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?

---

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

---

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

---

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.

---

cowboycwr said:

---

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.

---

Corporate America has lots of fluff as well. The big difference is those are private companies. Most that do not get tax money to operate or have people whose entire salaries are paid by taxpayers.

---

cowboycwr 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

---

I've already listed numerous examples but since you ignore them here are some again.

Multiple assistant superintendents all with their own secretaries and staffs that never even see students. Competing departments that contradict each other. Most staff in the curriculum department. And many others.

---

Volunteer said:

---

cowboycwr 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

---

I've already listed numerous examples but since you ignore them here are some again.

Multiple assistant superintendents all with their own secretaries and staffs that never even see students. Competing departments that contradict each other. Most staff in the curriculum department. And many others.

---

And you seem to ignore the fact that those assistant superintendents with their secretaries and staff are included in the central administration budget which is about 2.9% of the budget state-wide. And what competing departments contradict each other? What staff in the curriculum department do you believe should be eliminated?

---

cowboycwr 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

---

I've already listed numerous examples but since you ignore them here are some again.

Multiple assistant superintendents all with their own secretaries and staffs that never even see students. Competing departments that contradict each other. Most staff in the curriculum department. And many others.

---

forza orsi said:

---

cowboycwr 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

---

I've already listed numerous examples but since you ignore them here are some again.

Multiple assistant superintendents all with their own secretaries and staffs that never even see students. Competing departments that contradict each other. Most staff in the curriculum department. And many others.

---

So which ones? I mean specifically. Waco ISD has close to 15,000 students, almost 2,500 employees, and operates in over 25 physical facilities. It has 3,000 kids (20%) with limited English proficiency. It has 1,000 special needs kids, including intellectual disabilities, emotionally disturbed, speech impairments, physical disabilities, etc. It has 100 homeless kids and 400 more who are close. Of the students, 88% are economically disadvantaged and over 70% are considered "at-risk."

It's a pretty big business, and lots of stuff goes on that doesn't happen in the class room. You seem to think that district staff that don't see students are fluff, and not needed. With the student base it works from and the mandates for test scores to meet standards, there are going to be a lot of people doing necessary stuff that is not teaching. I'll freely admit that an organization of that size is going to have inefficiencies. I just don't think that it is materially worse than most private businesses of similar size. Given that large business organizations are also inefficient and they're able to hire the best businessmen, I don't know why we should be shocked that people with education backgrounds working for government wages aren't any better at cutting out "fluff." You said that at least 75% of the administrative people at WISD are not necessary. Please tell us how you know that it's 75%. I'm sure cost efficiencies could be gained, and I'm for those, but your 75% figure would appear to be a number you came up with based on less than a complete and detailed analysis.

I think what started this discussion was the issue of the necessity of a MISD bond issue and why WISD is not thriving. Your argument is that it's not thriving because it has too many people not in the classroom and that if a job doesn't interact with a student it "has no impact on a student." I would argue that it's not thriving because of the demographics above. Even the high-performing districts have administrative efficiencies. They just get a pass because test scores are good. Waco ISD's problem is mostly demographics, and people don't give them a pass because they've not figured out how to get the 20% with limited English skills to get high test scores.

---

Volunteer said:

---

cowboycwr 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

---

I've already listed numerous examples but since you ignore them here are some again.

Multiple assistant superintendents all with their own secretaries and staffs that never even see students. Competing departments that contradict each other. Most staff in the curriculum department. And many others.

---

Cowboy, I really don't want to argue the point or get in a prolonged internet urination contest. I also want to maintain some sense of civility. Most folks simply don't really have a working knowledge of all the educational challenges, not to mention the mandates and regulations, that face public schools today. It's unfair to expect the citizenry to understand all of this because.... well.... they have children to raise, bills to pay, and jobs to fulfill. In other words they have lives to live and can hardly afford the time to really delve into all the nooks and crannies of the public education system.

While there are certainly some inefficiencies in the school system, my experience tells me that the level of these is really quite modest. You tend to believe otherwise. We'll both live just fine with differing opinions.

---

cowboycwr said:

---

forza orsi said:

---

cowboycwr 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

---

I've already listed numerous examples but since you ignore them here are some again.

Multiple assistant superintendents all with their own secretaries and staffs that never even see students. Competing departments that contradict each other. Most staff in the curriculum department. And many others.

---

So which ones? I mean specifically. Waco ISD has close to 15,000 students, almost 2,500 employees, and operates in over 25 physical facilities. It has 3,000 kids (20%) with limited English proficiency. It has 1,000 special needs kids, including intellectual disabilities, emotionally disturbed, speech impairments, physical disabilities, etc. It has 100 homeless kids and 400 more who are close. Of the students, 88% are economically disadvantaged and over 70% are considered "at-risk."

It's a pretty big business, and lots of stuff goes on that doesn't happen in the class room. You seem to think that district staff that don't see students are fluff, and not needed. With the student base it works from and the mandates for test scores to meet standards, there are going to be a lot of people doing necessary stuff that is not teaching. I'll freely admit that an organization of that size is going to have inefficiencies. I just don't think that it is materially worse than most private businesses of similar size. Given that large business organizations are also inefficient and they're able to hire the best businessmen, I don't know why we should be shocked that people with education backgrounds working for government wages aren't any better at cutting out "fluff." You said that at least 75% of the administrative people at WISD are not necessary. Please tell us how you know that it's 75%. I'm sure cost efficiencies could be gained, and I'm for those, but your 75% figure would appear to be a number you came up with based on less than a complete and detailed analysis.

