Logos Stick said:

---

Quote:

---

test scores

---

test scores versus money spent on public education over time:

---

So your answer to my belief that we should judge each case individually and with context is to show me the most general graph you could find?

BBRex said:

---

Quote:

---

In 1970, U.S. schools educated only one in five children with disabilities, and many states had laws excluding certain students, including children who were deaf, blind, emotionally disturbed, or had an intellectual disability.

Since the passage of EHA in 1975, significant progress has been made toward meeting major national goals for developing and implementing effective programs and services for early intervention, special education, and related services. The U.S. has progressed from excluding nearly 1.8 million children with disabilities from public schools prior to EHA implementation to providing more than 8 million children with disabilities with special education and related services designed to meet their individual needs in the 2022-23 school year.

In 2022-23, more than 66% of children with disabilities were in general education classrooms 80% or more of their school day (IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection), and early intervention services were provided to more than 441,000 infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families (IDEA Part C Child Count and Settings).

---

https://sites.ed.gov/idea/IDEA-History

---

Look at the slope beginning in 1970 until 1975. That slope is the same as the slope from 1975 until 2012. And I'm being generous with 1975. Just because a law was passed in 1975 doesn't mean there was a waterfall of students the next year and subsequent years.

There is no way to account for a 200% rise in cost above inflation based simply on adding special education classes. The student to teacher ratio might be lower but as a percentage of the population, special ed is a small portion.

Your argument doesn't hold water.

cevans_40 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Quote:

---

test scores

---

test scores versus money spent on public education over time:

---

So your answer to my belief that we should judge each case individually and with context is to show me the most general graph you could find?

---

I'm showing you cold, hard unbiased statistics. Sorry it torpedoes your completely baseless argument that results is a function of spend.

If you have something, anything to support your opinion, post it.

Page 4 lol

Logos Stick said:

---

BBRex said:

---

Quote:

---

In 1970, U.S. schools educated only one in five children with disabilities, and many states had laws excluding certain students, including children who were deaf, blind, emotionally disturbed, or had an intellectual disability.

Since the passage of EHA in 1975, significant progress has been made toward meeting major national goals for developing and implementing effective programs and services for early intervention, special education, and related services. The U.S. has progressed from excluding nearly 1.8 million children with disabilities from public schools prior to EHA implementation to providing more than 8 million children with disabilities with special education and related services designed to meet their individual needs in the 2022-23 school year.

In 2022-23, more than 66% of children with disabilities were in general education classrooms 80% or more of their school day (IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection), and early intervention services were provided to more than 441,000 infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families (IDEA Part C Child Count and Settings).

---

https://sites.ed.gov/idea/IDEA-History

---

Look at the slope beginning in 1970 until 1975. That slope is the same as the slope from 1975 until 2012. And I'm being generous with 1975. Just because a law was passed in 1975 doesn't mean there was a waterfall of students the next year and subsequent years.

There is no way to account for a 200% rise in cost above inflation based simply on adding special education classes. The student to teacher ratio might be lower but as a percentage of the population, special ed is a small portion.

Your argument doesn't hold water.

---

Its right at 10%.

Certainly not negligent or even small

Edit: my mistake, 11.7% in Texas. Add to that, our changing demographics and I would say remaining flat is not small feat.

cslifer said:

---

So you want someone to take responsibility as the head of an organization with over 1000 employees, thousands of students and the current political atmosphere for 100-200k?

---

250K would probably be more in line, but the point is that the 1000 employees you speak of mostly make far less than 100K and the thousands of students you speak of are way out of control. The superintendent is often not the actual head of the district but the figurehead who hires his or her friends to the high places and then blames them when things go wrong. (And yes, I've seen this first hand). The school board should take a more activist role here in weeding out the unproductive administrative positions -- all but eliminating non-campus administration altogether except for bare bones.

Take responsibility? Show me one example state wide where the superintendent has actually taken responsibility and we'll talk. In most cases, when they leave one district it is for another higher paying position elsewhere.

cevans_40 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

BBRex said:

---

Quote:

---

In 1970, U.S. schools educated only one in five children with disabilities, and many states had laws excluding certain students, including children who were deaf, blind, emotionally disturbed, or had an intellectual disability.

Since the passage of EHA in 1975, significant progress has been made toward meeting major national goals for developing and implementing effective programs and services for early intervention, special education, and related services. The U.S. has progressed from excluding nearly 1.8 million children with disabilities from public schools prior to EHA implementation to providing more than 8 million children with disabilities with special education and related services designed to meet their individual needs in the 2022-23 school year.

In 2022-23, more than 66% of children with disabilities were in general education classrooms 80% or more of their school day (IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection), and early intervention services were provided to more than 441,000 infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families (IDEA Part C Child Count and Settings).

---

https://sites.ed.gov/idea/IDEA-History

---

Look at the slope beginning in 1970 until 1975. That slope is the same as the slope from 1975 until 2012. And I'm being generous with 1975. Just because a law was passed in 1975 doesn't mean there was a waterfall of students the next year and subsequent years.

There is no way to account for a 200% rise in cost above inflation based simply on adding special education classes. The student to teacher ratio might be lower but as a percentage of the population, special ed is a small portion.

Your argument doesn't hold water.

---

Its right at 10%.

Certainly not negligent or even small

---

I'd need to see data on that stat because I don't believe anything you post on this matter without it.

Also, assuming you are correct, 10% special ed is the reason for a 200%+ in spend above inflation? No.

cevans_40 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

BBRex said:

---

Quote:

---

In 1970, U.S. schools educated only one in five children with disabilities, and many states had laws excluding certain students, including children who were deaf, blind, emotionally disturbed, or had an intellectual disability.

