Post by Chris_Wendt on Jun 18, 2015 12:51:32 GMT -5
There are two sides to every transaction, every value proposition, every employment agreement.
In the case of school administrators, there is the salary (etc.) which the administrator is paid, in the first instance.
It is often the salary consideration of the transaction, of the Employment Agreement, that initially attracts and seals the deal between a school district and an administrator; it is often that the salary consideration of the ongoing value proposition between the school district and an administrator that brings and end to such an employment relationship.
While the true value to the employee (administrator) can be quantified in dollars, the corresponding value received by the school district from the employment relationship is often much more subjective, if not down-right speculative. However, the Third Dictum of Chris Wendt's Postulation on Organizational Development holds thus:
The district may not have recouped their early financial investment in a short-term administrator.
So what about the "sunk costs", the money paid by the taxpayers who own the school district, to some of our short-term Assistant Superintendents?
I will show you the salary costs, as nearly as I have been able to determine them from See Through NY. But not included in the salary numbers are the added costs of health insurance, pensions, organizational membership dues, tuition payments, and other payroll costs for which the district is responsible.
Wantagh has had three (3) short-term Assistant Superintendents who, by the time our current Assistant Superintendent for Instruction leaves this month, will have collected, cumulatively, about $1.37 Million in salary, across their individual work spans of 2-5 tax years (not to be confused with school years, which each span 2 tax years). You can add a healthy percentage to the salary to estimate the total amount of money sunk in paying for the learning curves of three people in key positions in our school district, pehaps an additional half million dollars, all-tolled.
Taxpayers, parents... is that all we got for our money? That was a lot of money sunk into employing people who bailed-out on all of us.
Will the Board of Education just keep on keepin' on?
Perplexed.
Chris Wendt
In the case of school administrators, there is the salary (etc.) which the administrator is paid, in the first instance.
It is often the salary consideration of the transaction, of the Employment Agreement, that initially attracts and seals the deal between a school district and an administrator; it is often that the salary consideration of the ongoing value proposition between the school district and an administrator that brings and end to such an employment relationship.
While the true value to the employee (administrator) can be quantified in dollars, the corresponding value received by the school district from the employment relationship is often much more subjective, if not down-right speculative. However, the Third Dictum of Chris Wendt's Postulation on Organizational Development holds thus:
"The true value to an organization derived from a senior or key employment relationship is directly proportionate to the length of the relationship, until the Point of Diminishing Returns (from the relationship) is reached."Think of this as meaning:
As a school district administrator gains in experience and knowledge, the value of their contributions to the district grows proportionately, and justifies more money to keep the value proposition in-balance. But there comes a time when the administrator will have reached her or his peak (gaining minimal, additional, relevant and productive experience and knowledge) whereupon the increased value to the organization begins to taper off, ultimately resulting in no additional value being added to the district as a function of time or the administrator's growing longevity, and thus, any further increases in salary paid to the administrator reduces the value proposition for the district from that point, forward.Of course, part of the subjectivity of what is the value of a school district administrator's employment agreement with a school district is essentially how to determine or define who is or are the beneficiaries of any or of various parts of any value imparted to the district by an administrator. Here are some relevant examples of value beneficiaries from a school administrator, such as an Assistant Superintendent:
- The Superintendent of Schools, who will have someone to whom workload can be delegated*
- The Board of Education, who will have additional expertise upon which it can rely for advancing district goals, but especially for their own peace of mind*
- The faculty or staff (depending upon the departments), who will have a capable leader and advocate*
- The parents and students who will presumably benefit from the applied expertise of the Administrator, especially in terms of prudent application of funding, and the development and implementation of programs*
- The taxpayers, who own the school district, and whose money funds the salary, benefits, pension and the initial and replacement recruiting costs of employing the administrator*
* However, in the application of the Third Dictum of my Postulation, there is an implied risk factor to the value proposition:
- If an administrator leaves the employ of the district at any time during the upward slope of their learning/contributing curve, the district faces, in addition to recruiting costs, the pain of training the next new administrator, the risk the next new administrator may not "work out", and a real financial "loss" from the fact that prior recruiting costs, salary, benefits, and pension costs have been laid out before the short-term administrator has gotten fully up-to-speed and started to earn all those cost increases incurred during the "ramp-up" along the learning curve.
The district may not have recouped their early financial investment in a short-term administrator.
So what about the "sunk costs", the money paid by the taxpayers who own the school district, to some of our short-term Assistant Superintendents?
I will show you the salary costs, as nearly as I have been able to determine them from See Through NY. But not included in the salary numbers are the added costs of health insurance, pensions, organizational membership dues, tuition payments, and other payroll costs for which the district is responsible.
Wantagh has had three (3) short-term Assistant Superintendents who, by the time our current Assistant Superintendent for Instruction leaves this month, will have collected, cumulatively, about $1.37 Million in salary, across their individual work spans of 2-5 tax years (not to be confused with school years, which each span 2 tax years). You can add a healthy percentage to the salary to estimate the total amount of money sunk in paying for the learning curves of three people in key positions in our school district, pehaps an additional half million dollars, all-tolled.
Taxpayers, parents... is that all we got for our money? That was a lot of money sunk into employing people who bailed-out on all of us.
Will the Board of Education just keep on keepin' on?
Perplexed.
Chris Wendt