High Salaries, Low Scores: Are Arizona’s Public School Superintendents Overpaid?
State 48 News investigates six-figure superintendent pay as Arizona’s education system ranks last and Prop 123 nears expiration.
Part 2 of an Ongoing State 48 News Investigation into Superintendent Salaries in Arizona’s Public Schools
Currently the worst-ranked public education system in America, where classrooms are the most overcrowded in the nation and proficiency scores scrape the bottom, Arizona’s top school executives are pulling in a quarter to up to half a million dollars a year in compensation and fringe benefits.
ConsumerAffairs named Arizona dead last in its 2024 national education report, citing dismal funding, poor student outcomes, and the most overburdened teacher-to-student ratios in the country. Yet while teachers burn out and students fall behind, superintendent contracts are exploding—negotiated in closed-door meetings, padded with perks, and largely untethered to academic performance.
STATE 48 INVESTIGATES SUPERINTENDENT COMPENSATION
In our recent investigation, State 48 News finds some public school superintendents have the potential to earn between $250,000 and $491,000 a year—even as student proficiency scores languish below 25% in several districts. Critics say the disconnect between pay and performance reveals deep flaws in the state’s K-12 education system.
Is the blame on state lawmakers who built the system, district lawyers who help shield it, or school board members who sign off without scrutiny? The answer may be a combination of all of the above.
What State 48 News uncovered about superintendent compensation points to a broader issue—Arizona’s education funding structure is under increasing strain, and with Proposition 123 set to expire, long-standing cracks in the system are becoming harder to ignore.
Voters barely greenlit Proposition 123 back in 2016—a deal that directed more state land trust cash into Arizona’s public schools for a decade. Now, that funding lifeline is about to run dry, set to expire at the end of June.
As lawmakers weigh a renewal of Proposition 123—a key funding stream for Arizona’s K-12 public schools—the Arizona Center for Economic Progress is urging the state to go beyond simply extending the measure. In a recent report, the Center argues that any extension should address deeper structural flaws in how Arizona funds education. Among the concerns: provisions in state law that allow the legislature to suspend inflation adjustments during certain economic conditions, potentially gutting school funding even if land trust dollars continue to flow. The report calls for reforms to ensure that future investments are stable, adequate, and truly reach Arizona classrooms.
State 48 News reached out to Arizona House Representative Matt Gress, a leading voice on education policy at the Capitol this session, for comment on the growing concerns over superintendent compensation. In response, Gress pointed to ongoing efforts by legislative Republicans to renew Proposition 123, emphasizing that the renewed measure would direct every dollar of new land trust revenue specifically to teacher pay—explicitly bypassing school district administrations. “For too long, state investments in education never seem to reach the classroom because the administration always takes their piece of the pie,” Gress said.
“There’s very little accountability with our superintendents’ performances in the K-12 school districts,” says Pam Kirby, founder of the Arizona Coalition of School Board Members. “Obviously, that accountability can be driven by the governing board members. The governing board members were trained by institutional organizations that have been around for 40 years. Their role as a governing board member was to support whatever the superintendent wanted to do. That is not what state statute says.”
Kirby’s organization advocates for a culture shift—one that positions school boards as fiduciaries for the taxpayers who elected them, not rubber stamps for administrative leadership. But she admits, reversing decades of institutional behavior will take time.
“If it’s been a certain way for 40 years—it takes time to turn it to the way it’s supposed to be operating,” she says. “It also requires a majority of the board members to have that same philosophy.”
Pay Without Performance
Kirby says she "cannot remember a time where there was a strong relationship in a superintendent’s contract and their performance bonus to academic achievement."
According to Arizona law, superintendents can earn up to 20% of their base salary in performance-based pay. But Kirby remains skeptical of its effectiveness.
“It’s simple. In my experience, I have yet to see where that performance pay has any meaningful impact on academic achievement. It just doesn’t,” she says.
In December, as the Liberty Elementary School Board negotiated its superintendent’s new contract, State 48 News raised a critical question: How exactly are school boards calculating superintendent performance bonuses?
Under Arizona law—specifically A.R.S. § 15-341(39)—districts may award performance pay of up to 20% of a superintendent’s annual base salary. But that authority stems from legislation passed nearly 15 years ago.
We traced it back to House Bill 2521, signed into law in 2010. Since then, little has changed—except the size of the paychecks.
Kirby adds that most metrics used to determine bonuses are diluted with non-academic goals like “opening a new school successfully” or “budget management.” When academic data is used, it often lags by six months or more—creating loopholes for administrators.
