home | contact | faq

action items

A frequent sort of question asked of readingtonparents.org concerns the authority and the oversight of the superintendent. Folks want to understand the limits of the superintendent’s power and how the superintendent is monitored. This article will serve to explain some of the theory and the practical realities of this line of inquiry.

In New Jersey, as in many other states, the superintendent is the chief executive of the school district. He or she is charged with implementing in full the policies developed by the elected school board, and the superintendent is hired by the school board. In theory, the elected members of the school board create broad educational policy and determine the fundamental values and direction of the district. The superintendent then takes this broad roadmap and uses it to direct the day to day workings of the district, including personnel matters, curriculum, physical plant and much more. The superintendent does not “report” to the school board in the sense a private sector employee reports to his boss. Even something as simple as recording attendance is handled essentially on faith, as the superintendent is asked to file time-off slips with the board secretary. The superintendent serves with the approval of the board unless or until the board acts to remove the authority of the chief executive, but there is not daily oversight. That is the theory.

In practice, the lines between these roles often become blurred. It is not uncommon for school board members to overstep their boundaries and attempt to become involved in the day-to-day operations of the district or to seek specific outcomes well beyond a broad policy. In some cases this is necessary and allowed, such as when a chief executive has failed in his or her duties. Mostly, though, this is a no-no. It is also very common for superintendents to overstep their boundaries and, in effect, dictate to the board what their decisions on broad policy matters should be. A superintendent with strong opinions can have an easy time convincing overworked or under-motivated board members to simply rubber-stamp his or her ideas. Yet, the elected school board members do have measures for stronger control.

Morristown attorneys Riker, Danzig have a well recognized practice in school law. In 1997 the firm published an article called “Divorcing the Superintendent.” Citing several important cases in school law, the firm notes that a school board does have the authority to take away the duties of a superintendent either partially or completely. Other options such as a salary freeze or a negotiated settlement are also possible. The article is worthwhile reading. In Readington our superintendent was offered a new contract by sitting board members before newly elected board members had a chance to weigh in. This back-room deal was covered previously on this website. What the Riker, Danzig article points out is that there are always other options. Simply firing a superintendent can be very expensive. In 2003, for example, the Asbury Park school board fired Superintendent Antonio Lewis who had three years left on his five year contract. The taxpayers then foot the bill for $150,000 a year in salary plus perks for the remainder of the contract. Taxpayers also paid the salary of the replacement superintendent during the same period. By removing the duties of the superintendent, or “divorcing” the chief executive, it may be possible to force a better settlement or at least to send a strong message.

As recent public discussions at Readington school board meetings and the flurry of resignations and firings in our district show, there are occasions when a lack of direct superintendent oversight can encourage some unfortunate management issues. As the old saw goes, it isn’t wise to have the fox guarding the henhouse. For perspective on just how shocking unbridled power in a school district can become, it is illuminating to review the recent case of a Brooklyn high school. The entire story was detailed in an article by Samuel G. Freedman in the July 20, 2005 New York Times.

In basic terms the case involves a teacher new to the profession who initially was praised for his innovative work and then, suddenly, reprimanded by members of the administration for poor work. As chapter chair for the teachers union, this teacher met with stiff resistance from the administration there too. But, there is more to this story. It seems this teacher wrote detailed memos to his principal concerning a suspicious pattern of Regents test scores that had been inflated from failing to passing. Even worse for this would-be whistleblower, the suspicious pattern existed with tests that came under the purview of an assistant-principal who was also his supervisor. As this teacher was trying to point out cheating on standardized tests, his supervisor was laying the groundwork for his firing.

As the dispute escalated, a formal investigation was launched and other teachers were interviewed. All of the other teachers denied that any “test-scrubbing” was going on, and soon this whistleblower was standing alone. He had been alienated from his colleagues and harangued by his administration. By early 2004, this teacher was on the way out. In June, however, a second round of interrogations changed everything. This time, teachers were given immunity from disciplinary action and the truth came out. Teachers had been asked to artificially raise scores on tests by the assistant-principal and they had complied. They had also lied during their first interview out of fear of retribution. While the whistleblower teacher was finally vindicated, he apparently continues to be harassed by the administration.

In Readington we have not reached this degree of debauchery, but we have certainly had our share of teacher-harassment and rampant political power-plays. If our superintendent has been unable or unwilling to end such behavior in a timely manner or in a manner that does not throw the baby out with the bathwater, then it is up to our school board to provide leadership. Guidance on personnel and management policies is well within the means and privilege of the board. If our superintendent chooses not to investigate allegations of misconduct or chooses not to end teacher-harassment, if our superintendent insists on keeping information close to the vest and offers no more than lip service to stakeholder concerns, if our superintendent will not look in the mirror for areas of improvement, then it is the responsibility of the school board to create and enforce clearer policy on these matters. If our school board is not up to that challenge, or if members of the school board are simply rubber-stamping the whims of the superintendent, then it is up to voters to correct the injustice.

In 2004, an OPRA request was made for the “format and criteria” for our superintendent’s annual evaluation by the board. The superintendent’s contract states that these criteria “shall be reduced to writing” and will be the basis for the annual evaluation. Note that the OPRA request was not for the evaluation itself, but merely the criteria for the evaluation. The request was denied. Whether the written criteria even exist is anybody’s guess, but the denial of such a simple request says volumes to future voters. If our superintendent will not even allow an explanation of the criteria by which she is evaluated, the reality of the school board's oversight becomes clearer.