I think what started this discussion was the issue of the necessity of a MISD bond issue and why WISD is not thriving. Your argument is that it's not thriving because it has too many people not in the classroom and that if a job doesn't interact with a student it "has no impact on a student." I would argue that it's not thriving because of the demographics above. Even the high-performing districts have administrative efficiencies. They just get a pass because test scores are good. Waco ISD's problem is mostly demographics, and people don't give them a pass because they've not figured out how to get the 20% with limited English skills to get high test scores.

---

Which ones???

UMM already answered.

Large businesses are not run by tax payer money.

NO that is not what I said as to why WISD struggles.

Go back and read my first post on why WISD struggles. I listed multiple reasons and for some reason the only point that anyone picked up on and discussed was the one about extra staff/fluff.

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

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.

---

Corporate America has lots of fluff as well. The big difference is those are private companies. Most that do not get tax money to operate or have people whose entire salaries are paid by taxpayers.

---

Imagine how good our economy could actually be if we didn't give the fluff in private companies a pass while they ***** and moan about people who work for schools as fluff.

---

jbbear said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

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.

---

Corporate America has lots of fluff as well. The big difference is those are private companies. Most that do not get tax money to operate or have people whose entire salaries are paid by taxpayers.

---

Imagine how good our economy could actually be if we didn't give the fluff in private companies a pass while they ***** and moan about people who work for schools as fluff.

---

Imagine what it could be if we didn't use tax dollars to subsidize wasteful endeavors like the USPS and Amtrak.

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

jbbear said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

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.

---

Corporate America has lots of fluff as well. The big difference is those are private companies. Most that do not get tax money to operate or have people whose entire salaries are paid by taxpayers.

---

Imagine how good our economy could actually be if we didn't give the fluff in private companies a pass while they ***** and moan about people who work for schools as fluff.

---

Imagine what it could be if we didn't use tax dollars to subsidize wasteful endeavors like the USPS and Amtrak.

---

That's all you've got? Really?

What percentage of the budget goes to the USPS and Amtrak compared to other things needing attention?

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

jbbear said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

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.

---

Corporate America has lots of fluff as well. The big difference is those are private companies. Most that do not get tax money to operate or have people whose entire salaries are paid by taxpayers.

---

Imagine how good our economy could actually be if we didn't give the fluff in private companies a pass while they ***** and moan about people who work for schools as fluff.

---

Imagine what it could be if we didn't use tax dollars to subsidize wasteful endeavors like the USPS and Amtrak.

---

That's all you've got? Really?

What percentage of the budget goes to the USPS and Amtrak compared to other things needing attention?

---

While both are small expenditures my thinking with the government (and schools) is that every small cut helps. It doesn't ALL have to be billions and hundreds of millions cuts. Yes you need the big ones to make a large impact but you also need the small ones to add up.

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

jbbear said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

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.

---

Corporate America has lots of fluff as well. The big difference is those are private companies. Most that do not get tax money to operate or have people whose entire salaries are paid by taxpayers.

---

Imagine how good our economy could actually be if we didn't give the fluff in private companies a pass while they ***** and moan about people who work for schools as fluff.

---

Imagine what it could be if we didn't use tax dollars to subsidize wasteful endeavors like the USPS and Amtrak.

---

That's all you've got? Really?

What percentage of the budget goes to the USPS and Amtrak compared to other things needing attention?

---

While both are small expenditures my thinking with the government (and schools) is that every small cut helps. It doesn't ALL have to be billions and hundreds of millions cuts. Yes you need the big ones to make a large impact but you also need the small ones to add up.

---

That's great, but when you have a trillion dollars deficit, take a quick peek at where the most blood is coming from. And it's not Amtrak no matter how much it's hated. Most conservatives don't want to discuss defense spending. Reality is that there is exponentially more waste there than Amtrak due to sheer volume.

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

jbbear said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

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.

---

Corporate America has lots of fluff as well. The big difference is those are private companies. Most that do not get tax money to operate or have people whose entire salaries are paid by taxpayers.

---

Imagine how good our economy could actually be if we didn't give the fluff in private companies a pass while they ***** and moan about people who work for schools as fluff.

---

Imagine what it could be if we didn't use tax dollars to subsidize wasteful endeavors like the USPS and Amtrak.

---

That's all you've got? Really?

What percentage of the budget goes to the USPS and Amtrak compared to other things needing attention?

---

While both are small expenditures my thinking with the government (and schools) is that every small cut helps. It doesn't ALL have to be billions and hundreds of millions cuts. Yes you need the big ones to make a large impact but you also need the small ones to add up.

---

That's great, but when you have a trillion dollars deficit, take a quick peek at where the most blood is coming from. And it's not Amtrak no matter how much it's hated. Most conservatives don't want to discuss defense spending. Reality is that there is exponentially more waste there than Amtrak due to sheer volume.

---

Did you even read what I posted?

Seriously?

I believe it is your type of thinking of why we never get anywhere on the deficit/debt. Because every time it starts to get discussed if the cut isn't trillions of dollars at one time/one program then it gets dismissed

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

jbbear said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

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.

---

Corporate America has lots of fluff as well. The big difference is those are private companies. Most that do not get tax money to operate or have people whose entire salaries are paid by taxpayers.

