It seems you get it! Austin is the source for significantly increasing property values. Why would they do that? The state requires that the budget be balanced. In order to accomplish this, our legislators have guided the comptroller's office to require ever higher property values. Again, why? Because these higher values push multiple school districts into Prop 41 status (Robin Hood) requiring the sending of local tax collections to Austin. This allows the state to reduce its own burden for funding education and shifts the burden to the local taxpayers. It's been going on for years. And, the amount returned each year to Austin via Robin Hood is not peanuts. It's billions.Funky Town Bear said:cowboycwr said:Volunteer said:Folks, it ain't MCAD that has caused the dramatic increase in our property valuations. It's our representatives in Austin. By state law, at least once every two years, the state comptroller's office must accomplish what is called the Property Value Survey (PVS) for every school district in Texas. With this mechanism the comptroller tells each district what the aggregate property values must be within each school district. For example, the comptroller will generate a target property value of say $15 billion for properties within the Waco ISD. MCAD must hit this property value level within +/-5%. If they do not, they've got a year to fix it or risk Waco ISD losing state funding.cowboycwr said:CorsicanaBear said:
$0.01 tax rate cut. They are laughing all the way to the bank on this one. When the pirates at MCAD raise values 10% every year we still wind up paying more tax ( the definition of a tax increase). Nobody's tax bill will go down.
Vote no on bonds. Make them cut administrative and entertainment overhead (athletics).
The tax rate cuts are a joke like you said. The appraisal district seems to think values are increasing way too much in McLennan county.
Increases in property values are baked into the state budget. Here's the language from our two most recent state budgets:
From the most recent biennium budget:
Article III, Page 5, Paragraph 3 of SB1 (the budget)
"Property values, and the estimates of local tax collections on which they are based, shall be increased bt 7.04% for tax year 2017, and by 6.77% for tax year 2018"
From our current budget:
Article III, Page 5, Paragraph 3d
"...and assumed increases in property values, and the estimates of local tax collections on which they are based, as estimated by the Comptroller of Public Accounts, of 5.76% for tax year 2019 and by 4.01% for tax year 2020".
The Comptroller uses these mandated valuation increases to generate the percentage increases required in the PVS.
Except that before those years my taxes increased as well....
And that friends outside of McLennan county don't see increases like McLennan county does....
So yes it may start in Austin as to why there is some increase each year. But mcad is responsible for the rest. Especially when it is large jumps.
Come pay DFW taxes and increases. Trust me. That is not a Waco only problem. It's obscene. And this game has been played by the tea party blow hards in Austin for a LONG time. Per child expenditures in Texas has been declining while our property taxes keep skyrocketing. And the suits in Austin have done zero to actually fix it.
Cameron Park Zoo plans new expansion project
16,537 Views |
109 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by BaylorHistory
Joined:
Aug 23, 2016
Posts:
69,482
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
Our new house increased 25% in 4 months and not in Waco.Volunteer said:It seems you get it! Austin is the source for significantly increasing property values. Why would they do that? The state requires that the budget be balanced. In order to accomplish this, our legislators have guided the comptroller's office to require ever higher property values. Again, why? Because these higher values push multiple school districts into Prop 41 status (Robin Hood) requiring the sending of local tax collections to Austin. This allows the state to reduce its own burden for funding education and shifts the burden to the local taxpayers. It's been going on for years. And, the amount returned each year to Austin via Robin Hood is not peanuts. It's billions.Funky Town Bear said:cowboycwr said:Volunteer said:Folks, it ain't MCAD that has caused the dramatic increase in our property valuations. It's our representatives in Austin. By state law, at least once every two years, the state comptroller's office must accomplish what is called the Property Value Survey (PVS) for every school district in Texas. With this mechanism the comptroller tells each district what the aggregate property values must be within each school district. For example, the comptroller will generate a target property value of say $15 billion for properties within the Waco ISD. MCAD must hit this property value level within +/-5%. If they do not, they've got a year to fix it or risk Waco ISD losing state funding.cowboycwr said:CorsicanaBear said:
$0.01 tax rate cut. They are laughing all the way to the bank on this one. When the pirates at MCAD raise values 10% every year we still wind up paying more tax ( the definition of a tax increase). Nobody's tax bill will go down.
Vote no on bonds. Make them cut administrative and entertainment overhead (athletics).
The tax rate cuts are a joke like you said. The appraisal district seems to think values are increasing way too much in McLennan county.
Increases in property values are baked into the state budget. Here's the language from our two most recent state budgets:
From the most recent biennium budget:
Article III, Page 5, Paragraph 3 of SB1 (the budget)
"Property values, and the estimates of local tax collections on which they are based, shall be increased bt 7.04% for tax year 2017, and by 6.77% for tax year 2018"
From our current budget:
Article III, Page 5, Paragraph 3d
"...and assumed increases in property values, and the estimates of local tax collections on which they are based, as estimated by the Comptroller of Public Accounts, of 5.76% for tax year 2019 and by 4.01% for tax year 2020".
The Comptroller uses these mandated valuation increases to generate the percentage increases required in the PVS.
Except that before those years my taxes increased as well....
And that friends outside of McLennan county don't see increases like McLennan county does....
So yes it may start in Austin as to why there is some increase each year. But mcad is responsible for the rest. Especially when it is large jumps.
Come pay DFW taxes and increases. Trust me. That is not a Waco only problem. It's obscene. And this game has been played by the tea party blow hards in Austin for a LONG time. Per child expenditures in Texas has been declining while our property taxes keep skyrocketing. And the suits in Austin have done zero to actually fix it.
That's not what I said, I'll pay taxes for the essentials, but keep it to that. Football is not essential for education. And neither is a Natatorium, or an FAA Barn, or an Indoor Practice Facility, or a Beautiful Band Hall or a first class Black Box theater for one act play.Quote:
No taxes, I'll keep mine!!
I agree that extracurricular activities are very helpful in developing superior students. Insuring your children have those experiences is a parental responsibility. The basics come from the taxpayers, the rest comes from families of students. Food and transportation to and from school are also not educational basics. You had 'em, you get them to school and feed 'em. It is not the tax payers' responsibility to raise your children.
Declining spending per student is a canard, a ruse of school administrators with a financial interest in ever increasing budgets. Spending per student is a particularly poor predictor of student success. Home life has a far greater impact than spending. You can't fix bad parenting with more money. See also Washington DC schools.
With regard to humanities, there may have been a time when they were useful, but not in this century or a significant part of the last. They are nothing now but a sordid cesspool of social justice, LGBTQ, ethnic and gender political theory, Wokeness and Marxism.
Illigitimus non carborundum
Yeah Brian, the problem ain't just in Waco, or the Metroplex, or Houston, or even Austin. It's all over. But, the larger urban areas are getting hit harder than some of the smaller communities and rural areas. The bottom line is that the state needs/wants the extra money created when property values increase to help balance the budget.
