |
70 |
19.0 |
13.5 |
44.6 |
57,346 |
| Elementary Prin. | 337 |
242 |
579 |
23.1 |
13.0 |
47.0 |
58,534 |
| Asst. Elem. Prin. | 2 |
5 |
7 |
20.7 |
8.29 |
45.4 |
52,939 |
| AEA Chief Admin. | 15 |
0 |
15 |
28.4 |
10.8 |
55.1 |
95,448 |
| AEA Directors | 29 |
12 |
41 |
26.1 |
14.7 |
50.8 |
76,440 |
| Total | 1400 |
417 |
1817 |
23.4 |
10.8 |
48.3 |
62,474 |
* DE figures indicate 11 female superintendents for the 1998-1999 school year. Our count shows 14 female superintendents for the current school year.
(Note: We do not include "other" central office administrators because the DE does not list these positions in individual categories.)
During the 1997-1998 school year, we listed the average administrator salary @ $60,303. As indicated in the above graphic, the average administrator's salary for 1998-1999 is $62,474. This represents an increase of approximately 3.6%.
It's interesting to note the various salary distinctions based on K-12 enrollments as reported in the DE's 1998 Annual Condition of Education Report.
| Enrollment category | '97-'98 Avg. Salary Teachers* |
'97-'98 Avg. Salary Principals |
'97-'98 Avg. Salary Supt. |
| <250 | 24,641 |
40,564 |
47,071 |
| 250-399 | 28,236 |
46,983 |
59,486 |
| 400-599 | 29,685 |
48,522 |
62,739 |
| 600-999 | 31,135 |
51,987 |
67,546 |
| 1,000-2,499 | 33,789 |
57,742 |
76,819 |
| 2,500-7,499 | 36,576 |
63,150 |
92,590 |
| 7,500+ | 37,206 |
65,460 |
108,721 |
| State average | 34,084 |
57,060 |
70,337 |
* Excludes Phase III funds
Other demographic comparisons include the following
(FTE).
Teachers |
Principals |
Superintendents | |
| Average age '85-'86 | 39.9 |
46.6 |
48.7 |
| Average age '97-'98 | 42.3 |
47.5 |
51.7 |
| Percent female '85-'86 | 63.5 |
8.7 |
1.6 |
| Percent female '97-'98 | 68.9 |
27.1 |
3.0 |
| Total numbers '85-'86 | 30,499 |
1,223 |
424 |
| Total numbers '97-'98 | 31,954 |
1,189 |
340 |
Some interesting gender comparisons (FTE) for the 1997-1998 school year:
Female teachers |
Male teachers |
Female principals |
Male principals | ||
| Average age | 42.2 |
42.6 |
46.8 |
47.8 | |
| Percent minority | 1.5 |
1.8 |
4.0 |
3.0 | |
| Avg. total yrs. exp. | 14.8 |
17.3 |
20.5 |
23.6 | |
| Avg. yrs. dist. exp. | 11.4 |
13.7 |
9.2 |
12.2 | |
| Average salary | 33,261 |
35,904 |
55,519 |
57,632 |
Characteristics of certificated AEA staff for the 1997-1998 school year (FTE):
Percent male 27.3
Percent female 72.7
Percent minority 01.2
Average yrs. total exp. 17.0
Average age 44.4
Average salary 40,951
The Alternative School
and Special Education Programs
by Kathy Lee Collins, J.D., SAI Director of Legal Services
Two legal opinions recently issued at the state level raise some interesting
questions about alternative schools in Iowa.
Last July, the Attorney General's Office issued an opinion regarding
supplemental weighting that impacted many school districts offering alternative
high school programs in conjunction or cooperation with community colleges.
In brief, the opinion concluded that a school district and a community college
were not authorized to employ personnel jointly and that the school district
would not be eligible to receive supplemental weighting for students served
in an alternative school operated by a community college unless certain
criteria were met.
The second opinion was issued in December of 1998 when Ann Marie Brick of
the Department of Education wrote a memorandum to the D.E.'s chief of special
education, Jeananne Hagen, on the issue of special education students attending
alternative schools. This memo was provided to superintendents via the D.E.
Mailbag, and it has shaken up more than a few administrators. The essence
of Ms. Brick's memo is that it is illegal for school personnel to require
students receiving special education services to waive those services if
the students wish to attend the alternative school.
Ms. Brick wrote, "The policy of excluding eligible special education students from alternative schools violates both state and federal law. The fact that students and/or their parents 'voluntarily' sign themselves out of special education in order to enroll in an alternative school does not change this result. It is not 'voluntary' if it is done in order to qualify for the alternative school program."
