By Rob

Lynn Varner, of the Seattle Times, recently wrote this editorial advocating for larger salaries for school board members.  Her argument is school boards are tasked with oversight of complex educational systems and informed decisions require more time and a deeper understanding than most board members can offer given their small stipend.

Today, school boards serving large districts must oversee multi-million dollar budgets, allocate resources, communicate district goals, build consensus around initiatives, monitor academic progress, and, at times, answer to frustrated parents or stakeholders.  These are not easy tasks; especially when done after work on a Tuesday evening.   

Compared to other civic institutions the school board is undervalued.  The city of Seattle has over 10,000 employees and a budget of $3.9 billion.  Those who oversee the city government, the members of the Seattle City Council, each earned over $110,000.  By contrast, the Seattle Public Schools have half the employees (4,914) and a budget of $833.5 million; a large institution by most measures.  Yet the School Board members each earn just $4,800 per year.

Would a full-time salaried position for board members increase the effectiveness of the school board?  What would a full-time salary buy the public? 

A full-time salary would not solve many of the problems that plague ineffective school boards.  It will not prevent board members serving different constituents from crafting conflicting policy.  It will not prevent infighting, dysfunction, or distrust.  A full-time position may lead to increased involvement in issues best left to professionals.  It may increase opportunities for discussion of issues but it doesn’t ensure decisions will be made in a publically transparent manner. 

Presumably, a full-time position would allow for more thoughtfully vetted policy and greater oversight.  All stakeholders would champion more thoughtful policy.  But school boards are limited in crafting policy.  Many policy decisions are dictated by state and federal statutes.  Other policy issues, such as curriculum adoption, are best left to those with expertise in that area.  It is unlikely a school board could match the institutional knowledge of curriculum departments or curriculum adoption committees.

The Superintendent is already accountable to the School Board.  Would greater oversight extend to the Superintendent’s cabinet?  To principals?  To department heads?  To teachers? 

Finally, a full-time position would limit the potential pool of applicants.  School Board members represent the community and the constituents they serve.  There is value in them maintaining their roles as business leaders, community organizers, involved parents, etc.  A full-time board position would most appeal to those without other employment or those seeking loftier political ambitions.

School boards are the link between communities and schools.  I am in support of strengthening that link.  But I don’t believe paying a school board a full-time salary is money well spent.