Or, it might have something to do with the fact that schools consume about 52% of the general fund, health and human services another 25%, prisons another 17%. The silly backwaters that make up the entire rest of state government consume 6.6% of the budget. That why people are always talking about cuttings schools and prisons. "Because that's where the money is". barfo
Is it your contention that those areas are run as efficiently as possible? That's a brave stance. There's no reason to fire teachers or prison guards. Cut administration and back office functions. Reduce health and human service offerings.
I don't understand how that would work. The principals and assistant principals are a big part (halfish) of the administrative budget and while they're not in a classroom they are already in the buildings. They could have the principals and VP's teach, but someone would have to step up and deal with personnel issues, discipline and be accountable to the kids and parents. I guess they could do something like having the bus drivers run the transportation dept.; the cooks administer food services; the custodians hire out and supervise the construction and maintenance of the buildings; the principals do the hiring; and the teachers do systems management and information services. All of the duties listed (and many not listed) HAVE to happen, so in the short term everyone left would have to be trained to do the all of the administrative work of the departed admins and figure out how to divide up the extra work. Administration runs about 3% of a district's budget state-wide. You can make a case that there should be less administration, but even firing every administrator in the district would still not offset the cuts the district faces if the measures fail. Something over 70% of the district budget is for teachers' salaries. That's why it always comes down to teachers taking a hit when there are big cuts. The school district faces about $2.2M in cuts if both measures pass. If the measures fail, they face $8M-$15M, depending on how the cuts are distributed to state services. These numbers are not unique to my local district. Districts across the state will all be facing tough cuts. There are valid reasons to vote against the increases, but dismissing school funding as just too many administrators is mis-leading. Go Blazers ps: I should state that I occasionally volunteer for the school district, so I have a dog in the fight, as Lars would say.
As I understand it, there was no grumbling about giving the COLA's up, for the very reasons you state. They agreed it was the right thing to do. Go Blazers
A good post. I learned a lot. Repped. The problem I see is that you've bought into the paradigm of what a school should offer and what it should be. Schools need to be reorganized and made more efficient. Schools need to do less (reading, writing and arithmetic) and do what they do better. Principals should teach half the day. Vice Principals should teach full-time. Counselors should teach part time. Secretarial staff should be slashed. Everyone has to work harder. 60-70 hours a week during the school year isn't unreasonable for these front office people Tenure needs to be eliminated and parents need to be encouraged to volunteer their time (as you have done), including even teaching. Pay needs to be based on merit and not seniority. The retirement package needs to be completely reworked. If that pisses off the union, so be it. They can go ahead and strike. Get parent volunteers and hire replacements. My real beef is with the administration not at the schools (although there's plenty of inefficencies as well). There should be a volunteer school board, a superintendent and then little else. In Lake Oswego, there are almost as many employees in the district office and school administrators as there are teachers in the LO school system. In Portland, the district office has a percentage growth larger than the percentage growth of teachers. They found money in their budget to redevelop the district HQ and then four years later purchase new office furniture. I could go on and on and on and on about it, but these people are never held to account. If you want to raise taxes, do it so everyone has a little skin in the game. Continuing to try to soak the rich will eventually lead to a saturation point.
Doesn't oregon law require you to pay people double pay when they work over 60 hours unless they waive it? Who is going to want to waive that sort of thing?
This is an awful example. There is a disproportionate amount of stay at home parents in LO because it is much wealthier.
I know nothing whatsoever about the Lake Oswego school district or any other school district, so I'm not taking sides here, but those two statements are pretty hard to reconcile. Does LO have vastly more administrative personnel than other school districts in the state? Do administrative personnel work for less than the minimum wage? The difference between 3% cost and 50% headcount seems striking. barfo
Stay at home parents has little to do with the number of administrators and support staff in the district.
I'm pretty sure he was talking about the administration at a school, not in total. The district office takes a huge chunk of the budget.
Well, according to this website (which I'm not vouching for, since I just found it via Ye Olde Google, and I don't even know whose ax they are grinding or whose ox they are goring), you've got it backwards. The central district office costs are 2.7% of the total. In-school admin are 6.6%. barfo
Why is that not unreasonable? Why should school administrators be expected to work 60-70 hours per week? What would motivate them to do that? Are you going to give them stock options in the school district? A chance at a big bonus at year end? Career opportunities? Or is this just the stick and no carrot? Work 70 hours a week or we'll replace you with random unemployed guy? barfo
Interesting. You believe we won't have a shortage of physicians if they have their pay lowered and are forced to see more patients due to health care "reform" because they're motivated by altruism, but school administrators aren't similarly motivated? They don't work very hard during the summer or during Christmas break. They can work a little harder during the school year. 60-70 hours per week isn't a ton. Lots of people work those hours.
First, you ignored the 4.3% of the total budget for "Business Services and Technology". Second, in the "Teaching and Student Resources" heading was "Counselors and Health Services" and "Other Student Support Services". I guess I see a lot more fat to cut than do you.
I do? I'm always interested to find out what I believe. Lots of people are motivated to work those hours. I know what made you work those hours, I know what made me work those hours. I don't see what would incent every school administrator to work those hours. barfo
You can count that as administration if you want. I suspect some of that goes to the classroom, but even if it is all district spending, that only raises the total to 7%. A far cry from the 50% you were suggesting. Maybe. Do they do that student counseling in the district office? Or are those in-school services? I'm still not seeing how LO supports almost as many administrators as students, unless it is a very unusual, very inefficient school district. barfo
Did you vote for Measure 11 in '94? The majority of Oregon did, and it put building and staffing prisons to house the criminals for longer periods into direct competition with schools for state funding. I don't see it as a scare tactic as much as, that's what the voters wanted when they voted for longer prison terms. It's hardly reasonable to say that school districts haven't felt the pain of bad economic times. Last year the Eugene district cut $20M from their budget. Next year will be more of the same, if the early forecasts are proven to be true. Unless the state raises revenue, some combination of school kids, prisons, ODOT, health care, elderly care, college students are going to see big reductions in budget, and therefore service. Go Blazers
I'm sure schools need money . . . they always do. The question for me is: is this the right place to get the money? Some corporation or high income earner is expected to help solve the school budget problem. Then the next financial problem they will go next to . . . corporations and high income earners. Meanwhile there is no sales tax in Oregon (archaic idea. Until there is, this state will continue to try to function by bleeding property tax, income tax and now business tax. A smart business owner would move their business and residence across the river to Washington. I understand income tax and property tax are much lower there. Is it true?