The suspicion held by certain folks at the Iowa Department of Education is that some schools, either by policy or in practice, are telling kids that they can't attend the alternative school if they are on an IEP. If your school district actually has such a policy, I concur with Ms. Brick that you are in deep legal do-do and you would be well advised to wipe such a policy off the books. Similarly, if your practice has been to "counsel students out" of special education in order to attend the alternative school, you'd better re-think that practice.
The irony here is that in many cases, the alternative school environment is probably ideal to deliver special education and related services to special needs students. The instruction tends to be more one-on-one, the students are encouraged to work at their own pace, the day can be modified if necessary, and other adaptations may be made to help accommodate individual student needs. In a way, it's classic "specialized education."
On the other hand, however, there are some students who may not be ideally suited for attendance in the alternative school environment. Typically, the student who has heavy one-on-one needs (such as a full-time instructional aide) may not be appropriately served in the alternative school because the alternative school philosophy tends to focus on individualization and is structured so that students work on their own, accepting responsibility for their own success or failure, with little "hand-holding."
It is important to realize that the special education student's staffing team makes the decision about the appropriateness of the alternative school program for that student.
If the district and AEA personnel on the staffing team are not familiar with the philosophy behind alternative schools or with the operation of their particular alternative school, the team considering placement of a special education student at such a site would be wise to invite a representative from the alternative school to attend the staffing where this proposed placement will be discussed. It's no good for folks to guess whether a student's individual needs can or cannot be met in such a placement. Everyone would be much better off if they knew going into the placement what the student's needs are and the ability of A.S. personnel to meet those needs.
I fully agree with Ms. Brick that a blanket statement that "we don't serve special education students at our alternative school" is prima facie evidence of discrimination against persons with disabilities in violation of IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA. Such a prohibition is just as wrong as saying "In our district we don't do extended year programs." You do if a student's staffing team decides the student requires it to have an appropriate program! Remember: in special education, the only rule is "Never say 'never' or 'always'."
And while I'm on my soapbox, let me add that the alternative school is not a dumping ground for troublesome students. What may be happening out there is that a student does something stupid, perhaps something that would qualify her for expulsion were she a general education student. We threaten expulsion, but then dangle the proposition before her and her parents that she could go to the alternative school but in order to go there, they all have to waive her right to receive special education services. Or (as I heard recently) the student is counseled into dropping out of school altogether and told to appear a week later seeking readmission to the alternative school. Apparently someone has the idea that a student's need for special education evaporates if s/he drops out of school. When s/he comes back, the student is a former dropout, now only an "at risk" student, not one requiring special education. Buzzzzzz. Thanks for playing, but WRONG! A student's status as special education doesn't disappear by dropping out.
I met with D.E. officials recently to discuss the points above and clarify under what circumstances special education services can be declined. State department officials believe that the proper procedure for a parent or eligible (18 year-old) student wanting to reject special education (for whatever reason) is to seek a staffing for the purpose of discussing the appropriateness of such an action. If the majority of the staffing team concurs, the student can be "staffed out" of special education, either permanently or perhaps on a trial basis of specified length. If the staffing team does not agree that the student can receive an appropriate education without an IEP and still the student withdraws from school or otherwise refuses to abide by the decision of the staffing team, the D.E.'s position is that the school district or AEA special education director has an obligation to seek an administrative law judge's decision via a due process hearing. Their view is that we cannot just acquiesce in an educationally unwise decision.
I've been told some administrators fear placement of special education students in alternative schools because they have been told they would then have to assign special education licensed teachers and a passel of teacher associates to the alternative school, and God knows we don't have the money for that. It's no secret that when it comes to school finance I am a total moron, but I don't get it. What difference does it make if a student has an associate assigned to him at the high school or the alternative school? Given the change in the special education law to the effect that IDEA-funded personnel can serve non-identified students as well as identified students, what's the big deal?
And if you're afraid that assigning a special education student with an IEP to the alternative school means you have to have a special ed-licensed teacher assigned there, I think you can relax. General education licensed teachers serve special education students all the time, don't they? The question is simply who is in charge of monitoring that student's progress? In theory at least, a special education teacher can supervise the provision of special education and related services to a student in a different building; it's up to the staffing team to decide how that progress will be monitored, how frequently, and by whom.
One final issue raised by alternative school personnel is the issue of waiting lists and the effect of a special education student's request to attend the alternative school. Does that student get to go to the top of the list and "bump" others waiting? Dr. Hagen says "yes, probably."