“You shouldn’t have more than, in my opinion, 5-7 metrics to measure someone’s performance bonus against,” Kirby says.
In our investigation of Arizona superintendent contracts, we found some districts require a valid superintendent certificate—even though the state doesn’t. A large majority of superintendents still hold one, and many contracts demand it.
To qualify, candidates need a master’s degree, 36 graduate credits in education administration, and three years of teaching or equivalent experience.
“Teaching experience absolutely matters in an educational institution. I’m sorry, but that’s just the fact of the matter,” says BUHSD board member Nathan Madden.
But Madden questions the weight of the certificate itself. “It really depends on what your community values. Do they believe that a piece of paper actually is representative of skill? For me, I don’t think it does.”
He says effectiveness should come first: “That’s why a lot of cases in our district—administration comes from our teacher groups.”
Behind Closed Doors
Madden, a governing board member in the Buckeye Union High School District says employment agreements for top administrators—including superintendents and executive staff—should be more easily accessible on district websites. The proposal aims to increase public oversight and ensure taxpayers have a clear understanding of how district funds are allocated in leadership compensation packages.
State 48 News asked Kirby whether taxpayers are aware of these high salaries. She doesn’t think so—and blames a shift in how contracts are negotiated.
“Back in 2010–2015, it was very common that when a school board would go into negotiation with a superintendent… that draft would be made available to the public for review prior to the board voting on that contract,” she says. “That all changed about two years ago. And what we are now regularly seeing is disturbing.”
Today, Kirby says contracts are often negotiated entirely behind closed doors in executive sessions—without public review or meaningful oversight.
“You don’t know as a member of the public what they’re voting on. And you’ll only know if you do a public records request that actually gets filled.”
Golden Parachutes and Conflicts of Interest
Kirby says many contracts include "offensive" benefits that go beyond high base salaries and bonuses.
“They get the car allowance. They get the phone allowance. They get all of their personal days. They get all the holidays. They get all the normal stuff. They get the 20% bonus. And then, they get $10,000 a month for personal expenses. Why don’t we just put that in the salary and call it what it is?”
Even more troubling, she says, is who’s at the negotiating table.
“The lawyer who is inking this contract is typically a lawyer who is on retainer with the school district. The school district pays the lawyer—pays their bills. So, the lawyer is almost incented to make the superintendent very very happy.”
Kirby wants to see boards retain independent legal counsel to represent taxpayer interests during contract negotiations.
Teachers, Travel, and Public Trust
Asked how teachers might react to these revelations, Kirby says, “I think the teachers are numb to it. Honestly.”
She recalls a recent example where teachers' associations opposed raising teacher pay more than administration—despite the clear cost savings.
“It just doesn’t make sense,” she says. “It’s when they see somebody who was a teacher in their ranks two years ago… now become a director or an assistant superintendent—making six figures—that make the eyebrows get raised.”
Kirby also criticized how travel is used.
“I believe school board members look at travel as a boondoggle,” she says. “They come back from these conferences and at the very next meeting they’re talking about cutting teachers. Or increasing class sizes. It’s completely upside down.”
Looking Ahead
Despite her frustrations, Kirby remains optimistic.
“I’m very excited that we have board members in our school districts across the state who are ready for that tide to turn and who know what to go do.”
She believes school choice and community transparency will be key to that shift.
“I personally believe in competition. I think competition will make us all better,” she says.
Kirby argues that governing boards need to look beyond credentials and hire superintendents with proven leadership experience—especially former principals.
“As conservatives in this space, what we’re looking for is… that [students and families] are served—and that is measured by the academic achievement of the students that they serve.”
THE MORE YOU KNOW.
As State 48 News continues to investigate superintendent compensation across Arizona’s public school districts, we’ve reached out to key education stakeholders for comment.
Save Our Schools Arizona—a 501(c)(4) nonprofit social welfare organization—has not responded to our request for comment. According to the group’s website, “Arizona’s public school system is the worst-funded in the nation. This means Arizona children are not getting the quality education they deserve. Schools have been forced to slash budgets for teacher and staff salaries, programs, nurses, counselors, extracurriculars, advanced coursework, the arts, and more.”
We also contacted the Arizona Education Association, a statewide professional association and labor union that advocates for students, teachers, and public education employees. As of this report, State 48 News has not received a response.
We welcome differing opinions. Please contact us if you’d like to go on the record.