fadskier said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Voters get to decide but only property owners get to pay .

---

Exactly. Renters have no skin in the game and old folks have their taxes capped. Does not quite seem fair to the majority of homeowners that pay taxes under the age of 65. This is not just a Dallas problem. It occurs in the whole state of Texas.

---

In 25 years of owning investing property ...only on this message board have I ever heard the ludicrous theory that tenants pay property taxes through their rent.

Well I spend money on the products from dozens of corporations ....such spending doesn't entitle me to vote on their corporate boards .

---

LOL. Renters pay taxes through their rent. Any landlord that fails to collect what he pays in taxes will be out of business.

---

You are the only renter I've ever heard this from .

By your rationale I should have a vote on the board of Ford Motors since I spent my money on one of their F-150's.

Ridiculous.

---

as a renter and owner of lots of multifamily doors in Texas, I can assure you, property taxes are covered in rent.

---

As the owner of 26 single family homes and one condo .....I can assure you there is no automatic raise in rents to cover raises in property taxes .

Rents are market driven .

---

Canada, people who say renters pay property tax are only out to justify non-tax payers outsized say vis-a-vis their contribution. They do the same thing with income taxes. They are uncomfortable with admitting that net economic drains get to determine the course of things simply by virtue of citizenship. They need to feel everyone "deserves" a say because of some equal contribution.

Just understand their motivations and move on. It's clearly a waste of time to discuss it any further.

---

I say renters pay property taxes because taxes have to be included in the cost or the landlords will go out of business.
Voting rights don't depend on economic contributions.
The problem is not with poor people voting, the problem is with government failing to provide equal treatment under law when it comes to taxation.

---

No one said voting rights do or should depend on Economic contributions. What was said was that people like you desire to convince yourself and FEEL as if they are tied so as to justify those receiving what is effectively social welfare being afforded a vote on just how much social welfare they will receive. It makes you uncomfortable to acknowledge the fact that so many are net takers and you engage in sophistry to convince yourself they aren't. I'm sure you would also be one of the first to point out how sub-zero federal tax payers somehow are "tax payers too".

As for equal treatment under the law, let's start with everyone paying an equal percentage of their annual income in taxes instead of unequally taking orders of magnitude more (as a %) from the productive among us. Let's abolish the progressive tax system for its inequality under the law.

---

The argument was made on this thread that those who don't have a stake in paying property taxes shouldn't get to vote on them.

---

Really? Which post?

---

This one:

Canada2017 said:

---

If the money I spend on transportation via a Ford truck doesn't entitle me to vote on the corporate board ....

money spent by others on rent shouldn't entitle them to vote on my property taxes .

No other way to spin it .

---

---

Whoa now.

Non property owners should be able to vote on everything ....EXCEPT property taxes.

As they have no skin in the game .

---

and I respectfully disagree.

---

Fair enough

But I will also add that rent does not necessarily increase if property taxes increase...the market does come into play but I believe most landlords increase rent to cover an increase in property taxes...especially if is, in their view, a significant increase.

When my wife and I lived in Houston, our apartment complex put flyers on all doors that if we voted for the local school bond, rent would increase $12 upon the next renewal.

Canada2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Voters get to decide but only property owners get to pay .

---

Exactly. Renters have no skin in the game and old folks have their taxes capped. Does not quite seem fair to the majority of homeowners that pay taxes under the age of 65. This is not just a Dallas problem. It occurs in the whole state of Texas.

---

In 25 years of owning investing property ...only on this message board have I ever heard the ludicrous theory that tenants pay property taxes through their rent.

Well I spend money on the products from dozens of corporations ....such spending doesn't entitle me to vote on their corporate boards .

---

LOL. Renters pay taxes through their rent. Any landlord that fails to collect what he pays in taxes will be out of business.

---

You are the only renter I've ever heard this from .

By your rationale I should have a vote on the board of Ford Motors since I spent my money on one of their F-150's.

Ridiculous.

---

as a renter and owner of lots of multifamily doors in Texas, I can assure you, property taxes are covered in rent.

---

As the owner of 26 single family homes and one condo .....I can assure you there is no automatic raise in rents to cover raises in property taxes .

Rents are market driven .

