Waco
Sponsored By

Cameron Park Zoo plans new expansion project

6,979 Views | 110 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by BaylorHistory
Volunteer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Nelson could have certainly been fired for cause. The problem was that the whole sordid affair did not take place in a vacuum. There were lots and lots of people that didn't want Nelson fired - even though he clearly violated his contract. And by "lots and lots" of people I mean literally thousands and thousands. Many right here on this forum voiced their opinion that he shouldn't be fired based on such a minor transgression.

If the board had fired him for cause the outcry would have been deafening. Who knows where this might had led? - most likely something undesirable for everyone.

Sometimes leadership just has to be pragmatic. The board knew that under the terms of his contract they had every right to legally fire him for cause - with no payout. Even so, Dr. Nelson could still file suit and there would be legal expense and tons of publicity involved with a legal fight. The result would be to divide the community even more than it is now. The best decision was to mutually agree on a separation.
howhardcanitbe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Funky Town Bear said:

Volunteer said:

cowboycwr said:

Volunteer said:

bularry said:

cowboycwr said:

bularry said:

cowboycwr said:

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.
That list of yours leaves out many other departments that large districts have that are top heavy.

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.
My point was in the post you quoted.

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.

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.
And no one has said to cut all the people outside the classroom, that they are not needed, or anything like that.

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?
To answer your question, no I don't work for a school district. How exactly do you know that school districts have fluff in the budget? I'm actually interested in what you identify as fluff.

The link below is a simple and easy to understand detailing of where the money goes in public school budgets.

https://www.tasb.org/legislative/documents/140601eddollarup.pdf

One thing I find vastly interesting is the claim of fluff in the education system or other government entities, while the majority of middle management in corporate America is bloat and fluff beyond belief. I find it quite ironic.
I agree that there is a tremendous amount of optimization to be done in corporate America...but it's usually self regulating. Too much fluff will eventually have a negative impact on profitability and the business either adjusts accordingly or goes out of business. There is no such dynamic within schools or other government entities.
Funky Town Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This seemed appropriate for this discussion.

https://econ.st/2lQRkRb


I still contend that self regulation of fluff jobs in corporate America doesn't happen. We like to think it does because of how we value our own self worth. But most corporations are incredibly wasteful with fluff jobs.
forza orsi
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Funky Town Bear said:

This seemed appropriate for this discussion.

https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/06/29/bull****-jobs-and-the-yoke-of-managerial-feudalism?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/bull****jobsandtheyokeofmanagerialfeudalismopenfuture&fbclid=IwAR2ArSkvHqu2yVQZQ_-9s0cIavJpKrJPYsM9YDD8OxW9iqy1BTau9Mdwk_Y

I still contend that self regulation of fluff jobs in corporate America doesn't happen. We like to think it does because of how we value our own self worth. But most corporations are incredibly wasteful with fluff jobs.
That link doesn't work for me. Here is a shorter version of the link, but this site changes the link because of forbidden words. You have to change the four stars after the word "bull" in the link to the actual full word in the title. https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/06/29/bull****-jobs-and-the-yoke-of-managerial-feudalism
Funky Town Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
forza orsi said:

Funky Town Bear said:

This seemed appropriate for this discussion.

https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/06/29/bull****-jobs-and-the-yoke-of-managerial-feudalism?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/bull****jobsandtheyokeofmanagerialfeudalismopenfuture&fbclid=IwAR2ArSkvHqu2yVQZQ_-9s0cIavJpKrJPYsM9YDD8OxW9iqy1BTau9Mdwk_Y

I still contend that self regulation of fluff jobs in corporate America doesn't happen. We like to think it does because of how we value our own self worth. But most corporations are incredibly wasteful with fluff jobs.
That link doesn't work for me. Here is a shorter version of the link, but this site changes the link because of forbidden words. You have to change the four stars after the word "bull" in the link to the actual full word in the title. https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/06/29/bull****-jobs-and-the-yoke-of-managerial-feudalism


Updated to a shortlink. Didn't think about the words being scrubbed.

https://econ.st/2lQRkRb
BaylorHistory
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Penguins!!!
Page 4 of 4
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.