On a side note: In the aggregate, commercial entities may not be paying their fair share of the property tax burden, which has the effect of causing higher valuations for residential owners. Some have estimated that commercial entities would be paying up to $5 billion more each year if commercial valuations were valued more accurately. So the big question is why aren't they valued accurately? The vast majority of residential owners take the protest process only through the informal and Appraisal Review Board process. If they aren't satisfied with their valuation at this point, a few might take their protest to binding arbitration. But for most residential owners this is where it stops. Commercial entities quite frequently take it a step further, and that is filing a lawsuit. As we all know - and can definitely relate - juries made up of citizens are not terribly happy with property taxes. More often than not, juries tend to side with the plaintiff. Here's a great example of how this worked recently with a commercial entity in McLennan County:
https://www.wacotrib.com/news/business/jury-cuts-riesel-coal-plant-s-tax-appraisal-by-more/article_c787fb74-8b22-5856-b473-8a1ee64a2528.html
It is our right to protest our property valuations - up to and including filing a lawsuit. The problem is that most residential owners don't either don't desire or can't afford to hire a lawyer and go through the process. In general a residential owner might have to spend several thousand dollars in legal fees with the hope of saving a few hundred dollars on their tax bill. Not worth it. For commercial entities it's different. They are willing and able to spent thousands of dollars in legal fees because the tax savings can be quite large - as evidenced in the article above.
I am absolutely NOT in favor of curtailing anyone's ability to protest or ultimately file a lawsuit to reduce their appraisal. To do so would violate due process. I am very much against this. At the same time, however, we've got a problem. I'm fresh out of ideas as to how to fix it.
On a side note: In the aggregate, commercial entities may not be paying their fair share of the property tax burden, which has the effect of causing higher valuations for residential owners. Some have estimated that commercial entities would be paying up to $5 billion more each year if commercial valuations were valued more accurately. So the big question is why aren't they valued accurately? The vast majority of residential owners take the protest process only through the informal and Appraisal Review Board process. If they aren't satisfied with their valuation at this point, a few might take their protest to binding arbitration. But for most residential owners this is where it stops. Commercial entities quite frequently take it a step further, and that is filing a lawsuit. As we all know - and can definitely relate - juries made up of citizens are not terribly happy with property taxes. More often than not, juries tend to side with the plaintiff. Here's a great example of how this worked recently with a commercial entity in McLennan County:
https://www.wacotrib.com/news/business/jury-cuts-riesel-coal-plant-s-tax-appraisal-by-more/article_c787fb74-8b22-5856-b473-8a1ee64a2528.html
It is our right to protest our property valuations - up to and including filing a lawsuit. The problem is that most residential owners don't either don't desire or can't afford to hire a lawyer and go through the process. In general a residential owner might have to spend several thousand dollars in legal fees with the hope of saving a few hundred dollars on their tax bill. Not worth it. For commercial entities it's different. They are willing and able to spent thousands of dollars in legal fees because the tax savings can be quite large - as evidenced in the article above.
I am absolutely NOT in favor of curtailing anyone's ability to protest or ultimately file a lawsuit to reduce their appraisal. To do so would violate due process. I am very much against this. At the same time, however, we've got a problem. I'm fresh out of ideas as to how to fix it.
Joined:
Aug 23, 2016
Posts:
69,482
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
I could see the valuation on commercial not being correct as a way to entice businesses to move to Texas which allows the residential increases to occur and then the state gets the back end of the total instead of the front and back end.Volunteer said:
Yeah Brian, the problem ain't just in Waco, or the Metroplex, or Houston, or even Austin. It's all over. But, the larger urban areas are getting hit harder than some of the smaller communities and rural areas. The bottom line is that the state needs/wants the extra money created when property values increase to help balance the budget.
On a side note: In the aggregate, commercial entities may not be paying their fair share of the property tax burden, which has the effect of causing higher valuations for residential owners. Some have estimated that commercial entities would be paying up to $5 billion more each year if commercial valuations were valued more accurately. So the big question is why aren't they valued accurately? The vast majority of residential owners take the protest process only through the informal and Appraisal Review Board process. If they aren't satisfied with their valuation at this point, a few might take their protest to binding arbitration. But for most residential owners this is where it stops. Commercial entities quite frequently take it a step further, and that is filing a lawsuit. As we all know - and can definitely relate - juries made up of citizens are not terribly happy with property taxes. More often than not, juries tend to side with the plaintiff. Here's a great example of how this worked recently with a commercial entity in McLennan County:
https://www.wacotrib.com/news/business/jury-cuts-riesel-coal-plant-s-tax-appraisal-by-more/article_c787fb74-8b22-5856-b473-8a1ee64a2528.html
It is our right to protest our property valuations - up to and including filing a lawsuit. The problem is that most residential owners don't either don't desire or can't afford to hire a lawyer and go through the process. In general a residential owner might have to spend several thousand dollars in legal fees with the hope of saving a few hundred dollars on their tax bill. Not worth it. For commercial entities it's different. They are willing and able to spent thousands of dollars in legal fees because the tax savings can be quite large - as evidenced in the article above.
I am absolutely NOT in favor of curtailing anyone's ability to protest or ultimately file a lawsuit to reduce their appraisal. To do so would violate due process. I am very much against this. At the same time, however, we've got a problem. I'm fresh out of ideas as to how to fix it.
We all know Toyota isn't paying taxes now in Frisco/Plano but the 20K workers that arrived are paying. Many of those that arrived from California are driving up the taxes by buying homes equal the value of an inflated home in California and now trying to dump it as their 2 year contract expires as they want to move back to California instead of staying in this great state.
CorsicanaBear said:That's not what I said, I'll pay taxes for the essentials, but keep it to that. Football is not essential for education. And neither is a Natatorium, or an FAA Barn, or an Indoor Practice Facility, or a Beautiful Band Hall or a first class Black Box theater for one act play.Quote:
No taxes, I'll keep mine!!
I agree that extracurricular activities are very helpful in developing superior students. Insuring your children have those experiences is a parental responsibility. The basics come from the taxpayers, the rest comes from families of students. Food and transportation to and from school are also not educational basics. You had 'em, you get them to school and feed 'em. It is not the tax payers' responsibility to raise your children.
Declining spending per student is a canard, a ruse of school administrators with a financial interest in ever increasing budgets. Spending per student is a particularly poor predictor of student success. Home life has a far greater impact than spending. You can't fix bad parenting with more money. See also Washington DC schools.
With regard to humanities, there may have been a time when they were useful, but not in this century or a significant part of the last. They are nothing now but a sordid cesspool of social justice, LGBTQ, ethnic and gender political theory, Wokeness and Marxism.
Bless your heart. You must be a real joy to have a beer with.
While there is a ceiling upon the effects of spending, there is heavy correlation with outcomes of students and per student spending. You can deny it. But it exists.
Your second paragraph will insure that the economically challenged will always stay in poverty. Guess what happens then? The need for social programs escalates. You can either attempt to affect change in children through education so that we have less need for social programs, which I'm assuming you loathe given your stance here, or pay up massively later. It's really an either or. The taxes on the later will be much more burdensome.
As a business owner who hires people, I will always support putting more resources in classrooms. I'm not going to tell you that we need administrative bloat. But a well educated population, no matter where they come from or what they had to begin with, will always be a benefit to me. And ironically to you.
I've appealed both home and commercial. I honestly found the commercial process MUCH easier to navigate. The informal review process was quite pleasant compared to the hearing side for my home.Volunteer said:
Yeah Brian, the problem ain't just in Waco, or the Metroplex, or Houston, or even Austin. It's all over. But, the larger urban areas are getting hit harder than some of the smaller communities and rural areas. The bottom line is that the state needs/wants the extra money created when property values increase to help balance the budget.