But she also reminds us that a special education program is not a place. If the issue is whether a special education student can or should be assigned to the alternative school, the issue should be broached like any other issue by the team: the "placement" decision is reached by starting with identification of the individual needs the student has and the activities that will meet those needs. If these needs can only be met at the alternative school, yes, s/he would bump someone else if there were a waiting list. If we can meet the student's needs by other programming in the interim, then that student would not jump to the top of the list. S/he is being served appropriately, so putting him or her on the waiting list is fine. I think we can live with that.
I also spoke with Dr. Lee Tack at the D.E. and asked him about financing for alternative schools and special education students. Please understand that Lee speaks an entirely different language (finance) than I, so this "translation" may have to be taken with a grain of salt, but he told me that one myth that needs to be eradicated is that a student can be counted for both supplemental weighting purposes for attendance in an alternative school program and in special education. Once again, if you hold that view, discard it. The resident district is entitled to count the student for special education additional weighting only.
Dr. Tack tells me that there's a bill pending (HF684), likely to pass this session, that will clarify the circumstances under which students taught by a community college teacher are eligible for supplemental weighting, and specifically establishes a supplemental weighting scheme for at risk (including alternative school) students. As I write this column I cannot assure you that it will pass, but if it does, it is likely additional weighting for alternative school students will be based on a formula using either enrollment, poverty factors, or both. If HF684 passes, the formula-based funding would hit your districts in fiscal year 2001. If this bill doesn't pass, you will not be able to get supplemental weighting for alternative school students except under the circumstances outlined by the July, 1998 Attorney General's opinion or through the School Budget Review Committee's grant of additional allowable growth for dropout education and prevention.
Arguably money spent on special needs students is the best money a school district can spend, from a public welfare perspective. It's hard to disagree with the proposition that they need our special help and attention to succeed; the average and even talented or gifted students will survive and prosper either because or in spite of our educational efforts. The disenfranchised kids and students with disabilities need us the most.
SAI has organized a committee to write a best practices white paper on the subject of special education students in alternative schools. We will meet in late May and send our product to every district sometime this summer. Here's hoping our work will eliminate any arguably illegal practices out there and also help administrators better serve the needs of all kids.
Legal Tip O'the Month
Can school districts ban the wearing of "chains" by students?
Yes. Both Iowa law (section 279.58) and judicial pronouncements (beginning
with Tinker) would permit your board to adopt a dress code depriving students
of the opportunity to wear certain items to school. The key is, of course,
not to operate as the "fashion police" but to ban specific jewelry,
accessories, clothing, or slogans/speech on clothing because they are threats
to health and safety, are gang-related, cause or can be reasonably forecast
to cause a material and substantial disruption at school, or "if the
board determines that the policy is necessary for . . . [a] positive educational
environment . . . or for the appropriate discipline and operation of the
school." While those chains might be faddish, they can also be dangerous
to the student or other students. On the other hand, if they're being worn
without incident, administration would not be required or expected to ban
them, instead choosing to discipline any student who used these "accessories"
in an inappropriate way.
The Local Control Debate
by Dr. Marcus Haack, SAI Associate Executive Director
Do away with superintendent licensure! It's a matter of local control! If we truly believe in local control, we should place authority and trust in the hands of locally elected school board members! Allow them to select whomever they feel is best suited to serve as their school district superintendent regardless of certification!
These were typical of the comments being tossed about during debate on one of the more interesting, controversial (and strange) bills to arise during the 1999 legislative session. HF 675, a bill that was born in the House Education Committee, contained a "unique" combination of recommended changes in the law. Included in the bill's original language were provisions regarding boiler inspection, the school year starting date, school breakfast programs and superintendent licensure, in addition to language which would have permitted a principal to serve as a superintendent.
When the bill was filed I immediately sought out key members of the House Education Committee to determine what was behind the licensure language. Much to my surprise, I was told the bill had been designed to test the notion of local control. Statements were made during committee debate suggesting that Iowa still clings to its belief in the tradition of local control but that in reality it hasn't been allowed to function. According to the bill's sponsors, many of the laws passed in recent years have restricted the ability of school boards to exercise their "local control over school issues."
Although HF 675 passed both the House Education Committee and the full House, the Senate Education Committee stripped most of the provisions of the bill. The "boiler/school start date/breakfast program/superintendent licensure bill" quickly became the "breakfast program bill." (As of this writing the legislature is in its final days before adjournment. It appears the superintendent licensure language will not be reinstated in the final version of the bill.)