---

Imagine how good our economy could actually be if we didn't give the fluff in private companies a pass while they ***** and moan about people who work for schools as fluff.

---

Imagine what it could be if we didn't use tax dollars to subsidize wasteful endeavors like the USPS and Amtrak.

---

That's all you've got? Really?

What percentage of the budget goes to the USPS and Amtrak compared to other things needing attention?

---

While both are small expenditures my thinking with the government (and schools) is that every small cut helps. It doesn't ALL have to be billions and hundreds of millions cuts. Yes you need the big ones to make a large impact but you also need the small ones to add up.

---

That's great, but when you have a trillion dollars deficit, take a quick peek at where the most blood is coming from. And it's not Amtrak no matter how much it's hated. Most conservatives don't want to discuss defense spending. Reality is that there is exponentially more waste there than Amtrak due to sheer volume.

---

Did you even read what I posted?

Seriously?

I believe it is your type of thinking of why we never get anywhere on the deficit/debt. Because every time it starts to get discussed if the cut isn't trillions of dollars at one time/one program then it gets dismissed

---

If you walked into the ER tonight with a gushing wound from your head where major blood was being lost and a scraped up leg that had some bleeding, but was also kind of clotted, which would you want them to treat first? I know what I want addressed.

And before you say that's different, it's really not.

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

jbbear said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

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.

---

Corporate America has lots of fluff as well. The big difference is those are private companies. Most that do not get tax money to operate or have people whose entire salaries are paid by taxpayers.

---

Imagine how good our economy could actually be if we didn't give the fluff in private companies a pass while they ***** and moan about people who work for schools as fluff.

---

Imagine what it could be if we didn't use tax dollars to subsidize wasteful endeavors like the USPS and Amtrak.

---

That's all you've got? Really?

What percentage of the budget goes to the USPS and Amtrak compared to other things needing attention?

---

While both are small expenditures my thinking with the government (and schools) is that every small cut helps. It doesn't ALL have to be billions and hundreds of millions cuts. Yes you need the big ones to make a large impact but you also need the small ones to add up.

---

That's great, but when you have a trillion dollars deficit, take a quick peek at where the most blood is coming from. And it's not Amtrak no matter how much it's hated. Most conservatives don't want to discuss defense spending. Reality is that there is exponentially more waste there than Amtrak due to sheer volume.

---

Did you even read what I posted?

Seriously?

I believe it is your type of thinking of why we never get anywhere on the deficit/debt. Because every time it starts to get discussed if the cut isn't trillions of dollars at one time/one program then it gets dismissed

---

If you walked into the ER tonight with a gushing wound from your head where major blood was being lost and a scraped up leg that had some bleeding, but was also kind of clotted, which would you want them to treat first? I know what I want addressed.

And before you say that's different, it's really not.

---

Thank you for confirming you do not read my posts.

ER visit= life and death

budget/deficit= not life and death.

You are comparing apples to pillows.

Besides, in your crazy example they would treat BOTH eventually.

They would not say "well the 2 doctors on shift can't agree on how to treat the head wound so let's do nothing."

Why can we not talk about the small items first and then leave the big items for later?

Why does it have to start with the big items and then NOTHING ever gets done. No Cuts of any kind.

Then again I don't know why I bothered because you won't read any of this and will reply with something else totally unrelated comparing dental surgery to mowing next.

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

jbbear said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

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.

---

Corporate America has lots of fluff as well. The big difference is those are private companies. Most that do not get tax money to operate or have people whose entire salaries are paid by taxpayers.

---

Imagine how good our economy could actually be if we didn't give the fluff in private companies a pass while they ***** and moan about people who work for schools as fluff.

---

Imagine what it could be if we didn't use tax dollars to subsidize wasteful endeavors like the USPS and Amtrak.

---

That's all you've got? Really?

What percentage of the budget goes to the USPS and Amtrak compared to other things needing attention?

---

While both are small expenditures my thinking with the government (and schools) is that every small cut helps. It doesn't ALL have to be billions and hundreds of millions cuts. Yes you need the big ones to make a large impact but you also need the small ones to add up.

---

That's great, but when you have a trillion dollars deficit, take a quick peek at where the most blood is coming from. And it's not Amtrak no matter how much it's hated. Most conservatives don't want to discuss defense spending. Reality is that there is exponentially more waste there than Amtrak due to sheer volume.

---

Did you even read what I posted?

Seriously?

I believe it is your type of thinking of why we never get anywhere on the deficit/debt. Because every time it starts to get discussed if the cut isn't trillions of dollars at one time/one program then it gets dismissed

---

If you walked into the ER tonight with a gushing wound from your head where major blood was being lost and a scraped up leg that had some bleeding, but was also kind of clotted, which would you want them to treat first? I know what I want addressed.

And before you say that's different, it's really not.

---

Thank you for confirming you do not read my posts.

ER visit= life and death

budget/deficit= not life and death.

You are comparing apples to pillows.

Besides, in your crazy example they would treat BOTH eventually.

They would not say "well the 2 doctors on shift can't agree on how to treat the head wound so let's do nothing."

Why can we not talk about the small items first and then leave the big items for later?

Why does it have to start with the big items and then NOTHING ever gets done. No Cuts of any kind.

Then again I don't know why I bothered because you won't read any of this and will reply with something else totally unrelated comparing dental surgery to mowing next.

---

Irony is that you did exactly what my last sentence said not to do. Therefore you didn't read what I said.

