----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Tarr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 3:35 PM Subject: Re: The War on Schools
> > >Yes, there is administration at the highest level too, but I don't recall > >it being all that massive. So, while I'm willing to agree with the > >proposition that the district is too bureaucratic, I don't think much in > >the way of real savings could be obtained by cutting it down. > > > >Dan M. > > > Since I brought up the original point, the examples I know of are for rural > school districts and while the ratios may be the same, there was not a > single administrator who made less money than the highest paid teacher, in > some cases comparing 2 years admin. experience to 30 years of teaching. I'm not arguing that administrators can't waste money. I'm arguing that the overhead is not as high as it seems. FWIW, the Conn. examples are closer to rural than urban. Population densities of about 150/sq. mi. for example. > Julia's example was common. And it was compounded by the administrator > fulfilling their own needs, applying for every grant and program that came > down the line so they, in turn, had to be there to run them. This may very well have happened; there could very well be a bureaucratic waste of people's money. What I am arguing is that the cost of things like full time aids for individual students represent most of the increase in costs; and that the savings from cutting overhead is not as large as one might think. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
