Contract Extensions for Superintendents Are the Norm

If a superintendent is doing a good job, I have no problem with a contract extension for the superintendent – even if budgets are tight. There are two reasons for this.

First, contract extensions of the two year variety are the norm in the industry. It can embarrass a sitting superintendent if not provided, especially if they are going a good job.

Second, future candidates pay close attention to current regional BOE actions. I say this often, “Precedents matter.” Taking care of sitting superintendents attracts quality applicants during future searches. Nobody wants to work for a bunch of tight wads. The superintendent job is incredibly tough. Even now, that salary is not enough given the massive numbers of hours which they work.

You might ask, “Doesn’t this make firing a superintendent more difficult?” Nope. Just don’t make handshake agreements behind closed doors, and then reveal those promises right as we get ready to make a move!

And no, nobody is calling for the superintendent’s job! I may disagree mightily with the data driven approach, but I can disagree without wanting someone fired. Would I change the direction of the system towards high quality instruction? In a New York minute.

In conclusion, there are many things which we need to fix in Kingsport City Schools, contract extensions are currently not one of them. It was a wise move by the BOE to offer the extension.

Note: Now, there are definitely other contracts which I wouldn’t renew. I would put several mid-management positions back in classroom in order to save money and decrease class sizes. I would also terminate contracts of inefficient, disrespectful, or non-compliant personnel who embarrass our school system. And before anyone says I am a “kiss-up,” you probably need to read the rest of the blog. Ha!