---

Canada, people who say renters pay property tax are only out to justify non-tax payers outsized say vis-a-vis their contribution. They do the same thing with income taxes. They are uncomfortable with admitting that net economic drains get to determine the course of things simply by virtue of citizenship. They need to feel everyone "deserves" a say because of some equal contribution.

Just understand their motivations and move on. It's clearly a waste of time to discuss it any further.

---

I say renters pay property taxes because taxes have to be included in the cost or the landlords will go out of business.
Voting rights don't depend on economic contributions.
The problem is not with poor people voting, the problem is with government failing to provide equal treatment under law when it comes to taxation.

---

No one said voting rights do or should depend on Economic contributions. What was said was that people like you desire to convince yourself and FEEL as if they are tied so as to justify those receiving what is effectively social welfare being afforded a vote on just how much social welfare they will receive. It makes you uncomfortable to acknowledge the fact that so many are net takers and you engage in sophistry to convince yourself they aren't. I'm sure you would also be one of the first to point out how sub-zero federal tax payers somehow are "tax payers too".

As for equal treatment under the law, let's start with everyone paying an equal percentage of their annual income in taxes instead of unequally taking orders of magnitude more (as a %) from the productive among us. Let's abolish the progressive tax system for its inequality under the law.

---

The argument was made on this thread that those who don't have a stake in paying property taxes shouldn't get to vote on them.

---

Really? Which post?

---

This one:

Canada2017 said:

---

If the money I spend on transportation via a Ford truck doesn't entitle me to vote on the corporate board ....

money spent by others on rent shouldn't entitle them to vote on my property taxes .

No other way to spin it .

---

---

Whoa now.

Non property owners should be able to vote on everything ....EXCEPT property taxes.

As they have no skin in the game .

---

Voters with no children in the district schools: should they be allowed to vote on school board members?

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Voters get to decide but only property owners get to pay .

---

Exactly. Renters have no skin in the game and old folks have their taxes capped. Does not quite seem fair to the majority of homeowners that pay taxes under the age of 65. This is not just a Dallas problem. It occurs in the whole state of Texas.

---

In 25 years of owning investing property ...only on this message board have I ever heard the ludicrous theory that tenants pay property taxes through their rent.

Well I spend money on the products from dozens of corporations ....such spending doesn't entitle me to vote on their corporate boards .

---

LOL. Renters pay taxes through their rent. Any landlord that fails to collect what he pays in taxes will be out of business.

---

You are the only renter I've ever heard this from .

By your rationale I should have a vote on the board of Ford Motors since I spent my money on one of their F-150's.

Ridiculous.

---

as a renter and owner of lots of multifamily doors in Texas, I can assure you, property taxes are covered in rent.

---

As the owner of 26 single family homes and one condo .....I can assure you there is no automatic raise in rents to cover raises in property taxes .

Rents are market driven .

---

Canada, people who say renters pay property tax are only out to justify non-tax payers outsized say vis-a-vis their contribution. They do the same thing with income taxes. They are uncomfortable with admitting that net economic drains get to determine the course of things simply by virtue of citizenship. They need to feel everyone "deserves" a say because of some equal contribution.

Just understand their motivations and move on. It's clearly a waste of time to discuss it any further.

---

I say renters pay property taxes because taxes have to be included in the cost or the landlords will go out of business.
Voting rights don't depend on economic contributions.
The problem is not with poor people voting, the problem is with government failing to provide equal treatment under law when it comes to taxation.

---

No one said voting rights do or should depend on Economic contributions. What was said was that people like you desire to convince yourself and FEEL as if they are tied so as to justify those receiving what is effectively social welfare being afforded a vote on just how much social welfare they will receive. It makes you uncomfortable to acknowledge the fact that so many are net takers and you engage in sophistry to convince yourself they aren't. I'm sure you would also be one of the first to point out how sub-zero federal tax payers somehow are "tax payers too".

As for equal treatment under the law, let's start with everyone paying an equal percentage of their annual income in taxes instead of unequally taking orders of magnitude more (as a %) from the productive among us. Let's abolish the progressive tax system for its inequality under the law.

---

The argument was made on this thread that those who don't have a stake in paying property taxes shouldn't get to vote on them.

