Arizona opinion: The hidden ways Arizona school superintendents are paid

Luxury stipends, endless time off, multiple pensions.

This isn’t corporate excess or the lifestyles of the rich and famous — it’s too often the reality of superintendent pay in Arizona. Even worse, nearly all of it is hidden from the taxpayers who foot the bill.

When the Goldwater Institute, where I work, requested superintendent contracts from 41 of the state’s largest school districts, most of them fought disclosure. It took four months of delays, denials, and even legal threats before the public could finally see how school money is being spent. The results were eye-opening.

On paper, superintendents’ base salaries average about $215,000 a year. But that is the beginning, not the end, of the story.

Add in car allowances of up to $1,250 a month, vacation banks that can be “cashed out” for tens of thousands of dollars, and taxpayer-funded contributions to private retirement accounts on top of the state pension system and the true figure balloons. In Tolleson Union, for example, Superintendent Jeremy Calles collects nearly half a million dollars a year, making him the highest-paid superintendent in the state, even as his district’s academic performance lags.

This is not an accident of bookkeeping. It is a system meant to conceal how tax dollars get spent.

Contracts are drafted to scatter compensation across as many as ten separate categories, obscuring the total from parents and taxpayers. School boards typically release only the base salary, knowing that figure will look palatable to taxpayers while the real cost remains hidden in the fine print.

To make matters worse, when watchdogs request the full contracts, districts often drag their feet, charge illegal fees, or ignore the law outright.

Taxpayer transparency should not require litigation. These are public employees, entrusted with both the education of our children and the stewardship of taxpayer dollars. Yet 40 out of 41 do not post their superintendent contract online, and a majority of those districts refused to disclose their contracts until forced to do so. Ten earned an “F” in transparency in Goldwater’s analysis. That ought to alarm every parent who is asked to trust these same districts with their children’s futures.

There’s no doubt that being a school superintendent carries heavy responsibilities. But there is a difference between fair, competitive pay and hidden perks that few, if any, know about.

Teachers are not given spousal health insurance at no cost. Classroom aides do not receive $45,000 in annual retirement contributions on top of a pension. And no other public employee can walk away with a six-figure payout from not using vacation days.

The solution is simple. First, superintendent contracts should be posted online, as Illinois, Indiana, and Texas already require. Second, school boards should stop relying on complex packages of stipends and side deals and instead pay a single, clearly defined salary with the same benefits available to all staff. That would send a message of fairness, honesty, and accountability.

Until then, Arizona taxpayers will remain in the dark — while the people running their schools continue to live large at public expense.