Is it just me, or is there something fundamentally wrong when you read in the paper about Long Island school superintendents who are making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in salaries, pensions and benefits, and then two days later, read in the same paper, that services for special needs children are being cut?
One person wrote an editorial in which he was outraged that anyone should have an issue with the superintendents' pay because they "earned it," and the pay simply can't compare to that of private sector CEOs. I think this person is missing the point.
It's not really a matter of "earning it" (although others were quick to point out that city school superintendents', with far more children to account for, don't make nearly as much), and it has nothing to do with the private sector (our taxes pay for their jobs -- it's not a for-profit organization). What is at issue here, what should only really be at issue here, is what's best for our children. If the districts need money -- and remember, it's really our money in the form of ever increasing taxes -- the cuts should NOT come at the expense of our children. The schools, and the superintendents, exist for our children's benefit -- not the other way around.
Or maybe I'm just crazy to think that maybe the needs of the kids should come before those who have "earned it."