---

Really? Which post?

---

This one:

Canada2017 said:

---

If the money I spend on transportation via a Ford truck doesn't entitle me to vote on the corporate board ....

money spent by others on rent shouldn't entitle them to vote on my property taxes .

No other way to spin it .

---

---

Whoa now.

Non property owners should be able to vote on everything ....EXCEPT property taxes.

As they have no skin in the game .

---

Voters with no children in the district schools: can they vote on school board members?

---

Everyone can vote. Should they choose to? Do the board members have a say in how their tax money is spent or if it increases?

fadskier said:

---

But I will also add that rent does not necessarily increase if property taxes increase...the market does come into play but I believe most landlords increase rent to cover an increase in property taxes...especially if is, in their view, a significant increase.

When my wife and I lived in Houston, our apartment complex put flyers on all doors that if we voted for the local school bond, rent would increase $12 upon the next renewal.

---

We intentionally rent our properties $ 150 $ 200 per month below market . Tenants who don't give us any brain damage are worth it .

As a result we only have about 3-4 move outs per year.
Some house tenants have been in the same place for over 15 years . They literally paid the houses off for us .

However when property taxes jumped up last year due to massive appraisal increases .......there was no way we could increase rents to cover it .

Canada2017 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

But I will also add that rent does not necessarily increase if property taxes increase...the market does come into play but I believe most landlords increase rent to cover an increase in property taxes...especially if is, in their view, a significant increase.

When my wife and I lived in Houston, our apartment complex put flyers on all doors that if we voted for the local school bond, rent would increase $12 upon the next renewal.

---

We intentionally rent our properties $ 150 $ 200 per month below market . Tenants who don't give us any brain damage are worth it .

As a result we only have about 3-4 move outs per year.
Some house tenants have been in the same place for over 15 years . They literally paid the houses off for us .

However when property taxes jumped up last year due to massive appraisal increases .......there was no way we could increase rents to cover it .

---

Well, if you have anything in the DFW area, I might be calling you in about 18 months...looking at retiring and renting until we decide on a location for purchase.

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

contrario said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

They need to build new schools because the new schools they have aren't new enough new schools.

---

Or they don't have enough schools. Growing communities have a growing need for public services.

---

They were closing schools just a few years ago.

Dallas needs to be broken up into smaller districts. If that means a couple of layers of administrators lose their jobs, oh well.

---

I like the idea, but won't that give us X numbers of new administrators?

---

Smaller districts can serve more students with less administrators. Large districts put a layer of Asst Admin in between faculty and top administrator.

---

Not sure that is true.

fadskier said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

But I will also add that rent does not necessarily increase if property taxes increase...the market does come into play but I believe most landlords increase rent to cover an increase in property taxes...especially if is, in their view, a significant increase.

When my wife and I lived in Houston, our apartment complex put flyers on all doors that if we voted for the local school bond, rent would increase $12 upon the next renewal.

---

We intentionally rent our properties $ 150 $ 200 per month below market . Tenants who don't give us any brain damage are worth it .

As a result we only have about 3-4 move outs per year.
Some house tenants have been in the same place for over 15 years . They literally paid the houses off for us .

However when property taxes jumped up last year due to massive appraisal increases .......there was no way we could increase rents to cover it .

---

Well, if you have anything in the DFW area, I might be calling you in about 18 months...looking at retiring and renting until we decide on a location for purchase.

---

All our properties are in northern Colorado. Built half and bought the rest .

Great area to live but air pollution is definitely getting worse along the front range . Windsor, Colorado is probably the best place to retire I have ever seen.

Planning on buying some acreage in either Bend, Oregon or Whitefish, Montana by 2021.

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Voters get to decide but only property owners get to pay .

---

Exactly. Renters have no skin in the game and old folks have their taxes capped. Does not quite seem fair to the majority of homeowners that pay taxes under the age of 65. This is not just a Dallas problem. It occurs in the whole state of Texas.

---

In 25 years of owning investing property ...only on this message board have I ever heard the ludicrous theory that tenants pay property taxes through their rent.

Well I spend money on the products from dozens of corporations ....such spending doesn't entitle me to vote on their corporate boards .