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

jbbear said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

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.

---

Corporate America has lots of fluff as well. The big difference is those are private companies. Most that do not get tax money to operate or have people whose entire salaries are paid by taxpayers.

---

Imagine how good our economy could actually be if we didn't give the fluff in private companies a pass while they ***** and moan about people who work for schools as fluff.

---

Imagine what it could be if we didn't use tax dollars to subsidize wasteful endeavors like the USPS and Amtrak.

---

That's all you've got? Really?

What percentage of the budget goes to the USPS and Amtrak compared to other things needing attention?

---

While both are small expenditures my thinking with the government (and schools) is that every small cut helps. It doesn't ALL have to be billions and hundreds of millions cuts. Yes you need the big ones to make a large impact but you also need the small ones to add up.

---

That's great, but when you have a trillion dollars deficit, take a quick peek at where the most blood is coming from. And it's not Amtrak no matter how much it's hated. Most conservatives don't want to discuss defense spending. Reality is that there is exponentially more waste there than Amtrak due to sheer volume.

---

Did you even read what I posted?

Seriously?

I believe it is your type of thinking of why we never get anywhere on the deficit/debt. Because every time it starts to get discussed if the cut isn't trillions of dollars at one time/one program then it gets dismissed

---

If you walked into the ER tonight with a gushing wound from your head where major blood was being lost and a scraped up leg that had some bleeding, but was also kind of clotted, which would you want them to treat first? I know what I want addressed.

And before you say that's different, it's really not.

---

Thank you for confirming you do not read my posts.

ER visit= life and death

budget/deficit= not life and death.

You are comparing apples to pillows.

Besides, in your crazy example they would treat BOTH eventually.

They would not say "well the 2 doctors on shift can't agree on how to treat the head wound so let's do nothing."

Why can we not talk about the small items first and then leave the big items for later?

Why does it have to start with the big items and then NOTHING ever gets done. No Cuts of any kind.

Then again I don't know why I bothered because you won't read any of this and will reply with something else totally unrelated comparing dental surgery to mowing next.

---

Irony is that you did exactly what my last sentence said not to do. Therefore you didn't read what I said.

---

There is no irony in showing you that you are flat out wrong.

That you compared a life and death situation to cutting excessive spending.

I then went on to show you why they are not the same.

But you still want to ignore it and argue the point of your comparison instead of talking about how small cuts are needed to balance the budget ALONG with big cuts and that a bunch of small cuts could be more effective as they will add up to large cuts and the government doesn't need to balance the budget by making ONLY one or two cuts.

But you and many others want to dismiss the small cuts because by itself on small cut won't balance the budget but then also argue about which big cuts are needed/acceptable and then in the end we get no cuts.

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

jbbear said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

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.

---

Corporate America has lots of fluff as well. The big difference is those are private companies. Most that do not get tax money to operate or have people whose entire salaries are paid by taxpayers.

---

Imagine how good our economy could actually be if we didn't give the fluff in private companies a pass while they ***** and moan about people who work for schools as fluff.

---

Imagine what it could be if we didn't use tax dollars to subsidize wasteful endeavors like the USPS and Amtrak.

---

That's all you've got? Really?

What percentage of the budget goes to the USPS and Amtrak compared to other things needing attention?

---

While both are small expenditures my thinking with the government (and schools) is that every small cut helps. It doesn't ALL have to be billions and hundreds of millions cuts. Yes you need the big ones to make a large impact but you also need the small ones to add up.

---

That's great, but when you have a trillion dollars deficit, take a quick peek at where the most blood is coming from. And it's not Amtrak no matter how much it's hated. Most conservatives don't want to discuss defense spending. Reality is that there is exponentially more waste there than Amtrak due to sheer volume.

---

Did you even read what I posted?

Seriously?

I believe it is your type of thinking of why we never get anywhere on the deficit/debt. Because every time it starts to get discussed if the cut isn't trillions of dollars at one time/one program then it gets dismissed

---

If you walked into the ER tonight with a gushing wound from your head where major blood was being lost and a scraped up leg that had some bleeding, but was also kind of clotted, which would you want them to treat first? I know what I want addressed.

And before you say that's different, it's really not.

---

Thank you for confirming you do not read my posts.

ER visit= life and death

budget/deficit= not life and death.

You are comparing apples to pillows.

Besides, in your crazy example they would treat BOTH eventually.

They would not say "well the 2 doctors on shift can't agree on how to treat the head wound so let's do nothing."

Why can we not talk about the small items first and then leave the big items for later?

Why does it have to start with the big items and then NOTHING ever gets done. No Cuts of any kind.

Then again I don't know why I bothered because you won't read any of this and will reply with something else totally unrelated comparing dental surgery to mowing next.

---

Irony is that you did exactly what my last sentence said not to do. Therefore you didn't read what I said.

---

There is no irony in showing you that you are flat out wrong.

That you compared a life and death situation to cutting excessive spending.

I then went on to show you why they are not the same.

But you still want to ignore it and argue the point of your comparison instead of talking about how small cuts are needed to balance the budget ALONG with big cuts and that a bunch of small cuts could be more effective as they will add up to large cuts and the government doesn't need to balance the budget by making ONLY one or two cuts.

But you and many others want to dismiss the small cuts because by itself on small cut won't balance the budget but then also argue about which big cuts are needed/acceptable and then in the end we get no cuts.

