Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unfortunately, yes, they do. The mandates that come down from the federal and state government require people in administrative positions to deal with all of the paperwork and reporting that are required for them.
The educational experts who lobby Congress must have thought so. Now that so many administrators have been fired so the teachers can survive are the school districts able to do these?
My school as recently been hit with the budget cuts and there have been some major down sizing. The assistant principal is now part time working at two different schools, the reading coach is a data entry person, the guidance counselor is the filing clerk, and the math coach is trying to facilitate all the trainings for the entire school. We still have the front secretary(who is the principal's sec. the phone operator, and the one who greats everyone entering the school) a and the book keeper, but if they get cut I'm not sure who will take on their jobs. Oh and we have a school nurse who comes once a month, and I'm not even sure if there's a set day for her visits.
I'm not for cutting the administration, nor do I think we need to loose any more teachers. I however think there's some reforming that can be done at all levels to make everyone's job more efficient. ie; Maybe the size of the school should determine the administration -- does a school of less than 600 students need both a principal and an assistant and all the others?? Maybe a school with less than 600 students could get by with the secretary, principal, and a guidance counselor?? Just food for thought....
How could one cut the Supt completely?
A secretary, principal, or guidance counselor have absolutely no experience or qualifications to assume a Supt's role as a Supt's job duties are totally different than that of teachers,secretary,principal ,guidance counsellor.
Now that tax revenue is falling and local government is cutting budgets right and left government leaders are trying to figure which employees to cut. In budget meetings local citizens are always calling for the school district to cut Administrative Staff and save teacher jobs. People are screaming, "WE DONT NEED THOSE BUREAUCRATS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE!"
I ask the following questions about these bureaucrats that everyone wants to fire:
1) If they are so terrible why did they spend our tax payers money on them in the past?
2) If they fire the administrators who will do the work they use to do? (the teachers, taking them away from the classroom?)
3) If we fire people like file clerks, data entry operators and administrative assistants in the school offices who will do the work? Will the $100K School Superintendent have to spend all day filing now?
4) What exactly will happen to the schools when they fire most of the administrators so they can save the teachers?
I'm not questioning whether a school system needs administrators (whether any given school needs a principal and three assistant principals, plus a couple of behavior specialists and four office staff for a student population of around a thousand kids is a whole other question entirely). Our schools are organized by county, not into small-town groupings of a half dozen elementary schools, a couple of middle schools, and one or two senior highs. Assuming for the sake of argument that this is a wise decision (which I'm not, but that's a different thread), for a school system of 200,000+ kids, you need a few administrators.
However...you probably don't need ten assistant superintendents. Or a cell phone budget that would pay eight to ten teachers' salaries. Or trips to Oxford for the Superintendent and trainings in other counties and states several times a month for department heads. Or a part-time school board whose members make more than many of the fulltime teachers-- and some of whom were mightily frosted when it was suggested they take a pay cut, even though they're asking staff to do so. Or a state-of-the-art gym, open and attended 24/7, at the admin building. And you definitely don't need to allow supervisory staff to retire, then be rehired at their former pay rate so they can get both salary AND retirement.
But of course, the logical place to start cutting is to furlough teachers, so the tax-paying public will panic and vote to raise taxes.
Unfortunately, yes, they do. The mandates that come down from the federal and state government require people in administrative positions to deal with all of the paperwork and reporting that are required for them.
If I may address just one of those: IDEA.
If school systems are going to pay someone to "deal with" this statute, shouldn't it be someone who actually understands it? Having attended IEP meetings in four counties in the Tampa Bay area, I continue to be amazed at how unfamiliar with the law the county LEA reps-- those people who are paid to be familiar-- are. Not to mention that having people both at the school and the county level doing essentially the same work is a huge waste of resources.
If I may address just one of those: IDEA.
If school systems are going to pay someone to "deal with" this statute, shouldn't it be someone who actually understands it? Having attended IEP meetings in four counties in the Tampa Bay area, I continue to be amazed at how unfamiliar with the law the county LEA reps-- those people who are paid to be familiar-- are. Not to mention that having people both at the school and the county level doing essentially the same work is a huge waste of resources.
I'll defer to your judgment on this, as I haven't had to deal with such things. I'll just say that when the federal government gets involved in things that should be dealt with at the local level, then you get batches of useless bureaucrats, half of whom don't know what the hell they're doing.
Now that tax revenue is falling and local government is cutting budgets right and left government leaders are trying to figure which employees to cut. In budget meetings local citizens are always calling for the school district to cut Administrative Staff and save teacher jobs. People are screaming, "WE DONT NEED THOSE BUREAUCRATS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE!"
I ask the following questions about these bureaucrats that everyone wants to fire:
1) If they are so terrible why did they spend our tax payers money on them in the past?
2) If they fire the administrators who will do the work they use to do? (the teachers, taking them away from the classroom?)
3) If we fire people like file clerks, data entry operators and administrative assistants in the school offices who will do the work? Will the $100K School Superintendent have to spend all day filing now?
4) What exactly will happen to the schools when they fire most of the administrators so they can save the teachers?
Hmmmm...let me answer from what I've seen.
1) We as a society seem to want all the bells and whistles, the very best of everything, and the highest status among humans everywhere, BUT we don't want to pay for it.
2) I suspect, when things that should be getting done aren't, there will be h*ll to pay by blaming someone else.
3) I suspect they'll have to curtail their continuing education, networking, high-priced BS consulting with people who have 'You too, can be a highly successful superintendent with these easy steps!" programs. They'd probably also have to devote even more time to sitting in state budget and education meetings and seminars trying to figure out just exactly how they are going to run a school which politicians seem to want to run straight into the ground by regulating to death.
4) The masses will merely find something else to complain about.
There is no doubt that there is fraud in many schools throughout the country, but really, each area is so diverse in its needs that to try and regulate anything from afar (i.e. federally) is the most pathetic thing I've ever heard of. It's headed that way and has been for some time. Thanks NCLB (in part anyway).
I'll defer to your judgment on this, as I haven't had to deal with such things. I'll just say that when the federal government gets involved in things that should be dealt with at the local level, then you get batches of useless bureaucrats, half of whom don't know what the hell they're doing.
Only half? You're an optimist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