On a side note: In the aggregate, commercial entities may not be paying their fair share of the property tax burden, which has the effect of causing higher valuations for residential owners. Some have estimated that commercial entities would be paying up to $5 billion more each year if commercial valuations were valued more accurately. So the big question is why aren't they valued accurately? The vast majority of residential owners take the protest process only through the informal and Appraisal Review Board process. If they aren't satisfied with their valuation at this point, a few might take their protest to binding arbitration. But for most residential owners this is where it stops. Commercial entities quite frequently take it a step further, and that is filing a lawsuit. As we all know - and can definitely relate - juries made up of citizens are not terribly happy with property taxes. More often than not, juries tend to side with the plaintiff. Here's a great example of how this worked recently with a commercial entity in McLennan County:
https://www.wacotrib.com/news/business/jury-cuts-riesel-coal-plant-s-tax-appraisal-by-more/article_c787fb74-8b22-5856-b473-8a1ee64a2528.html
It is our right to protest our property valuations - up to and including filing a lawsuit. The problem is that most residential owners don't either don't desire or can't afford to hire a lawyer and go through the process. In general a residential owner might have to spend several thousand dollars in legal fees with the hope of saving a few hundred dollars on their tax bill. Not worth it. For commercial entities it's different. They are willing and able to spent thousands of dollars in legal fees because the tax savings can be quite large - as evidenced in the article above.
I am absolutely NOT in favor of curtailing anyone's ability to protest or ultimately file a lawsuit to reduce their appraisal. To do so would violate due process. I am very much against this. At the same time, however, we've got a problem. I'm fresh out of ideas as to how to fix it.
In DFW, most of the appraisal districts are using data from the MLS for homes now. It has created impressive impacts on increases in property values. The reality is that they are much more realistic than where they used to be. But it is making property taxes insane on homeonwers. On the business side, they are using the commercial equivalent to the MLS for tangible property. My office space value was based on comparable lease rates around me. Business Personal Property is a friggin racket. I gladly smacked the appraisal district employee around on that one in the hearing. He over estimated my BPP by 90%. That victory was sweet.
It isn't 2001 anymore. You can check out plenty of ebooks from the Waco library without ever leaving your home and a large portion of them are geared towards children. I can't remember the last time I set foot in one of the Waco libraries. That's what I'm talking about when I say public libraries.CorsicanaBear said:
Public libraries. Dead. Only use is for bums to watch porn and sleep. If you want your kids to enjoy books buy them yourself and spend time reading to them like I did for mine. Loved Public Libraries as a kid, so I understand the nostalgia, but there are better ways now.
“People who live in glass houses...have to answer the door."
Wow.CorsicanaBear said:That's not what I said, I'll pay taxes for the essentials, but keep it to that. Football is not essential for education. And neither is a Natatorium, or an FAA Barn, or an Indoor Practice Facility, or a Beautiful Band Hall or a first class Black Box theater for one act play.Quote:
No taxes, I'll keep mine!!
I agree that extracurricular activities are very helpful in developing superior students. Insuring your children have those experiences is a parental responsibility. The basics come from the taxpayers, the rest comes from families of students. Food and transportation to and from school are also not educational basics. You had 'em, you get them to school and feed 'em. It is not the tax payers' responsibility to raise your children.
Declining spending per student is a canard, a ruse of school administrators with a financial interest in ever increasing budgets. Spending per student is a particularly poor predictor of student success. Home life has a far greater impact than spending. You can't fix bad parenting with more money. See also Washington DC schools.
With regard to humanities, there may have been a time when they were useful, but not in this century or a significant part of the last. They are nothing now but a sordid cesspool of social justice, LGBTQ, ethnic and gender political theory, Wokeness and Marxism.
Take away those things you mention and we go back to basically 19th century education system. Those with means get an education. Those without do not. Those with means play sports, musical instruments, paint, etc, etc.
Also, take away all the things you mentioned and those kids still attending school once you take away transportation and lunch will lose interest in classes without extracurricular and drop out. Thus creating the 19th century model again....
I will agree though that way too many parents had the kids and EXPECT those things, don't want to provide those things (food during school year) and want the school/taxpayers to raise their kids.
I don't live in Houston or DFW but the issue in Waco is that the appraisal district is hyper-aggressiveness in valuations.
I'll use myself as a personal example. They appraised by home almost $30/SF higher (which equaled over $100K+) than the MLS comparables justified. In fact, my appraisal district value per SF was one of the highest in a 5 mile radius.
The nice thing about that was that it was very easy to dispute with a well-prepared argument and supporting documentation. The problem is that others weren't as prepared and their higher valuations do have an influence on my value in the future when reviewing whether the appraised value is unequal or not.
Waco is super notorious for putting over-emphasis on quality of construction, especially in newer construction. Going back to my personal example, my neighbor has James Hardie siding all over to give it a farmhouse look. Mine is all stone. Our homes are nearly identical in size and amenities. MCAD adjusted my house up a level (compared to his) based on exterior finish which created a $40K adjustment in value, to my detriment. I know exactly what I paid for my stone (stone + mortar+ brick sand + labor) and the whole exterior didn't cost $40K, much less represent a $40K increase in value compared to James Hardie.
The aggressiveness in both quality of construction and additional amenity valuations combined with minimal weight on Sales Comparables and greater influence on similar valuations is creating a overly aggressive approach to values for many in Waco, especially in newer areas. It's not too terribly hard to fight but I shouldn't be faced with a situation where my home is regularly being appraised for $100K more than I could build it for - or sell it for - today.
I know many in Waco are frustrated. For many, it could be that they've enjoyed undervaluation for years and are getting hit hard as values catch up. But for me - and many others - it's borderline illegal with the aggressive approach that is being taken.
I'll use myself as a personal example. They appraised by home almost $30/SF higher (which equaled over $100K+) than the MLS comparables justified. In fact, my appraisal district value per SF was one of the highest in a 5 mile radius.
The nice thing about that was that it was very easy to dispute with a well-prepared argument and supporting documentation. The problem is that others weren't as prepared and their higher valuations do have an influence on my value in the future when reviewing whether the appraised value is unequal or not.
Waco is super notorious for putting over-emphasis on quality of construction, especially in newer construction. Going back to my personal example, my neighbor has James Hardie siding all over to give it a farmhouse look. Mine is all stone. Our homes are nearly identical in size and amenities. MCAD adjusted my house up a level (compared to his) based on exterior finish which created a $40K adjustment in value, to my detriment. I know exactly what I paid for my stone (stone + mortar+ brick sand + labor) and the whole exterior didn't cost $40K, much less represent a $40K increase in value compared to James Hardie.
The aggressiveness in both quality of construction and additional amenity valuations combined with minimal weight on Sales Comparables and greater influence on similar valuations is creating a overly aggressive approach to values for many in Waco, especially in newer areas. It's not too terribly hard to fight but I shouldn't be faced with a situation where my home is regularly being appraised for $100K more than I could build it for - or sell it for - today.
I know many in Waco are frustrated. For many, it could be that they've enjoyed undervaluation for years and are getting hit hard as values catch up. But for me - and many others - it's borderline illegal with the aggressive approach that is being taken.
