Something is wrong when school superintendents make double what the governor of the largest state in the country makes, and almost as much as the President of a nation of 330 million people.

Political climate doesn’t explain it here. The salary is so high, the Superintendents we’ve been getting don’t even commit to living here and becoming part of the community.

Perhaps we should expand our requirements so that we can hire people with strong managerial experience. Or maybe we could make a co-superintendent position in which we hire someone just out of school to give them the job experience while giving our district the energy and innovation of a new graduate, while also hiring a seasoned CEO of a company or former legislator or university administrator. We might not save money in total but we would get more for our money.

Lastly, why don’t we have some kind of training program from within so that teachers can rotate through the superintendent position? Rather than trying to attract from without, maybe we should be investing in the teachers who have invested in our kids.

A nice paying gig. A competitive salary and reasonable benefits make sense.

The ONLY reason senior leadership is hard to find is that they've brainwashed themselves into their own credentialism.

For contrast, EVERY single one of our Board members (and I say this not as a huge fan of our board) would make a far better Sup. that Austin ... in terms of management, experience, intelligence, relationship -- almost every category thinkable.

Not one of them could get the job because they don't have the PE PhD. The >$200k per year "public" school leadership racket is running amok.

Our Ed schools have been a known problem in academia for decades now. We are paying the price for not having done anything about it over that time.

One supposes if Mr. Austin had actually improved the district during his troubled tenure then he would be worth the money. On the contrary, he has clearly done more harm than good and there is plenty of data to back that up.

If things are so competitive that he is the best that PAUSD can do for nearly 400K , then there is a major problem with the system. He should not be making more than the superintendent of San Francisco or San Diego, period. You are right Jennifer, nice gig for him. Not so nice for students, parents, or the dedicated staff [portion removed.] PAUSD can do so much better for the price tag he carries. Sad.

One wonders if Palo Alto ever denies maximum raises to local "leaders" with less than stellar performance.

A key reason there are so few candidates is baby boomer superintendents are retiring. Cultivating and developing internal staff to grow into these roles would be wise.

Frankly, increasing lack of civility in public discourse also has become a problem. It would be great if this generation of parents would build relationships and work in partnership with school district staff to understand issues more deeply and to identify smart, feasible solutions you need. That is how democracy works. That's how PAUSD became a lighthouse district. If you want that for your kids, you have to work with staff in partnership to make it so.

Democratically run PTAs provide great organizations to do this.