---

If we continue to rack up debt at a trillion a year, it will be beyond life and death for our country. You can say it's not the same, but it doesn't make it true.

What do you do for a living Cowboy?

I own and run a business. I have to make decisions every day on what to focus upon to make sure we continue to survive and grow. I'm ALWAYS going to focus on the areas that net me the most return. That's how we stay in business because you cannot accomplish all things. I'm sorry that you don't understand this.

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

jbbear said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

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.

---

Corporate America has lots of fluff as well. The big difference is those are private companies. Most that do not get tax money to operate or have people whose entire salaries are paid by taxpayers.

---

Imagine how good our economy could actually be if we didn't give the fluff in private companies a pass while they ***** and moan about people who work for schools as fluff.

---

Imagine what it could be if we didn't use tax dollars to subsidize wasteful endeavors like the USPS and Amtrak.

---

That's all you've got? Really?

What percentage of the budget goes to the USPS and Amtrak compared to other things needing attention?

---

While both are small expenditures my thinking with the government (and schools) is that every small cut helps. It doesn't ALL have to be billions and hundreds of millions cuts. Yes you need the big ones to make a large impact but you also need the small ones to add up.

---

That's great, but when you have a trillion dollars deficit, take a quick peek at where the most blood is coming from. And it's not Amtrak no matter how much it's hated. Most conservatives don't want to discuss defense spending. Reality is that there is exponentially more waste there than Amtrak due to sheer volume.

---

Did you even read what I posted?

Seriously?

I believe it is your type of thinking of why we never get anywhere on the deficit/debt. Because every time it starts to get discussed if the cut isn't trillions of dollars at one time/one program then it gets dismissed

---

If you walked into the ER tonight with a gushing wound from your head where major blood was being lost and a scraped up leg that had some bleeding, but was also kind of clotted, which would you want them to treat first? I know what I want addressed.

And before you say that's different, it's really not.

---

Thank you for confirming you do not read my posts.

ER visit= life and death

budget/deficit= not life and death.

You are comparing apples to pillows.

Besides, in your crazy example they would treat BOTH eventually.

They would not say "well the 2 doctors on shift can't agree on how to treat the head wound so let's do nothing."

Why can we not talk about the small items first and then leave the big items for later?

Why does it have to start with the big items and then NOTHING ever gets done. No Cuts of any kind.

Then again I don't know why I bothered because you won't read any of this and will reply with something else totally unrelated comparing dental surgery to mowing next.

---

Irony is that you did exactly what my last sentence said not to do. Therefore you didn't read what I said.

---

There is no irony in showing you that you are flat out wrong.

That you compared a life and death situation to cutting excessive spending.

I then went on to show you why they are not the same.

But you still want to ignore it and argue the point of your comparison instead of talking about how small cuts are needed to balance the budget ALONG with big cuts and that a bunch of small cuts could be more effective as they will add up to large cuts and the government doesn't need to balance the budget by making ONLY one or two cuts.

But you and many others want to dismiss the small cuts because by itself on small cut won't balance the budget but then also argue about which big cuts are needed/acceptable and then in the end we get no cuts.

---

If we continue to rack up debt at a trillion a year, it will be beyond life and death for our country. You can say it's not the same, but it doesn't make it true.

What do you do for a living Cowboy?

I own and run a business. I have to make decisions every day on what to focus upon to make sure we continue to survive and grow. I'm ALWAYS going to focus on the areas that net me the most return. That's how we stay in business because you cannot accomplish all things. I'm sorry that you don't understand this.

---

NO sorry it IS NOT LIFE AND DEATH. If the US owes $1 or $250 trillion will not cause people to suddenly die.

None of your business. But I can tell you I deal with budgets ALL THE TIME.

So if an employee of your business came to you and said that they could save you money but it was only $50 a month they were saving you would you dismiss the idea and tell them to go away?

OR would you listen, look into it and then make a choice to go with their saving if you product/result would still be the same?

Let's say the saving is on printer paper. They find a cheaper paper, but same quality, weight, etc. Would you go with their switch or dismiss it because it is only a measly $50?

I understand perfectly what you are trying to say, even if you are doing a poor job of saying it.

What you are not understanding is that I have constantly been pointing out that dismissing small savings/ small areas of waste just because they are not in the trillions of dollars is incredibly stupid. It doesn't matter if the amount saved compared to the overall budget is 1%, 10%, 50% or .5%. There is still saving there and eventually they add up and can equal large sums of savings. This applies to school districts with budgets in the millions, to the government in the trillions, state governments in the billions, or the local family owned business with 2 non family employees with a budget in the thousands.

Ignoring the small cuts in a budget because they don't immediately get you to the goal is incredibly stupid and why we don't get anything done.... oh wait that is what I have said about 4 times now but you ignore because you are stuck on the large cuts ONLY mindset.

But I am done arguing with someone to stupid to accept that small budget cuts can add up to large amounts.

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

jbbear said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

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.

---

Corporate America has lots of fluff as well. The big difference is those are private companies. Most that do not get tax money to operate or have people whose entire salaries are paid by taxpayers.

---

Imagine how good our economy could actually be if we didn't give the fluff in private companies a pass while they ***** and moan about people who work for schools as fluff.

---

Imagine what it could be if we didn't use tax dollars to subsidize wasteful endeavors like the USPS and Amtrak.

---

That's all you've got? Really?

What percentage of the budget goes to the USPS and Amtrak compared to other things needing attention?