That's what the Prussians said when they invented the system we still use in education back in 1763 when Fredrick the Great issued the Generallandschulreglement decree.Quote:
But a well educated population, no matter where they come from or what they had to begin with, will always be a benefit to me.
A competent, compliant well regulated workforce to staff the industrial Revolution underway in central Europe was what Freddy was looking for.
Competent, compliant and well regulated does not describe most current high school graduates.
Illigitimus non carborundum
According to our chief appraiser, they are getting pressure from Austin to get valuations in line. Our valuation went up 27% in 5 years, and it still isn't close to market value. I live in a county of around 50,000 in rural NE Texas, and the city has given tax concessions to lure industry, which also adds to the problem.Funky Town Bear said:I've appealed both home and commercial. I honestly found the commercial process MUCH easier to navigate. The informal review process was quite pleasant compared to the hearing side for my home.Volunteer said:
Yeah Brian, the problem ain't just in Waco, or the Metroplex, or Houston, or even Austin. It's all over. But, the larger urban areas are getting hit harder than some of the smaller communities and rural areas. The bottom line is that the state needs/wants the extra money created when property values increase to help balance the budget.
On a side note: In the aggregate, commercial entities may not be paying their fair share of the property tax burden, which has the effect of causing higher valuations for residential owners. Some have estimated that commercial entities would be paying up to $5 billion more each year if commercial valuations were valued more accurately. So the big question is why aren't they valued accurately? The vast majority of residential owners take the protest process only through the informal and Appraisal Review Board process. If they aren't satisfied with their valuation at this point, a few might take their protest to binding arbitration. But for most residential owners this is where it stops. Commercial entities quite frequently take it a step further, and that is filing a lawsuit. As we all know - and can definitely relate - juries made up of citizens are not terribly happy with property taxes. More often than not, juries tend to side with the plaintiff. Here's a great example of how this worked recently with a commercial entity in McLennan County:
https://www.wacotrib.com/news/business/jury-cuts-riesel-coal-plant-s-tax-appraisal-by-more/article_c787fb74-8b22-5856-b473-8a1ee64a2528.html
It is our right to protest our property valuations - up to and including filing a lawsuit. The problem is that most residential owners don't either don't desire or can't afford to hire a lawyer and go through the process. In general a residential owner might have to spend several thousand dollars in legal fees with the hope of saving a few hundred dollars on their tax bill. Not worth it. For commercial entities it's different. They are willing and able to spent thousands of dollars in legal fees because the tax savings can be quite large - as evidenced in the article above.
I am absolutely NOT in favor of curtailing anyone's ability to protest or ultimately file a lawsuit to reduce their appraisal. To do so would violate due process. I am very much against this. At the same time, however, we've got a problem. I'm fresh out of ideas as to how to fix it.
In DFW, most of the appraisal districts are using data from the MLS for homes now. It has created impressive impacts on increases in property values. The reality is that they are much more realistic than where they used to be. But it is making property taxes insane on homeonwers. On the business side, they are using the commercial equivalent to the MLS for tangible property. My office space value was based on comparable lease rates around me. Business Personal Property is a friggin racket. I gladly smacked the appraisal district employee around on that one in the hearing. He over estimated my BPP by 90%. That victory was sweet.
Daughter #1 has a condo in Dallas in Preston Hollow. Her appraised value has gone up 80% in the last 5 years, but the taxable value has been capped for the last 5 years, and the actual taxable value has increased 46% in the last 5 years.
Our office building is massively undervalued, I'd say by 50% or more.
These studies seem to indicate otherwise.Quote:
there is heavy correlation with outcomes of students and per student spending.
https://www.mackinac.org/22355
https://www.alec.org/article/education-spending-and-outcomes/
https://vtdigger.org/2014/11/02/report-correlation-school-district-size-spending-student-outcomes/
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa746.pdf
The CATO institute study of outcomes over a 40 year span seems most persuasive.
Most seem to indicate what matters is what the money is spent on, not how much is spent. Spending money on Administrators, Counselors, and Sports is not going to improve outcomes. Cut the bloat, make parents do their jobs (I'm sure most on this board did or are), focus on individual classroom instruction and then ask taxpayers for more money.
Illigitimus non carborundum
I think the main point of the struggling education system is that the highlighted isn't going to happen.CorsicanaBear said:These studies seem to indicate otherwise.Quote:
there is heavy correlation with outcomes of students and per student spending.
https://www.mackinac.org/22355
https://www.alec.org/article/education-spending-and-outcomes/
https://vtdigger.org/2014/11/02/report-correlation-school-district-size-spending-student-outcomes/
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa746.pdf
The CATO institute study of outcomes over a 40 year span seems most persuasive.
Most seem to indicate what matters is what the money is spent on, not how much is spent. Spending money on Administrators, Counselors, and Sports is not going to improve outcomes. Cut the bloat, make parents do their jobs (I'm sure most on this board did or are), focus on individual classroom instruction and then ask taxpayers for more money.
“People who live in glass houses...have to answer the door."
Quote:
the highlighted isn't going to happen.
Right. So lets quit throwing money at something that money won't fix.
Illigitimus non carborundum
Quoting a source that was founded and is funded by the Koch brothers means their is zero point to this conversation. Enjoy paying for social programs.CorsicanaBear said:These studies seem to indicate otherwise.Quote:
there is heavy correlation with outcomes of students and per student spending.
https://www.mackinac.org/22355
https://www.alec.org/article/education-spending-and-outcomes/
https://vtdigger.org/2014/11/02/report-correlation-school-district-size-spending-student-outcomes/
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa746.pdf
The CATO institute study of outcomes over a 40 year span seems most persuasive.
Most seem to indicate what matters is what the money is spent on, not how much is spent. Spending money on Administrators, Counselors, and Sports is not going to improve outcomes. Cut the bloat, make parents do their jobs (I'm sure most on this board did or are), focus on individual classroom instruction and then ask taxpayers for more money.
Conversations truly are over when the Koch brothers are brought up. Likewise with George Soros. I guess everyone needs a bogeyman.
There is certainly a feeling that public school districts have too many employees outside the classroom. But administrative bloat is a interesting term because it really has no basis in fact. Central administrative costs for Texas schools run about 2.9% of total budgets. Central administration typically includes the superintendents office, the business office, HR, public information, IT, and student services.
I agree that simply throwing more money at the problem alone is not the solution. However, providing an adequate level of financial resources, while recognizing that educating ALL children is best for society, is paramount. Texas is a great state and I wouldn't want to live anywhere else, but we have not done a good job in adequately funding public education.
That list of yours leaves out many other departments that large districts have that are top heavy.Volunteer said:
There is certainly a feeling that public school districts have too many employees outside the classroom. But administrative bloat is a interesting term because it really has no basis in fact. Central administrative costs for Texas schools run about 2.9% of total budgets. Central administration typically includes the superintendents office, the business office, HR, public information, IT, and student services.
For example, I can easily think of 10 other departments that do not fall in that list at WISD with an Assistant superintendent, secretary, assistant head of (department name), secretary, and 10 people working in their office downtown.
Which would raise the budget cost above the 2.9% you quoted.
I would also point out the same thing I point out when discussing the federal budget/debt.
Every little bit helps.
When talking about budgets of millions of dollars a cut of .01% can still be a large amount that can then be spent elsewhere, like an additional teacher.