---

LOL. Renters pay taxes through their rent. Any landlord that fails to collect what he pays in taxes will be out of business.

---

You are the only renter I've ever heard this from .

By your rationale I should have a vote on the board of Ford Motors since I spent my money on one of their F-150's.

Ridiculous.

---

as a renter and owner of lots of multifamily doors in Texas, I can assure you, property taxes are covered in rent.

---

As the owner of 26 single family homes and one condo .....I can assure you there is no automatic raise in rents to cover raises in property taxes .

Rents are market driven .

---

Canada, people who say renters pay property tax are only out to justify non-tax payers outsized say vis-a-vis their contribution. They do the same thing with income taxes. They are uncomfortable with admitting that net economic drains get to determine the course of things simply by virtue of citizenship. They need to feel everyone "deserves" a say because of some equal contribution.

Just understand their motivations and move on. It's clearly a waste of time to discuss it any further.

---

I say renters pay property taxes because taxes have to be included in the cost or the landlords will go out of business.
Voting rights don't depend on economic contributions.
The problem is not with poor people voting, the problem is with government failing to provide equal treatment under law when it comes to taxation.

---

No one said voting rights do or should depend on Economic contributions. What was said was that people like you desire to convince yourself and FEEL as if they are tied so as to justify those receiving what is effectively social welfare being afforded a vote on just how much social welfare they will receive. It makes you uncomfortable to acknowledge the fact that so many are net takers and you engage in sophistry to convince yourself they aren't. I'm sure you would also be one of the first to point out how sub-zero federal tax payers somehow are "tax payers too".

As for equal treatment under the law, let's start with everyone paying an equal percentage of their annual income in taxes instead of unequally taking orders of magnitude more (as a %) from the productive among us. Let's abolish the progressive tax system for its inequality under the law.

---

The argument was made on this thread that those who don't have a stake in paying property taxes shouldn't get to vote on them.

---

Really? Which post?

---

This one:

Canada2017 said:

---

If the money I spend on transportation via a Ford truck doesn't entitle me to vote on the corporate board ....

money spent by others on rent shouldn't entitle them to vote on my property taxes .

No other way to spin it .

---

---

Whoa now.

Non property owners should be able to vote on everything ....EXCEPT property taxes.

As they have no skin in the game .

---

Voters with no children in the district schools: should they be allowed to vote on school board members?

---

As long as they are paying for it.

Voters with no kids in the district who rent: can they vote in school board elections?

quash said:

---

Voters with no kids in the district who rent: can they vote in school board elections?

---

Are their taxes paying for the system?

The rent a landlord can charge a prospective tenant is mostly determined by simple supply and demand.

The majority of Residential lease contracts do not have escalation charges built in for increases in taxes insurance utilities maintenance or mortgage rates.

Even in a good rental market rental rates lag behind expense increases by a couple of years. Also. It is very difficult to raise rates on existing tenants without them getting mad and moving.

Lion82 said:

---

Also. It is very difficult to raise rates on existing tenants without them getting mad and moving.

---

Bingo !

We rarely raise rents on long time renters by more than 75 dollars a month .....regardless of market increases

Bearitto said:

---

quash said:

---

Voters with no kids in the district who rent: can they vote in school board elections?

---

Are their taxes paying for the system?

---

Since renters don't pay property taxes (according to you), should they get to vote on school bond elections?

Canada2017 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

But I will also add that rent does not necessarily increase if property taxes increase...the market does come into play but I believe most landlords increase rent to cover an increase in property taxes...especially if is, in their view, a significant increase.

When my wife and I lived in Houston, our apartment complex put flyers on all doors that if we voted for the local school bond, rent would increase $12 upon the next renewal.

---

We intentionally rent our properties $ 150 $ 200 per month below market . Tenants who don't give us any brain damage are worth it .

As a result we only have about 3-4 move outs per year.
Some house tenants have been in the same place for over 15 years . They literally paid the houses off for us .

However when property taxes jumped up last year due to massive appraisal increases .......there was no way we could increase rents to cover it .

---

????????????????

Both can't be correct

Keyser Soze said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

But I will also add that rent does not necessarily increase if property taxes increase...the market does come into play but I believe most landlords increase rent to cover an increase in property taxes...especially if is, in their view, a significant increase.

