The Missing Issue in the Superintendent Race

Nevada County voters are being presented with a straightforward choice for County Superintendent of Schools: Timothy A. Reid and John Baggett.

Both candidates are clearly qualified. Both have extensive experience in public education. And at this point, I don’t believe either would be a bad choice to lead the County Office of Education.

But qualifications alone aren’t enough. The race feels incomplete—not because of who the candidates are, but because of what’s not being discussed.

Recent letters to the editor have emphasized experience, leadership, and community trust, qualities that both candidates clearly possess. Those are important considerations. But they are not the only ones.

What prompted this reflection was a recent NPR article by Cory Turner examining teacher pay. The report notes that the average public school teacher salary in the U.S. is now approximately $74,495. At the same time, median household income nationally is in the low-to-mid $80,000 range based on recent Census estimates. Notably, that comparison also closely mirrors median household income in Nevada County, making the question even more relevant at the local level.

That comparison is difficult to ignore.

Teacher salary—before benefits—is now approaching the income of an entire median household, which often includes more than one earner. When benefits are added; healthcare, pensions, job stability, and paid time off the total compensation picture becomes even stronger. In addition to traditional benefits, the teaching profession typically includes structured time off throughout the year, including state and federal holidays, sick leave, scheduled breaks during the school year, and an extended summer break. Taken together, these elements contribute to a compensation structure that, by most standards, compares favorably to many private-sector positions.

And yet, the framing of the article centers on the idea that teachers are falling behind.

That disconnect is what raises a broader question.

From where I sit, I’m questioning how we’ve arrived at a point where public-sector compensation is often framed as insufficient when, at least at a national level, the numbers suggest something different.

This is not to dismiss the impact of inflation, everyone is feeling it. But it is to ask whether the conversation is focusing on the right metrics.

At the same time, there is growing evidence that since the period following the Great Recession, public-sector compensation and long-term obligations have expanded significantly. Whether that growth has been appropriate or not is a separate debate, but the question of sustainability is real, particularly when pensions and long-term liabilities are included.

And yet, that question is largely absent from this race.

Reid’s campaign emphasizes improvement; making the County Office of Education more responsive, more connected, and more effective. Baggett’s campaign emphasizes experience, stability, and collaboration. Both are reasonable approaches. Both reflect credible leadership philosophies.

But neither has directly addressed how compensation growth should be managed over time. Neither has outlined a clear position on long-term financial obligations, pension exposure, or how current agreements align with future sustainability.

More specifically, neither candidate has explicitly addressed:

•Compensation growth trends 
• The role of collective bargaining and union influence 
• Pension liabilities 
• Long-term compensation sustainability 

For me, that matters. The candidate who ultimately earns my vote will be the one who can clearly and directly address these questions before Election Day.

That absence matters.

Because the County Superintendent of Schools is not just an educational leader. The role influences the tone, priorities, and fiscal posture of the system, particularly in how districts are supported and guided.

There is, however, an immediate opportunity to address this gap.

The League of Women Voters of Nevada County will host a County Superintendent of Schools candidate forum on Thursday, April 30 at 6 p.m. at the Rood Center, 950 Maidu Avenue in Nevada City. This forum provides a public setting where these questions can and should be asked directly.

If this issue is going to be part of the conversation, it needs to happen there, in a setting designed to inform voters.

This is not about criticizing either candidate. It’s about recognizing that an important conversation is missing.

Voters are being asked to choose between two qualified individuals without a clear understanding of how either intends to approach one of the most consequential financial dynamics in public education.

Until that conversation happens, it’s difficult for me to fully support either candidate.

Not because they lack experience. 
Not because they lack commitment.

But because the issue itself—long-term compensation sustainability—has yet to be meaningfully addressed.