---

While both are small expenditures my thinking with the government (and schools) is that every small cut helps. It doesn't ALL have to be billions and hundreds of millions cuts. Yes you need the big ones to make a large impact but you also need the small ones to add up.

---

That's great, but when you have a trillion dollars deficit, take a quick peek at where the most blood is coming from. And it's not Amtrak no matter how much it's hated. Most conservatives don't want to discuss defense spending. Reality is that there is exponentially more waste there than Amtrak due to sheer volume.

---

Did you even read what I posted?

Seriously?

I believe it is your type of thinking of why we never get anywhere on the deficit/debt. Because every time it starts to get discussed if the cut isn't trillions of dollars at one time/one program then it gets dismissed

---

If you walked into the ER tonight with a gushing wound from your head where major blood was being lost and a scraped up leg that had some bleeding, but was also kind of clotted, which would you want them to treat first? I know what I want addressed.

And before you say that's different, it's really not.

---

Thank you for confirming you do not read my posts.

ER visit= life and death

budget/deficit= not life and death.

You are comparing apples to pillows.

Besides, in your crazy example they would treat BOTH eventually.

They would not say "well the 2 doctors on shift can't agree on how to treat the head wound so let's do nothing."

Why can we not talk about the small items first and then leave the big items for later?

Why does it have to start with the big items and then NOTHING ever gets done. No Cuts of any kind.

Then again I don't know why I bothered because you won't read any of this and will reply with something else totally unrelated comparing dental surgery to mowing next.

---

Irony is that you did exactly what my last sentence said not to do. Therefore you didn't read what I said.

---

There is no irony in showing you that you are flat out wrong.

That you compared a life and death situation to cutting excessive spending.

I then went on to show you why they are not the same.

But you still want to ignore it and argue the point of your comparison instead of talking about how small cuts are needed to balance the budget ALONG with big cuts and that a bunch of small cuts could be more effective as they will add up to large cuts and the government doesn't need to balance the budget by making ONLY one or two cuts.

But you and many others want to dismiss the small cuts because by itself on small cut won't balance the budget but then also argue about which big cuts are needed/acceptable and then in the end we get no cuts.

---

If we continue to rack up debt at a trillion a year, it will be beyond life and death for our country. You can say it's not the same, but it doesn't make it true.

What do you do for a living Cowboy?

I own and run a business. I have to make decisions every day on what to focus upon to make sure we continue to survive and grow. I'm ALWAYS going to focus on the areas that net me the most return. That's how we stay in business because you cannot accomplish all things. I'm sorry that you don't understand this.

---

NO sorry it IS NOT LIFE AND DEATH. If the US owes $1 or $250 trillion will not cause people to suddenly die.

None of your business. But I can tell you I deal with budgets ALL THE TIME.

So if an employee of your business came to you and said that they could save you money but it was only $50 a month they were saving you would you dismiss the idea and tell them to go away?

OR would you listen, look into it and then make a choice to go with their saving if you product/result would still be the same?

Let's say the saving is on printer paper. They find a cheaper paper, but same quality, weight, etc. Would you go with their switch or dismiss it because it is only a measly $50?

I understand perfectly what you are trying to say, even if you are doing a poor job of saying it.

What you are not understanding is that I have constantly been pointing out that dismissing small savings/ small areas of waste just because they are not in the trillions of dollars is incredibly stupid. It doesn't matter if the amount saved compared to the overall budget is 1%, 10%, 50% or .5%. There is still saving there and eventually they add up and can equal large sums of savings. This applies to school districts with budgets in the millions, to the government in the trillions, state governments in the billions, or the local family owned business with 2 non family employees with a budget in the thousands.

Ignoring the small cuts in a budget because they don't immediately get you to the goal is incredibly stupid and why we don't get anything done.... oh wait that is what I have said about 4 times now but you ignore because you are stuck on the large cuts ONLY mindset.

But I am done arguing with someone to stupid to accept that small budget cuts can add up to large amounts.

---

too

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

jbbear said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

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.

---

Corporate America has lots of fluff as well. The big difference is those are private companies. Most that do not get tax money to operate or have people whose entire salaries are paid by taxpayers.

---

Imagine how good our economy could actually be if we didn't give the fluff in private companies a pass while they ***** and moan about people who work for schools as fluff.

---

Imagine what it could be if we didn't use tax dollars to subsidize wasteful endeavors like the USPS and Amtrak.

---

That's all you've got? Really?

What percentage of the budget goes to the USPS and Amtrak compared to other things needing attention?

---

While both are small expenditures my thinking with the government (and schools) is that every small cut helps. It doesn't ALL have to be billions and hundreds of millions cuts. Yes you need the big ones to make a large impact but you also need the small ones to add up.

---

That's great, but when you have a trillion dollars deficit, take a quick peek at where the most blood is coming from. And it's not Amtrak no matter how much it's hated. Most conservatives don't want to discuss defense spending. Reality is that there is exponentially more waste there than Amtrak due to sheer volume.

---

Did you even read what I posted?

Seriously?

I believe it is your type of thinking of why we never get anywhere on the deficit/debt. Because every time it starts to get discussed if the cut isn't trillions of dollars at one time/one program then it gets dismissed

---

If you walked into the ER tonight with a gushing wound from your head where major blood was being lost and a scraped up leg that had some bleeding, but was also kind of clotted, which would you want them to treat first? I know what I want addressed.

And before you say that's different, it's really not.