When my wife and I lived in Houston, our apartment complex put flyers on all doors that if we voted for the local school bond, rent would increase $12 upon the next renewal.

---

We intentionally rent our properties $ 150 $ 200 per month below market . Tenants who don't give us any brain damage are worth it .

As a result we only have about 3-4 move outs per year.
Some house tenants have been in the same place for over 15 years . They literally paid the houses off for us .

However when property taxes jumped up last year due to massive appraisal increases .......there was no way we could increase rents to cover it .

---

????????????????

Both can't be correct

---

Depends on how much taxes jumped.

Fair point.

But you can't be below market and unable to raise rent at all

Osodecentx said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

quash said:

---

Voters with no kids in the district who rent: can they vote in school board elections?

---

Are their taxes paying for the system?

---

Since renters don't pay property taxes (according to you), should they get to vote on school bond elections?

---

I never said anyone should be prevented from voting. They should have the decency not to if they don't pay taxes.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Fair point.

But you can't be below market and unable to raise rent at all

---

When property taxes go up 12-17 % in a single year you don't dare try to collect the entire increase from established tenants regardless .

Some would bail .

And move outs are even more expensive

I have found that tenants with good credit scores and rent credentials won't pay top rent because they have options. Tenants with poor credit will pay top rent because they have limited options.

Landlords who lease their properties at just below market rate....over the long term....will have higher occupancy and collection rates.

The costs involved and with operating rental property and market rent rates seem related but they mostly operate independently of each other. When expenses start taking too high of a percentage of rents investors will quit buying and asset values will drop.

Lion82 said:

---

I have found that tenants with good credit scores and rent credentials won't pay top rent because they have options. Tenants with poor credit will pay top rent because they have limited options.

Landlords who lease their properties at just below market rate....over the long term....will have higher occupancy and collection rates.

The costs involved and with operating rental property and market rent rates seem related but they mostly operate independently of each other. When expenses start taking too high of a percentage of rents investors will quit buying and asset values will drop.

---

I have a few tenants paying over 2000 per month for our biggest houses .

Perfect credit .

They just do not wish to own..

quash said:

---

contrario said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

They need to build new schools because the new schools they have aren't new enough new schools.

---

Or they don't have enough schools. Growing communities have a growing need for public services.

---

They were closing schools just a few years ago.

Dallas needs to be broken up into smaller districts. If that means a couple of layers of administrators lose their jobs, oh well.

---

As an aside, I have noticed a dramatic increase in administrators / non-teachers in our schools vs. when I was in school. We had a principal and two assistant principals that each had two grades (HS). We had two counselors that each had two grades. My daughter's HS has > 4 assistant principals and > 4 counselors. I can imagine what that looks like at the district office. The problem with all of these issues is it is easy to get emotional about "it's for the children," but no one wants to really analyze how the money is spent, i.e. directly on instruction or on "support" and other non-instructional positions.

I think you're right - more, smaller districts would preferable.

quash said:

---

Voters with no kids in the district who rent: can they vote in school board elections?

---

Why not?

Kyle said:

---

quash said:

---

contrario said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

They need to build new schools because the new schools they have aren't new enough new schools.

---

Or they don't have enough schools. Growing communities have a growing need for public services.

---

They were closing schools just a few years ago.

Dallas needs to be broken up into smaller districts. If that means a couple of layers of administrators lose their jobs, oh well.

---

As an aside, I have noticed a dramatic increase in administrators / non-teachers in our schools vs. when I was in school. We had a principal and two assistant principals that each had two grades (HS). We had two counselors that each had two grades. My daughter's HS has > 4 assistant principals and > 4 counselors. I can imagine what that looks like at the district office. The problem with all of these issues is it is easy to get emotional about "it's for the children," but no one wants to really analyze how the money is spent, i.e. directly on instruction or on "support" and other non-instructional positions.

I think you're right - more, smaller districts would preferable.

---

My mother taught mostly 1st graders in San Antonio ISD from about 1954-1989. She seldom had fewer than 25 kids in a class and 30 was not unusual. Most districts now average around 15 kids per teacher. And of course with more teachers, you have to have more administrators and support. Not certain what conclusions to draw, but I have a few ideas...

curtpenn said:

---

Kyle said:

---

quash said:

---

contrario said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

They need to build new schools because the new schools they have aren't new enough new schools.