As I was mulling over the local control debate taking place in the legislature, I noticed an interesting article in the April 14 edition of Education Week regarding the dynamics of state vs. local control of education. The article provided evidence that state-level influence is changing the nature of local control across the country. As governors and state legislatures attempt to address the need for more rapid school reform and accountability, they have increasingly approached school reform by instituting statewide agendas which have cut into local districts' abilities to self govern.
A survey of state-local issues across the country revealed the following:
When you look over this list, the dynamics of Iowa's state-local governance issues seem to be minuscule compared to many other states. However, the debate will continue. In fact the very day the Education Week article appeared an interesting dialog occurred at the SAI Superintendents Workshop in Ames. A Department of Education official spoke to the group about the state's role in enforcing HF 2272 (the accountability bill). She stressed that the state has a duty to assure improved student learning, but that local districts are responsible for setting standards, assessing how well students are meeting those standards and informing the public regarding the school's progress.
During the question/answer session following the presentation, several superintendents asked if it wouldn't be better for the DE to establish a set of state standards rather than have 370+ school districts in the state each develop their own. The response was that the state is maintaining its belief in local control.
The debate regarding state vs. local control is one that will continue
for some time to come. We have not seen the last of bills like HF 675 or
HF 2272. Fortunately, however, we live in Iowa where the dynamics of the
state-local relationship are healthy compared to many other states. States
that have instituted strong top-down reform efforts over the past few years
are learning that you can't "force" improvement when there isn't
local ownership in the process. The Iowa approach appears much more inclusive
of all the stake holders. Let's make sure it stays that way!
Recognizing/Analyzing the PR Factor in
Your Hiring Process
by Len Cockman, Executive Director of Human Resources and Public Information,
Urbandale Community School District
The old adage advises putting your best foot forward. You only get one chance to make a first impression, we're told. This is good, time-tested advice. The concept of presenting an 'image' may seem unrelated to the district's hiring process, but consider for a moment the time, effort and funds spent on hiring new staff members annually. Consider the advertising and recruiting, the response to phone calls and letters, the application and supportive material sent by the district either physically or electronically. Usually, it is a huge effort.
How does your 'best foot' look? What is that 'first impression' of your district? The question of the perspective new staff member is no longer 'Please, may I work for you?' but rather 'Do I want to work for you?" In today's market the perception of a school district is the result of the district's reputation and the first actual contact. While you have little immediate control over your history-developed reputation, you do have considerable control over the following, which create your 'image' or 'impression':
Your Phone Impression
Is it friendly and professional? Is it a caring voice at the other end of
the inquiry for a job application? Who can answer specific questions about
the hiring process? Who can provide information about the district and the
community? Is your voice mail, e-mail, and snail mail reflective of your
mission and goals?
The Appearance of your Materials
With all we have learned about visual learning, the artistic impression
of your world is important. Do you appear sloppy? organized? overbearing?
friendly? legalistic? lackadaisical? It is up to your materials from the
cover letter to the application to provide you with a positive image. How
is your material working for you? Do you have a letter, brochure, or something
that tells about you? What do you stand for? Do kids come first in your
district? What is your angle on creating learning? What can happen in your
district because of the efforts of your staff and use of facilities?
Your Logo or Lack Thereof
A logo is a split second opportunity to say two things: 1.) Look at me.
2.) I mean something. It is a wonderful opportunity to present the fact
that your district wants and deserves a badge of honor. It needs to be unique
and simple. Just because you have had it for years doesn't mean people like
it or it actually works for you. It may make a good impression, it may not.
Find out.
Your Vocabulary Impression
Everyone says we should avoid jargon. But usually, we don't; we often use
it without thinking about it. Would you be willing to direct the Saturday
Success Cadre? Can you arrive early to meet with the B.A.D.D. Unit? Are
you able to teach brain-based multicultural cooperative learning with cognitive
coaching using multi-level learning styles including character education
with alternative real-world authentic assessment providing guided reading
for youth in transition? Oh, and don't forget the service-learning activities
with possible mentorships. However, if you are ADD or need a 504 plan you
need not apply.
A Welcoming Environment
When the day of the interviews arrives and the nervous candidate arrives,
what have you done to make him or her comfortable? Did they have a schedule
of the day before the day? Did they have specific instructions? A small
gesture of a glass of water on the table before the hot sear says you care
for people's needs. It is friendly. It is caring. It may only by a glass
of water, but it reflects your image as a school district. Interview day
is a day for details. Have you considered name tents so the candidate is
helped in remembering names after introductions are over?
Your door is open. "Do I want to work there?" the perspective
employee asks. What's your impression?