---

Thank you for confirming you do not read my posts.

ER visit= life and death

budget/deficit= not life and death.

You are comparing apples to pillows.

Besides, in your crazy example they would treat BOTH eventually.

They would not say "well the 2 doctors on shift can't agree on how to treat the head wound so let's do nothing."

Why can we not talk about the small items first and then leave the big items for later?

Why does it have to start with the big items and then NOTHING ever gets done. No Cuts of any kind.

Then again I don't know why I bothered because you won't read any of this and will reply with something else totally unrelated comparing dental surgery to mowing next.

---

Irony is that you did exactly what my last sentence said not to do. Therefore you didn't read what I said.

---

There is no irony in showing you that you are flat out wrong.

That you compared a life and death situation to cutting excessive spending.

I then went on to show you why they are not the same.

But you still want to ignore it and argue the point of your comparison instead of talking about how small cuts are needed to balance the budget ALONG with big cuts and that a bunch of small cuts could be more effective as they will add up to large cuts and the government doesn't need to balance the budget by making ONLY one or two cuts.

But you and many others want to dismiss the small cuts because by itself on small cut won't balance the budget but then also argue about which big cuts are needed/acceptable and then in the end we get no cuts.

---

If we continue to rack up debt at a trillion a year, it will be beyond life and death for our country. You can say it's not the same, but it doesn't make it true.

What do you do for a living Cowboy?

I own and run a business. I have to make decisions every day on what to focus upon to make sure we continue to survive and grow. I'm ALWAYS going to focus on the areas that net me the most return. That's how we stay in business because you cannot accomplish all things. I'm sorry that you don't understand this.

---

NO sorry it IS NOT LIFE AND DEATH. If the US owes $1 or $250 trillion will not cause people to suddenly die.

None of your business. But I can tell you I deal with budgets ALL THE TIME.

So if an employee of your business came to you and said that they could save you money but it was only $50 a month they were saving you would you dismiss the idea and tell them to go away?

OR would you listen, look into it and then make a choice to go with their saving if you product/result would still be the same?

Let's say the saving is on printer paper. They find a cheaper paper, but same quality, weight, etc. Would you go with their switch or dismiss it because it is only a measly $50?

I understand perfectly what you are trying to say, even if you are doing a poor job of saying it.

What you are not understanding is that I have constantly been pointing out that dismissing small savings/ small areas of waste just because they are not in the trillions of dollars is incredibly stupid. It doesn't matter if the amount saved compared to the overall budget is 1%, 10%, 50% or .5%. There is still saving there and eventually they add up and can equal large sums of savings. This applies to school districts with budgets in the millions, to the government in the trillions, state governments in the billions, or the local family owned business with 2 non family employees with a budget in the thousands.

Ignoring the small cuts in a budget because they don't immediately get you to the goal is incredibly stupid and why we don't get anything done.... oh wait that is what I have said about 4 times now but you ignore because you are stuck on the large cuts ONLY mindset.

But I am done arguing with someone to stupid to accept that small budget cuts can add up to large amounts.

---

too

---

LOL. grammar nazi can't read the rest of the post, reply to it, understand that adding 10+10+10+10+10 is the same as adding 49 +1 because he only looks for large numbers when talking budget cuts.

Like I said you would probably ignore a budget savings of $50 dollars because it isn't large enough for you.

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

jbbear said:

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

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.

---

Corporate America has lots of fluff as well. The big difference is those are private companies. Most that do not get tax money to operate or have people whose entire salaries are paid by taxpayers.

---

Imagine how good our economy could actually be if we didn't give the fluff in private companies a pass while they ***** and moan about people who work for schools as fluff.

---

Imagine what it could be if we didn't use tax dollars to subsidize wasteful endeavors like the USPS and Amtrak.

---

That's all you've got? Really?

What percentage of the budget goes to the USPS and Amtrak compared to other things needing attention?

---

While both are small expenditures my thinking with the government (and schools) is that every small cut helps. It doesn't ALL have to be billions and hundreds of millions cuts. Yes you need the big ones to make a large impact but you also need the small ones to add up.

---

That's great, but when you have a trillion dollars deficit, take a quick peek at where the most blood is coming from. And it's not Amtrak no matter how much it's hated. Most conservatives don't want to discuss defense spending. Reality is that there is exponentially more waste there than Amtrak due to sheer volume.

---

Did you even read what I posted?

Seriously?

I believe it is your type of thinking of why we never get anywhere on the deficit/debt. Because every time it starts to get discussed if the cut isn't trillions of dollars at one time/one program then it gets dismissed

---

If you walked into the ER tonight with a gushing wound from your head where major blood was being lost and a scraped up leg that had some bleeding, but was also kind of clotted, which would you want them to treat first? I know what I want addressed.

And before you say that's different, it's really not.

---

Thank you for confirming you do not read my posts.

ER visit= life and death

budget/deficit= not life and death.

You are comparing apples to pillows.

Besides, in your crazy example they would treat BOTH eventually.

They would not say "well the 2 doctors on shift can't agree on how to treat the head wound so let's do nothing."

Why can we not talk about the small items first and then leave the big items for later?

Why does it have to start with the big items and then NOTHING ever gets done. No Cuts of any kind.

Then again I don't know why I bothered because you won't read any of this and will reply with something else totally unrelated comparing dental surgery to mowing next.

---

Irony is that you did exactly what my last sentence said not to do. Therefore you didn't read what I said.