---

Or they don't have enough schools. Growing communities have a growing need for public services.

---

They were closing schools just a few years ago.

Dallas needs to be broken up into smaller districts. If that means a couple of layers of administrators lose their jobs, oh well.

---

As an aside, I have noticed a dramatic increase in administrators / non-teachers in our schools vs. when I was in school. We had a principal and two assistant principals that each had two grades (HS). We had two counselors that each had two grades. My daughter's HS has > 4 assistant principals and > 4 counselors. I can imagine what that looks like at the district office. The problem with all of these issues is it is easy to get emotional about "it's for the children," but no one wants to really analyze how the money is spent, i.e. directly on instruction or on "support" and other non-instructional positions.

I think you're right - more, smaller districts would preferable.

---

My mother taught mostly 1st graders in San Antonio ISD from about 1954-1989. She seldom had fewer than 25 kids in a class and 30 was not unusual. Most districts now average around 15 kids per teacher. And of course with more teachers, you have to have more administrators and support. Not certain what conclusions to draw, but I have a few ideas...

---

15 kids per teacher does not mean 15 kids per class, far from it.

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Kyle said:

---

quash said:

---

contrario said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

They need to build new schools because the new schools they have aren't new enough new schools.

---

Or they don't have enough schools. Growing communities have a growing need for public services.

---

They were closing schools just a few years ago.

Dallas needs to be broken up into smaller districts. If that means a couple of layers of administrators lose their jobs, oh well.

---

As an aside, I have noticed a dramatic increase in administrators / non-teachers in our schools vs. when I was in school. We had a principal and two assistant principals that each had two grades (HS). We had two counselors that each had two grades. My daughter's HS has > 4 assistant principals and > 4 counselors. I can imagine what that looks like at the district office. The problem with all of these issues is it is easy to get emotional about "it's for the children," but no one wants to really analyze how the money is spent, i.e. directly on instruction or on "support" and other non-instructional positions.

I think you're right - more, smaller districts would preferable.

---

My mother taught mostly 1st graders in San Antonio ISD from about 1954-1989. She seldom had fewer than 25 kids in a class and 30 was not unusual. Most districts now average around 15 kids per teacher. And of course with more teachers, you have to have more administrators and support. Not certain what conclusions to draw, but I have a few ideas...

---

15 kids per teacher does not mean 15 kids per class, far from it.

---

My wife's classes are 25-30. <backwheniwasakid>We had one band director per middle school. My son's middle school has 2.5. We did not have theater, my son's school has two. Schools definitely are not asked to do more with less, at least the ones that are not terrible mis-managed.</backwheniwasakid>>

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Kyle said:

---

quash said:

---

contrario said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

They need to build new schools because the new schools they have aren't new enough new schools.

---

Or they don't have enough schools. Growing communities have a growing need for public services.

---

They were closing schools just a few years ago.

Dallas needs to be broken up into smaller districts. If that means a couple of layers of administrators lose their jobs, oh well.

---

As an aside, I have noticed a dramatic increase in administrators / non-teachers in our schools vs. when I was in school. We had a principal and two assistant principals that each had two grades (HS). We had two counselors that each had two grades. My daughter's HS has > 4 assistant principals and > 4 counselors. I can imagine what that looks like at the district office. The problem with all of these issues is it is easy to get emotional about "it's for the children," but no one wants to really analyze how the money is spent, i.e. directly on instruction or on "support" and other non-instructional positions.

I think you're right - more, smaller districts would preferable.

---

My mother taught mostly 1st graders in San Antonio ISD from about 1954-1989. She seldom had fewer than 25 kids in a class and 30 was not unusual. Most districts now average around 15 kids per teacher. And of course with more teachers, you have to have more administrators and support. Not certain what conclusions to draw, but I have a few ideas...

---

15 kids per teacher does not mean 15 kids per class, far from it.

---

Well, duh. Point being I'm guessing the ratio of students to teachers and admins to students was probably significantly lower in decades gone by. Too lazy to research it though. Handle that for me, will you?