Also, when dealing with school budgets people often overlook that the largest two expenditures are operational budget (electricity, water, etc.) and teacher salary. The later can't be dealt with much. But the first can be. I have worked at schools that had hall lights that stayed on 24/7/365.
Finally I would point out that these administration heads are the ones who then make the decisions on what software/hardware to buy (curriculum). As anyone who has taught in any school can tell you these things get bought and are the next "magic bullet" of education...... only to be replaced by the next magic bullet one or two years later. IN other words.... the 2.9% makes decisions on how to spend the other 97 percent.........
so what's your point, exactly? do you dispute the 2.9% fact? I'm curious the source myself, but you seem to have data that says it doesn't include all administrative costs.cowboycwr said:That list of yours leaves out many other departments that large districts have that are top heavy.Volunteer said:
There is certainly a feeling that public school districts have too many employees outside the classroom. But administrative bloat is a interesting term because it really has no basis in fact. Central administrative costs for Texas schools run about 2.9% of total budgets. Central administration typically includes the superintendents office, the business office, HR, public information, IT, and student services.
For example, I can easily think of 10 other departments that do not fall in that list at WISD with an Assistant superintendent, secretary, assistant head of (department name), secretary, and 10 people working in their office downtown.
Which would raise the budget cost above the 2.9% you quoted.
I would also point out the same thing I point out when discussing the federal budget/debt.
Every little bit helps.
When talking about budgets of millions of dollars a cut of .01% can still be a large amount that can then be spent elsewhere, like an additional teacher.
Also, when dealing with school budgets people often overlook that the largest two expenditures are operational budget (electricity, water, etc.) and teacher salary. The later can't be dealt with much. But the first can be. I have worked at schools that had hall lights that stayed on 24/7/365.
Finally I would point out that these administration heads are the ones who then make the decisions on what software/hardware to buy (curriculum). As anyone who has taught in any school can tell you these things get bought and are the next "magic bullet" of education...... only to be replaced by the next magic bullet one or two years later. IN other words.... the 2.9% makes decisions on how to spend the other 97 percent.........
My point was in the post you quoted.bularry said:so what's your point, exactly? do you dispute the 2.9% fact? I'm curious the source myself, but you seem to have data that says it doesn't include all administrative costs.cowboycwr said:That list of yours leaves out many other departments that large districts have that are top heavy.Volunteer said:
There is certainly a feeling that public school districts have too many employees outside the classroom. But administrative bloat is a interesting term because it really has no basis in fact. Central administrative costs for Texas schools run about 2.9% of total budgets. Central administration typically includes the superintendents office, the business office, HR, public information, IT, and student services.
For example, I can easily think of 10 other departments that do not fall in that list at WISD with an Assistant superintendent, secretary, assistant head of (department name), secretary, and 10 people working in their office downtown.
Which would raise the budget cost above the 2.9% you quoted.
I would also point out the same thing I point out when discussing the federal budget/debt.
Every little bit helps.
When talking about budgets of millions of dollars a cut of .01% can still be a large amount that can then be spent elsewhere, like an additional teacher.
Also, when dealing with school budgets people often overlook that the largest two expenditures are operational budget (electricity, water, etc.) and teacher salary. The later can't be dealt with much. But the first can be. I have worked at schools that had hall lights that stayed on 24/7/365.
Finally I would point out that these administration heads are the ones who then make the decisions on what software/hardware to buy (curriculum). As anyone who has taught in any school can tell you these things get bought and are the next "magic bullet" of education...... only to be replaced by the next magic bullet one or two years later. IN other words.... the 2.9% makes decisions on how to spend the other 97 percent.........
1. That the list of departments he mentioned is not the full list of administration building departments in most ISD buildings in TX.
2. That even though it is a small part of the budget, every bit helps.
3. That they spend the rest of the money and often in a wasteful way.
4. that if we combine MULTIPLE money saving features/cuts it adds up and can be better spent in education (or federal budget).
As to total cost of administration- I guess it varies because the departments/people included in administration seems to vary.
To me it is anyone in the 10 story Ivory tower downtown for WISD.
With the exception of maybe a quarter of the people you cannot tell me they need all those people/departments.
But a study in Wisconsin found Admin costs are 7.7%
http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2019/01/data-release-shows-just-54-of-k-12-funding-is-spent-on-instruction/
But again if you read the article/study there are people/costs that are hiding in other areas that fall in the admin side.
AZ spent about 10% on admin
national average is 11%
https://azcir.org/news/2018/04/20/red-for-ed-teacher-pay-admin-costs/
So if Texas is at 3% we are way, way below average.
To me it is anyone in the 10 story Ivory tower downtown for WISD.
With the exception of maybe a quarter of the people you cannot tell me they need all those people/departments.
But a study in Wisconsin found Admin costs are 7.7%
http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2019/01/data-release-shows-just-54-of-k-12-funding-is-spent-on-instruction/
But again if you read the article/study there are people/costs that are hiding in other areas that fall in the admin side.
AZ spent about 10% on admin
national average is 11%
https://azcir.org/news/2018/04/20/red-for-ed-teacher-pay-admin-costs/
So if Texas is at 3% we are way, way below average.
Zoos are about way more than entertainment. Fort Worth Zoo's logo many years ago incorporated a pentagon with education, conservation, nature appreciation, recreation and research. Zoos incorporate all that and more, which benefits the community of humankind. If you benefit, then you are not giving money for other's pleasure, but rather helping defray a cost of something you derive benefit from, even if you NEVER set foot inside a zoo.
The 2.9% figure comes directly from TEA. You can access their website and find it. The figure is for central administration which would include superintendents, all assistant superintendents, plus all the staff. So, to your question, yes it would include the folks in Waco's "ivory tower".cowboycwr said:
As to total cost of administration- I guess it varies because the departments/people included in administration seems to vary.
To me it is anyone in the 10 story Ivory tower downtown for WISD.
With the exception of maybe a quarter of the people you cannot tell me they need all those people/departments.
But a study in Wisconsin found Admin costs are 7.7%
http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2019/01/data-release-shows-just-54-of-k-12-funding-is-spent-on-instruction/
But again if you read the article/study there are people/costs that are hiding in other areas that fall in the admin side.
AZ spent about 10% on admin
national average is 11%
https://azcir.org/news/2018/04/20/red-for-ed-teacher-pay-admin-costs/
So if Texas is at 3% we are way, way below average.
It includes all the people many like to refer to as "fluff". It is appropriate to think of central administration as the corporate office. It takes people to run a school district just like it takes people to run a business.
In my career I've worked with a host of school districts and corporate entities. Without doubt, school districts are run leaner than just about every corporation I've dealt with. Businesses can't run without an organizational structure that includes management and employee and customer services (think of the students and parents as customers). Neither can a school district.
cowboycwr said:My point was in the post you quoted.bularry said:so what's your point, exactly? do you dispute the 2.9% fact? I'm curious the source myself, but you seem to have data that says it doesn't include all administrative costs.cowboycwr said:That list of yours leaves out many other departments that large districts have that are top heavy.Volunteer said:
There is certainly a feeling that public school districts have too many employees outside the classroom. But administrative bloat is a interesting term because it really has no basis in fact. Central administrative costs for Texas schools run about 2.9% of total budgets. Central administration typically includes the superintendents office, the business office, HR, public information, IT, and student services.