---

There is no irony in showing you that you are flat out wrong.

That you compared a life and death situation to cutting excessive spending.

I then went on to show you why they are not the same.

But you still want to ignore it and argue the point of your comparison instead of talking about how small cuts are needed to balance the budget ALONG with big cuts and that a bunch of small cuts could be more effective as they will add up to large cuts and the government doesn't need to balance the budget by making ONLY one or two cuts.

But you and many others want to dismiss the small cuts because by itself on small cut won't balance the budget but then also argue about which big cuts are needed/acceptable and then in the end we get no cuts.

---

If we continue to rack up debt at a trillion a year, it will be beyond life and death for our country. You can say it's not the same, but it doesn't make it true.

What do you do for a living Cowboy?

I own and run a business. I have to make decisions every day on what to focus upon to make sure we continue to survive and grow. I'm ALWAYS going to focus on the areas that net me the most return. That's how we stay in business because you cannot accomplish all things. I'm sorry that you don't understand this.

---

NO sorry it IS NOT LIFE AND DEATH. If the US owes $1 or $250 trillion will not cause people to suddenly die.

None of your business. But I can tell you I deal with budgets ALL THE TIME.

So if an employee of your business came to you and said that they could save you money but it was only $50 a month they were saving you would you dismiss the idea and tell them to go away?

OR would you listen, look into it and then make a choice to go with their saving if you product/result would still be the same?

Let's say the saving is on printer paper. They find a cheaper paper, but same quality, weight, etc. Would you go with their switch or dismiss it because it is only a measly $50?

I understand perfectly what you are trying to say, even if you are doing a poor job of saying it.

What you are not understanding is that I have constantly been pointing out that dismissing small savings/ small areas of waste just because they are not in the trillions of dollars is incredibly stupid. It doesn't matter if the amount saved compared to the overall budget is 1%, 10%, 50% or .5%. There is still saving there and eventually they add up and can equal large sums of savings. This applies to school districts with budgets in the millions, to the government in the trillions, state governments in the billions, or the local family owned business with 2 non family employees with a budget in the thousands.

Ignoring the small cuts in a budget because they don't immediately get you to the goal is incredibly stupid and why we don't get anything done.... oh wait that is what I have said about 4 times now but you ignore because you are stuck on the large cuts ONLY mindset.

But I am done arguing with someone to stupid to accept that small budget cuts can add up to large amounts.

---

too

---

LOL. grammar nazi can't read the rest of the post, reply to it, understand that adding 10+10+10+10+10 is the same as adding 49 +1 because he only looks for large numbers when talking budget cuts.

Like I said you would probably ignore a budget savings of $50 dollars because it isn't large enough for you.

---

If you're going to call someone stupid, don't put in errors. It discredits your thoughts.

And trying to continue the conversation is pointless. Because there is nothing that can be said that will result in a change for you. Go yell at a Lumberjack on Saturday. It will be more productive.

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky here is another example of "fluff"

Getting paid $96,000 (or the salary of 2 new teachers) to quit because you broke the law.......



https://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Video-shows-arrest-that-led-to-local-superintendents-resignation-558349861.html


But yeah it is only a fraction of their budget so I guess we just shouldn't worry about it at all.......

---

lrwells50 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky here is another example of "fluff"

Getting paid $96,000 (or the salary of 2 new teachers) to quit because you broke the law.......



https://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Video-shows-arrest-that-led-to-local-superintendents-resignation-558349861.html


But yeah it is only a fraction of their budget so I guess we just shouldn't worry about it at all.......

---

They could hire a lawyer when he sues them for firing him, you think that would cost less than 96,000?

We should all have learned there are reasons to pay people to go away quietly. Of course, sometimes the quietly part doesn't work out.

---

lrwells50 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky here is another example of "fluff"

Getting paid $96,000 (or the salary of 2 new teachers) to quit because you broke the law.......



https://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Video-shows-arrest-that-led-to-local-superintendents-resignation-558349861.html


But yeah it is only a fraction of their budget so I guess we just shouldn't worry about it at all.......

---

They could hire a lawyer when he sues them for firing him, you think that would cost less than 96,000?

We should all have learned there are reasons to pay people to go away quietly. Of course, sometimes the quietly part doesn't work out.

---

Funky Town Bear said:

---

lrwells50 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky here is another example of "fluff"

Getting paid $96,000 (or the salary of 2 new teachers) to quit because you broke the law.......



https://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Video-shows-arrest-that-led-to-local-superintendents-resignation-558349861.html


But yeah it is only a fraction of their budget so I guess we just shouldn't worry about it at all.......

---

They could hire a lawyer when he sues them for firing him, you think that would cost less than 96,000?

We should all have learned there are reasons to pay people to go away quietly. Of course, sometimes the quietly part doesn't work out.

---

Stop. Cowboy keeps telling us how he is so much smarter than all of us. Haven't you read?

---

lrwells50 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Funky here is another example of "fluff"

Getting paid $96,000 (or the salary of 2 new teachers) to quit because you broke the law.......



https://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Video-shows-arrest-that-led-to-local-superintendents-resignation-558349861.html


But yeah it is only a fraction of their budget so I guess we just shouldn't worry about it at all.......

---

They could hire a lawyer when he sues them for firing him, you think that would cost less than 96,000?

We should all have learned there are reasons to pay people to go away quietly. Of course, sometimes the quietly part doesn't work out.

---