PARENTS CARE INVESTIGATION · LAKE FOREST SCHOOLS

How our schools pay administrators reveals what they prioritize.

Every contract, benefit, and incentive for school administrators reflects a choice about public resources. Those dollars do not exist in a vacuum. They compete with classroom teachers, student services, academic programs, and the burden on taxpayers.

Parents Care's investigation lets you follow the people and decisions behind administration spending. Explore individual compensation, see where the records are strong, and understand where estimated amounts help complete the picture.

MEET THE PEOPLE BEHIND THE NUMBERS

Explore administrator compensation

Choose a district, then open a person’s card to see their pay over time, benefits, and the supporting records.

START HEREWhich district would you like to explore?

Fiscal year shown

Both districts · FY2024–25 · Administration by purpose

Refine these resultsAdjust definition or role

≈ Estimated amount · ≥ Documented minimum About these figures

More profiles for other definitions and years

These profiles remain discoverable even if they are not counted in the selected administration definition or require additional classification. Excluded profiles do not enter spending totals; missing compensation is not zero.

Data notes

Executive compensation · Parents Care

Compensation Board Decisions Timeline Sources

How has compensation changed?

Click any compensation component to include or remove it. The chart and table update together, and remaining components always repack from the zero baseline.

Scale:

Try it yourself: take one piece of compensation outClick a color in the chart or one of the cards below. Watch how much the total changes. Press Select all to bring everything back.

Confirmed or directly reportedControlled ≈ estimatePartial reported compensation

What makes up this compensation?

Click a card to remove or restore that payment. Watch the chart update above.

Notes on estimated and incomplete amounts

Year-by-year compensation figuresView detailed table

Fiscal year	Base	Annuity	Retention	Retirement	Benefits*	Tier II / deferred	Auto	Vacation buyback	Other	Displayed total

Selection & classification contextView directory-view accounting detail

PRIVATE RESEARCH PREVIEW · Numerical attribution is not separately approved for public release. Historical and future scenarios are not cash paid.

Financial Impact of Key School Board Compensation Decisions

This module appears only because Montgomery's compensation history has a distinct attribution problem. The 2023 second contract both extends the higher salary path and applies Policy 3:50 retention to him. Retention is therefore embedded in that contract rather than counted again as a separate Board decision.

Baseline: 2021 contract termsDirect comparison through FY23 24After June 2024: continuation scenario only

↕

Choose the decisions to analyzeClick any decision card to include or remove its financial impact. The chart, table, and totals update together. Retention cannot be double counted.

Scale:

Selected decisions: financial impact by fiscal yearAuto scale

2022 addendum2023 contract salary pathRetention inside 2023 contractTier II alignment

Selected impact vs. 2021 terms

Within original contract term$0

Post expiration scenario$0

Fiscal year	2021 contract base	Actual or documented base	2022 addendum	2023 contract salary path	Retention within 2023 contract	Tier II alignment	Selected impact	Evidence character

FY2022 23

2022 compensation addendum

The original 2021 formula would have produced $306,940. The addendum set base salary at $356,283, a $49,343 difference.

FY2023 24

Second contract plus retention activation

The original contract was still scheduled through June 2024. The new contract preserved the higher salary path and paragraph 7A applied Policy 3:50 retention to Montgomery.

FY2024 25 onward

Mechanical continuation scenario

The first contract had expired. Its 3 percent formula continues only as an analytical baseline, not as a claim that the expired contract remained operative.

FY2025–26 onward

Tier II alignment

Adds another compensation component. Current and future amounts remain visibly estimated or projected.

Attribution convention: Montgomery's retention is attributed to the 2023 Second Superintendent Contract because that contract is what applies the existing Policy 3:50 framework to him. Policy 3:50 remains the enabling policy, but it is not treated as a second Montgomery specific Board decision. Selecting the Second Contract includes retention once. Selecting Retention alone creates a component only inspection view.

When did these changes happen?

See how the Boards built today’s compensation package, decision by decision.

Documented eventFuture or pendingUnresolved

Want to check our work?

Explore the contracts, public compensation reports, and methods behind every figure.

Open source documents and evidence notes

Amounts marked ≈ are estimates based on available records. Unknown components are not treated as zero. Historical and projected years are identified in the chart.

How our schools pay administrators reveals what they prioritize.

Find an administrator

All compensation profiles