For example, I can easily think of 10 other departments that do not fall in that list at WISD with an Assistant superintendent, secretary, assistant head of (department name), secretary, and 10 people working in their office downtown.
Which would raise the budget cost above the 2.9% you quoted.
I would also point out the same thing I point out when discussing the federal budget/debt.
Every little bit helps.
When talking about budgets of millions of dollars a cut of .01% can still be a large amount that can then be spent elsewhere, like an additional teacher.
Also, when dealing with school budgets people often overlook that the largest two expenditures are operational budget (electricity, water, etc.) and teacher salary. The later can't be dealt with much. But the first can be. I have worked at schools that had hall lights that stayed on 24/7/365.
Finally I would point out that these administration heads are the ones who then make the decisions on what software/hardware to buy (curriculum). As anyone who has taught in any school can tell you these things get bought and are the next "magic bullet" of education...... only to be replaced by the next magic bullet one or two years later. IN other words.... the 2.9% makes decisions on how to spend the other 97 percent.........
1. That the list of departments he mentioned is not the full list of administration building departments in most ISD buildings in TX.
2. That even though it is a small part of the budget, every bit helps.
3. That they spend the rest of the money and often in a wasteful way.
4. that if we combine MULTIPLE money saving features/cuts it adds up and can be better spent in education (or federal budget).
2.9% is small
I don't get your complaint on that.
It takes a lot of people power to run a large operation. You want teachers coordinating lawn care and maintenance? Principals overseeing cleaning contracts? Who is maintaining IT infrastructure and security? What about strategic planning?
The idea you can run a large organization without administrative support is so naive to be intellectually dishonest.
Larry, you are exactly right. Schools are large enterprises and it takes people outside of the classroom to make it all work. In a general sense, classroom teachers and aides make up about 58% of the budget. All other expenses account for the remaining 42%. The 58% includes salaries for teachers, teacher aides, and instructional aides.bularry said:cowboycwr said:My point was in the post you quoted.bularry said:so what's your point, exactly? do you dispute the 2.9% fact? I'm curious the source myself, but you seem to have data that says it doesn't include all administrative costs.cowboycwr said:That list of yours leaves out many other departments that large districts have that are top heavy.Volunteer said:
There is certainly a feeling that public school districts have too many employees outside the classroom. But administrative bloat is a interesting term because it really has no basis in fact. Central administrative costs for Texas schools run about 2.9% of total budgets. Central administration typically includes the superintendents office, the business office, HR, public information, IT, and student services.
For example, I can easily think of 10 other departments that do not fall in that list at WISD with an Assistant superintendent, secretary, assistant head of (department name), secretary, and 10 people working in their office downtown.
Which would raise the budget cost above the 2.9% you quoted.
I would also point out the same thing I point out when discussing the federal budget/debt.
Every little bit helps.
When talking about budgets of millions of dollars a cut of .01% can still be a large amount that can then be spent elsewhere, like an additional teacher.
Also, when dealing with school budgets people often overlook that the largest two expenditures are operational budget (electricity, water, etc.) and teacher salary. The later can't be dealt with much. But the first can be. I have worked at schools that had hall lights that stayed on 24/7/365.
Finally I would point out that these administration heads are the ones who then make the decisions on what software/hardware to buy (curriculum). As anyone who has taught in any school can tell you these things get bought and are the next "magic bullet" of education...... only to be replaced by the next magic bullet one or two years later. IN other words.... the 2.9% makes decisions on how to spend the other 97 percent.........
1. That the list of departments he mentioned is not the full list of administration building departments in most ISD buildings in TX.
2. That even though it is a small part of the budget, every bit helps.
3. That they spend the rest of the money and often in a wasteful way.
4. that if we combine MULTIPLE money saving features/cuts it adds up and can be better spent in education (or federal budget).
2.9% is small
I don't get your complaint on that.
It takes a lot of people power to run a large operation. You want teachers coordinating lawn care and maintenance? Principals overseeing cleaning contracts? Who is maintaining IT infrastructure and security? What about strategic planning?
The idea you can run a large organization without administrative support is so naive to be intellectually dishonest.
What's interesting is to compare this to the Army. In WW2 about 40% of all troops were considered to have a role in combat. The remaining 60% were involved in logistics and other functions that allowed the 40% to fight. Today that number has shifted to 80% in support of the 20% involved in combat.
“People who live in glass houses...have to answer the door."
What portion of the school district expenditures in Texas go towards football? I'm willing to be it's way more than the 2.9% number that is thrown around.Volunteer said:Larry, you are exactly right. Schools are large enterprises and it takes people outside of the classroom to make it all work. In a general sense, classroom teachers and aides make up about 58% of the budget. All other expenses account for the remaining 42%. The 58% includes salaries for teachers, teacher aides, and instructional aides.bularry said:cowboycwr said:My point was in the post you quoted.bularry said:so what's your point, exactly? do you dispute the 2.9% fact? I'm curious the source myself, but you seem to have data that says it doesn't include all administrative costs.cowboycwr said:That list of yours leaves out many other departments that large districts have that are top heavy.Volunteer said:
There is certainly a feeling that public school districts have too many employees outside the classroom. But administrative bloat is a interesting term because it really has no basis in fact. Central administrative costs for Texas schools run about 2.9% of total budgets. Central administration typically includes the superintendents office, the business office, HR, public information, IT, and student services.
For example, I can easily think of 10 other departments that do not fall in that list at WISD with an Assistant superintendent, secretary, assistant head of (department name), secretary, and 10 people working in their office downtown.
Which would raise the budget cost above the 2.9% you quoted.
I would also point out the same thing I point out when discussing the federal budget/debt.
Every little bit helps.
When talking about budgets of millions of dollars a cut of .01% can still be a large amount that can then be spent elsewhere, like an additional teacher.
Also, when dealing with school budgets people often overlook that the largest two expenditures are operational budget (electricity, water, etc.) and teacher salary. The later can't be dealt with much. But the first can be. I have worked at schools that had hall lights that stayed on 24/7/365.
Finally I would point out that these administration heads are the ones who then make the decisions on what software/hardware to buy (curriculum). As anyone who has taught in any school can tell you these things get bought and are the next "magic bullet" of education...... only to be replaced by the next magic bullet one or two years later. IN other words.... the 2.9% makes decisions on how to spend the other 97 percent.........
1. That the list of departments he mentioned is not the full list of administration building departments in most ISD buildings in TX.
2. That even though it is a small part of the budget, every bit helps.
3. That they spend the rest of the money and often in a wasteful way.
4. that if we combine MULTIPLE money saving features/cuts it adds up and can be better spent in education (or federal budget).
2.9% is small
I don't get your complaint on that.
It takes a lot of people power to run a large operation. You want teachers coordinating lawn care and maintenance? Principals overseeing cleaning contracts? Who is maintaining IT infrastructure and security? What about strategic planning?
The idea you can run a large organization without administrative support is so naive to be intellectually dishonest.
What's interesting is to compare this to the Army. In WW2 about 40% of all troops were considered to have a role in combat. The remaining 60% were involved in logistics and other functions that allowed the 40% to fight. Today that number has shifted to 80% in support of the 20% involved in combat.
