EDITORIAL: Fix school spending from top down

We've heard a lot of shocking numbers on school superintendent pay lately, but perhaps the most startling figures are these: New York City, with 1.1 million students, paid $250,000 for its schools' leader last year. Long Island, with 453,000 students, spent $29.2 million.

That doesn't mean all school chiefs are overpaid. An analysis of the numbers shows, a few exceptions aside, most of them aren't. It doesn't mean Long Island should be consolidated into one school district from 124. That would never happen. And it doesn't mean we need a witch hunt targeting superintendents who have legally garnered massive salaries, fringe benefits, final-year payouts and pensions.

But change is needed. The system isn't transparent, isn't cost-effective and doesn't account for the rights of all the taxpayers, statewide, who contribute money to every district.

Nine of the 10 highest-paid school administrators in the state worked in Long Island districts last year, and some of their packages are extraordinary. The highest was Commack Superintendent James A. Feltman, whose $657,970 take included numerous perks and a career-end payout for accrued sick time and vacation. His base pay was $249,905. Syosset Superintendent Carole Hankin took second place with a total package of $485,246 (base pay $306,721), particularly notable because she did not have any career-end payouts.

But there is a drop-off: In 10th place, Sheldon Karnilow of Half Hollow Hills got $351,946 (base bay $275,000), and the vast majority of Long Island superintendents have total compensation packages between $200,000 and $250,000.

That's not unreasonable for experienced professionals who manage large staffs and student populations under a complex set of laws. Not all of them, though, do manage large staffs and student populations, and many superintendents have numerous highly paid employees. Half Hollow Hills, with about 10,000 students, has nine employees with packages over $200,000 per year, 45 employees over $150,000 per year and 299 employees over $100,000 per year.

There are too many superintendents and their deputies because there are too many districts. Twelve percent of Long Island districts have fewer than 500 students. Twenty percent do not cover all the grades from K-12. Studies show districts this small reduce operating costs as much as 50 percent by consolidating, and New York State offers generous subsidies for districts willing to do so.

Residents are often attached to their districts, it's one of the few defining boundaries in suburbia. They feel a sense of control over the destiny, direction and budget of their local schools, and a sense of community as well. That's understandable, and even laudable. But taxes are too high. The structure needed to support the smaller districts is too expensive. We can no longer afford it.

Districts are funded not only by their taxpayers. State aid goes to every school, and that means every resident of every county pays for everybody else's district.

Everyone in the state of New York pays the superstar superintendents, but not everyone has a say in their salaries and benefits. Long Islanders have long claimed they don't get their fair share of state aid to schools, and a lot of that stems from lawmakers elsewhere in the state seeing a willingness on Long Island to spend wildly on education and deciding their regions don't need to subsidize it.

It's also worth questioning whether taxpayers understand what their districts are truly paying their superintendents. Why are perks such a large part of the biggest packages? It's not a tax dodge, because such benefits are taxable. Why grant Syosset Superintendent Carole Hankin $180,000 in various benefits when the district could just pay her $180,000 more?

It feels like an attempt to convince a mostly inattentive group of taxpayers that superintendents earn a lot less than they do by touting salaries much lower than their total compensation. This is wrong, and it should stop. Paying superintendents cash salaries, publicizing the totals and letting the chips fall where they may is the fair and transparent thing to do.

Perhaps worst of all are policies allowing superintendents (and any public employees) to accumulate sick and vacation days and exchange them for massive payouts. Vacations allow workers to recharge and return to work full of vigor. Sick days allow workers to recover from illness or injury and prevent disease from spreading to others. There should be no incentive for not using either, because there is no gain from having people hoard them.

Lowering the cost of education is difficult, but there is no better time than now to start. Districts with tiny student populations should calculate the savings from consolidation, as should districts that don't offer full K-12 education. Superintendent contracts should be transparent, and thoroughly vetted by voters. Sick and vacation time shouldn't be traded for cash.

And the fiscally prudent, and transparent districts, and their superintendents, should lead the charge. Because they're the ones whose reputations are being sullied by the less responsible districts. hN