Wow.bularry said:cowboycwr said:My point was in the post you quoted.bularry said:so what's your point, exactly? do you dispute the 2.9% fact? I'm curious the source myself, but you seem to have data that says it doesn't include all administrative costs.cowboycwr said:That list of yours leaves out many other departments that large districts have that are top heavy.Volunteer said:
There is certainly a feeling that public school districts have too many employees outside the classroom. But administrative bloat is a interesting term because it really has no basis in fact. Central administrative costs for Texas schools run about 2.9% of total budgets. Central administration typically includes the superintendents office, the business office, HR, public information, IT, and student services.
For example, I can easily think of 10 other departments that do not fall in that list at WISD with an Assistant superintendent, secretary, assistant head of (department name), secretary, and 10 people working in their office downtown.
Which would raise the budget cost above the 2.9% you quoted.
I would also point out the same thing I point out when discussing the federal budget/debt.
Every little bit helps.
When talking about budgets of millions of dollars a cut of .01% can still be a large amount that can then be spent elsewhere, like an additional teacher.
Also, when dealing with school budgets people often overlook that the largest two expenditures are operational budget (electricity, water, etc.) and teacher salary. The later can't be dealt with much. But the first can be. I have worked at schools that had hall lights that stayed on 24/7/365.
Finally I would point out that these administration heads are the ones who then make the decisions on what software/hardware to buy (curriculum). As anyone who has taught in any school can tell you these things get bought and are the next "magic bullet" of education...... only to be replaced by the next magic bullet one or two years later. IN other words.... the 2.9% makes decisions on how to spend the other 97 percent.........
1. That the list of departments he mentioned is not the full list of administration building departments in most ISD buildings in TX.
2. That even though it is a small part of the budget, every bit helps.
3. That they spend the rest of the money and often in a wasteful way.
4. that if we combine MULTIPLE money saving features/cuts it adds up and can be better spent in education (or federal budget).
2.9% is small
I don't get your complaint on that.
It takes a lot of people power to run a large operation. You want teachers coordinating lawn care and maintenance? Principals overseeing cleaning contracts? Who is maintaining IT infrastructure and security? What about strategic planning?
The idea you can run a large organization without administrative support is so naive to be intellectually dishonest.
Do you even read what I post? Or just automatically create your own version of what I post and go from there?
I have never said any of what you typed out. OR even hinted at it.
The crap you mentioned above is not fluff.
Every assistant superintendent that has their own secretary is fluff.
15 people in the curriculum office that never see a student, don't write curriculum and only send out emails with sources for teachers to get things when they are planning is fluff.
I still don't buy the 2.9%.
I don't care if it is 2.9% or 50 %
it is 2.9% wasted.
And as I said before (and you ignored) every little bit helps when you are talking budgets. Whether a budget of a family at $100,000 or millions for a school district or hundreds of millions/billions for fortune 500 companies.
OR you can provide the link. You made the claim.Volunteer said:The 2.9% figure comes directly from TEA. You can access their website and find it. The figure is for central administration which would include superintendents, all assistant superintendents, plus all the staff. So, to your question, yes it would include the folks in Waco's "ivory tower".cowboycwr said:
As to total cost of administration- I guess it varies because the departments/people included in administration seems to vary.
To me it is anyone in the 10 story Ivory tower downtown for WISD.
With the exception of maybe a quarter of the people you cannot tell me they need all those people/departments.
But a study in Wisconsin found Admin costs are 7.7%
http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2019/01/data-release-shows-just-54-of-k-12-funding-is-spent-on-instruction/
But again if you read the article/study there are people/costs that are hiding in other areas that fall in the admin side.
AZ spent about 10% on admin
national average is 11%
https://azcir.org/news/2018/04/20/red-for-ed-teacher-pay-admin-costs/
So if Texas is at 3% we are way, way below average.
It includes all the people many like to refer to as "fluff". It is appropriate to think of central administration as the corporate office. It takes people to run a school district just like it takes people to run a business.
In my career I've worked with a host of school districts and corporate entities. Without doubt, school districts are run leaner than just about every corporation I've dealt with. Businesses can't run without an organizational structure that includes management and employee and customer services (think of the students and parents as customers). Neither can a school district.
No it would not include the people in the ivory tower that i listed earlier as they did not fall in your first description and were listed in the other categories on the links I provided.
So provide a link. It is really simple.
And no one has said to cut all the people outside the classroom, that they are not needed, or anything like that.Volunteer said:Larry, you are exactly right. Schools are large enterprises and it takes people outside of the classroom to make it all work. In a general sense, classroom teachers and aides make up about 58% of the budget. All other expenses account for the remaining 42%. The 58% includes salaries for teachers, teacher aides, and instructional aides.bularry said:cowboycwr said:My point was in the post you quoted.bularry said:so what's your point, exactly? do you dispute the 2.9% fact? I'm curious the source myself, but you seem to have data that says it doesn't include all administrative costs.cowboycwr said:That list of yours leaves out many other departments that large districts have that are top heavy.Volunteer said:
There is certainly a feeling that public school districts have too many employees outside the classroom. But administrative bloat is a interesting term because it really has no basis in fact. Central administrative costs for Texas schools run about 2.9% of total budgets. Central administration typically includes the superintendents office, the business office, HR, public information, IT, and student services.
For example, I can easily think of 10 other departments that do not fall in that list at WISD with an Assistant superintendent, secretary, assistant head of (department name), secretary, and 10 people working in their office downtown.
Which would raise the budget cost above the 2.9% you quoted.
I would also point out the same thing I point out when discussing the federal budget/debt.
Every little bit helps.
When talking about budgets of millions of dollars a cut of .01% can still be a large amount that can then be spent elsewhere, like an additional teacher.
Also, when dealing with school budgets people often overlook that the largest two expenditures are operational budget (electricity, water, etc.) and teacher salary. The later can't be dealt with much. But the first can be. I have worked at schools that had hall lights that stayed on 24/7/365.
Finally I would point out that these administration heads are the ones who then make the decisions on what software/hardware to buy (curriculum). As anyone who has taught in any school can tell you these things get bought and are the next "magic bullet" of education...... only to be replaced by the next magic bullet one or two years later. IN other words.... the 2.9% makes decisions on how to spend the other 97 percent.........
1. That the list of departments he mentioned is not the full list of administration building departments in most ISD buildings in TX.
2. That even though it is a small part of the budget, every bit helps.
3. That they spend the rest of the money and often in a wasteful way.
4. that if we combine MULTIPLE money saving features/cuts it adds up and can be better spent in education (or federal budget).
2.9% is small
I don't get your complaint on that.
It takes a lot of people power to run a large operation. You want teachers coordinating lawn care and maintenance? Principals overseeing cleaning contracts? Who is maintaining IT infrastructure and security? What about strategic planning?
The idea you can run a large organization without administrative support is so naive to be intellectually dishonest.
What's interesting is to compare this to the Army. In WW2 about 40% of all troops were considered to have a role in combat. The remaining 60% were involved in logistics and other functions that allowed the 40% to fight. Today that number has shifted to 80% in support of the 20% involved in combat.
Just to cut the fluff.
And anyone who thinks school districts don't have fluff are burying their head in the sand or part of the fluff.
Do you work in the ivory tower? Have I offended you because I have pointed out that your job never interacts with a student and has no impact on the students?
I would say the fact that it comes from TEA makes it even more suspect.Volunteer said:The 2.9% figure comes directly from TEA. You can access their website and find it. The figure is for central administration which would include superintendents, all assistant superintendents, plus all the staff. So, to your question, yes it would include the folks in Waco's "ivory tower".cowboycwr said:
As to total cost of administration- I guess it varies because the departments/people included in administration seems to vary.
To me it is anyone in the 10 story Ivory tower downtown for WISD.
With the exception of maybe a quarter of the people you cannot tell me they need all those people/departments.
But a study in Wisconsin found Admin costs are 7.7%
http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2019/01/data-release-shows-just-54-of-k-12-funding-is-spent-on-instruction/
But again if you read the article/study there are people/costs that are hiding in other areas that fall in the admin side.
AZ spent about 10% on admin
national average is 11%
https://azcir.org/news/2018/04/20/red-for-ed-teacher-pay-admin-costs/
So if Texas is at 3% we are way, way below average.
It includes all the people many like to refer to as "fluff". It is appropriate to think of central administration as the corporate office. It takes people to run a school district just like it takes people to run a business.
In my career I've worked with a host of school districts and corporate entities. Without doubt, school districts are run leaner than just about every corporation I've dealt with. Businesses can't run without an organizational structure that includes management and employee and customer services (think of the students and parents as customers). Neither can a school district.
cowboycwr said:Wow.bularry said:cowboycwr said:My point was in the post you quoted.bularry said:so what's your point, exactly? do you dispute the 2.9% fact? I'm curious the source myself, but you seem to have data that says it doesn't include all administrative costs.cowboycwr said:That list of yours leaves out many other departments that large districts have that are top heavy.Volunteer said:
There is certainly a feeling that public school districts have too many employees outside the classroom. But administrative bloat is a interesting term because it really has no basis in fact. Central administrative costs for Texas schools run about 2.9% of total budgets. Central administration typically includes the superintendents office, the business office, HR, public information, IT, and student services.
For example, I can easily think of 10 other departments that do not fall in that list at WISD with an Assistant superintendent, secretary, assistant head of (department name), secretary, and 10 people working in their office downtown.
Which would raise the budget cost above the 2.9% you quoted.
I would also point out the same thing I point out when discussing the federal budget/debt.
Every little bit helps.
When talking about budgets of millions of dollars a cut of .01% can still be a large amount that can then be spent elsewhere, like an additional teacher.
Also, when dealing with school budgets people often overlook that the largest two expenditures are operational budget (electricity, water, etc.) and teacher salary. The later can't be dealt with much. But the first can be. I have worked at schools that had hall lights that stayed on 24/7/365.
Finally I would point out that these administration heads are the ones who then make the decisions on what software/hardware to buy (curriculum). As anyone who has taught in any school can tell you these things get bought and are the next "magic bullet" of education...... only to be replaced by the next magic bullet one or two years later. IN other words.... the 2.9% makes decisions on how to spend the other 97 percent.........
1. That the list of departments he mentioned is not the full list of administration building departments in most ISD buildings in TX.
2. That even though it is a small part of the budget, every bit helps.
3. That they spend the rest of the money and often in a wasteful way.
4. that if we combine MULTIPLE money saving features/cuts it adds up and can be better spent in education (or federal budget).
2.9% is small
I don't get your complaint on that.
It takes a lot of people power to run a large operation. You want teachers coordinating lawn care and maintenance? Principals overseeing cleaning contracts? Who is maintaining IT infrastructure and security? What about strategic planning?
The idea you can run a large organization without administrative support is so naive to be intellectually dishonest.
Do you even read what I post? Or just automatically create your own version of what I post and go from there?
I have never said any of what you typed out. OR even hinted at it.
The crap you mentioned above is not fluff.
Every assistant superintendent that has their own secretary is fluff.
15 people in the curriculum office that never see a student, don't write curriculum and only send out emails with sources for teachers to get things when they are planning is fluff.
I still don't buy the 2.9%.
I don't care if it is 2.9% or 50 %
it is 2.9% wasted.
And as I said before (and you ignored) every little bit helps when you are talking budgets. Whether a budget of a family at $100,000 or millions for a school district or hundreds of millions/billions for fortune 500 companies.
Of course every little bit helps. Completely agree
But it takes administrative support to run a district. I don't think that is unreasonable or wasteful
cowboycwr said:And no one has said to cut all the people outside the classroom, that they are not needed, or anything like that.Volunteer said:Larry, you are exactly right. Schools are large enterprises and it takes people outside of the classroom to make it all work. In a general sense, classroom teachers and aides make up about 58% of the budget. All other expenses account for the remaining 42%. The 58% includes salaries for teachers, teacher aides, and instructional aides.bularry said:cowboycwr said:My point was in the post you quoted.bularry said:so what's your point, exactly? do you dispute the 2.9% fact? I'm curious the source myself, but you seem to have data that says it doesn't include all administrative costs.cowboycwr said:That list of yours leaves out many other departments that large districts have that are top heavy.Volunteer said:
There is certainly a feeling that public school districts have too many employees outside the classroom. But administrative bloat is a interesting term because it really has no basis in fact. Central administrative costs for Texas schools run about 2.9% of total budgets. Central administration typically includes the superintendents office, the business office, HR, public information, IT, and student services.
For example, I can easily think of 10 other departments that do not fall in that list at WISD with an Assistant superintendent, secretary, assistant head of (department name), secretary, and 10 people working in their office downtown.
Which would raise the budget cost above the 2.9% you quoted.
I would also point out the same thing I point out when discussing the federal budget/debt.
Every little bit helps.
When talking about budgets of millions of dollars a cut of .01% can still be a large amount that can then be spent elsewhere, like an additional teacher.
Also, when dealing with school budgets people often overlook that the largest two expenditures are operational budget (electricity, water, etc.) and teacher salary. The later can't be dealt with much. But the first can be. I have worked at schools that had hall lights that stayed on 24/7/365.
Finally I would point out that these administration heads are the ones who then make the decisions on what software/hardware to buy (curriculum). As anyone who has taught in any school can tell you these things get bought and are the next "magic bullet" of education...... only to be replaced by the next magic bullet one or two years later. IN other words.... the 2.9% makes decisions on how to spend the other 97 percent.........
1. That the list of departments he mentioned is not the full list of administration building departments in most ISD buildings in TX.
2. That even though it is a small part of the budget, every bit helps.
3. That they spend the rest of the money and often in a wasteful way.
4. that if we combine MULTIPLE money saving features/cuts it adds up and can be better spent in education (or federal budget).
2.9% is small
I don't get your complaint on that.
It takes a lot of people power to run a large operation. You want teachers coordinating lawn care and maintenance? Principals overseeing cleaning contracts? Who is maintaining IT infrastructure and security? What about strategic planning?
The idea you can run a large organization without administrative support is so naive to be intellectually dishonest.
What's interesting is to compare this to the Army. In WW2 about 40% of all troops were considered to have a role in combat. The remaining 60% were involved in logistics and other functions that allowed the 40% to fight. Today that number has shifted to 80% in support of the 20% involved in combat.
Just to cut the fluff.
And anyone who thinks school districts don't have fluff are burying their head in the sand or part of the fluff.
Do you work in the ivory tower? Have I offended you because I have pointed out that your job never interacts with a student and has no impact on the students?
Important jobs won't interact with students. That's a fact.