Since the passage of EHA in 1975, significant progress has been made toward meeting major national goals for developing and implementing effective programs and services for early intervention, special education, and related services. The U.S. has progressed from excluding nearly 1.8 million children with disabilities from public schools prior to EHA implementation to providing more than 8 million children with disabilities with special education and related services designed to meet their individual needs in the 2022-23 school year.

In 2022-23, more than 66% of children with disabilities were in general education classrooms 80% or more of their school day (IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection), and early intervention services were provided to more than 441,000 infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families (IDEA Part C Child Count and Settings).

---

https://sites.ed.gov/idea/IDEA-History

---

Look at the slope beginning in 1970 until 1975. That slope is the same as the slope from 1975 until 2012. And I'm being generous with 1975. Just because a law was passed in 1975 doesn't mean there was a waterfall of students the next year and subsequent years.

There is no way to account for a 200% rise in cost above inflation based simply on adding special education classes. The student to teacher ratio might be lower but as a percentage of the population, special ed is a small portion.

Your argument doesn't hold water.

---

Its right at 10%.

Certainly not negligent or even small

Edit: my mistake, 11.7% in Texas. Add to that, our changing demographics and I would say remaining flat is not small feat.

---

Lol, that chart goes back to 1970. Demographic changes is not the reason.

Logos Stick said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Quote:

---

test scores

---

test scores versus money spent on public education over time:

---

So your answer to my belief that we should judge each case individually and with context is to show me the most general graph you could find?

---

I'm showing you cold, hard unbiased statistics. Sorry it torpedoes your completely baseless argument that results is a function of spend.

If you have something, anything to support your opinion, post it.

---

You are right. All superintendents are the same and should all be paid exactly the same and you can decide what number that is.

You obviously are very in tune with the school system.

cevans_40 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Quote:

---

test scores

---

test scores versus money spent on public education over time:

---

So your answer to my belief that we should judge each case individually and with context is to show me the most general graph you could find?

---

I'm showing you cold, hard unbiased statistics. Sorry it torpedoes your completely baseless argument that results is a function of spend.

If you have something, anything to support your opinion, post it.

---

You are right. All superintendents are the same and should all be paid exactly the same and you can decide what number that is.

You obviously are very in tune with the school system.

---

Strawman

Logos Stick said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

BBRex said:

---

Quote:

---

In 1970, U.S. schools educated only one in five children with disabilities, and many states had laws excluding certain students, including children who were deaf, blind, emotionally disturbed, or had an intellectual disability.

Since the passage of EHA in 1975, significant progress has been made toward meeting major national goals for developing and implementing effective programs and services for early intervention, special education, and related services. The U.S. has progressed from excluding nearly 1.8 million children with disabilities from public schools prior to EHA implementation to providing more than 8 million children with disabilities with special education and related services designed to meet their individual needs in the 2022-23 school year.

In 2022-23, more than 66% of children with disabilities were in general education classrooms 80% or more of their school day (IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection), and early intervention services were provided to more than 441,000 infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families (IDEA Part C Child Count and Settings).

---

https://sites.ed.gov/idea/IDEA-History

---

Look at the slope beginning in 1970 until 1975. That slope is the same as the slope from 1975 until 2012. And I'm being generous with 1975. Just because a law was passed in 1975 doesn't mean there was a waterfall of students the next year and subsequent years.

There is no way to account for a 200% rise in cost above inflation based simply on adding special education classes. The student to teacher ratio might be lower but as a percentage of the population, special ed is a small portion.

Your argument doesn't hold water.

---

Its right at 10%.

Certainly not negligent or even small

Edit: my mistake, 11.7% in Texas. Add to that, our changing demographics and I would say remaining flat is not small feat.

---

Lol, that chart goes back to 1970. Demographic changes is not the reason.

---

The US hasn't changed demographically since the 70's?

Logos Stick said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Quote:

---

test scores

---

test scores versus money spent on public education over time:

---

So your answer to my belief that we should judge each case individually and with context is to show me the most general graph you could find?

---

I'm showing you cold, hard unbiased statistics. Sorry it torpedoes your completely baseless argument that results is a function of spend.

If you have something, anything to support your opinion, post it.

---

You are right. All superintendents are the same and should all be paid exactly the same and you can decide what number that is.

You obviously are very in tune with the school system.

---

Strawman

---

So what is your argument?

cevans_40 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

BBRex said:

---

Quote:

---

In 1970, U.S. schools educated only one in five children with disabilities, and many states had laws excluding certain students, including children who were deaf, blind, emotionally disturbed, or had an intellectual disability.

Since the passage of EHA in 1975, significant progress has been made toward meeting major national goals for developing and implementing effective programs and services for early intervention, special education, and related services. The U.S. has progressed from excluding nearly 1.8 million children with disabilities from public schools prior to EHA implementation to providing more than 8 million children with disabilities with special education and related services designed to meet their individual needs in the 2022-23 school year.

In 2022-23, more than 66% of children with disabilities were in general education classrooms 80% or more of their school day (IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection), and early intervention services were provided to more than 441,000 infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families (IDEA Part C Child Count and Settings).

---

https://sites.ed.gov/idea/IDEA-History

---

Look at the slope beginning in 1970 until 1975. That slope is the same as the slope from 1975 until 2012. And I'm being generous with 1975. Just because a law was passed in 1975 doesn't mean there was a waterfall of students the next year and subsequent years.

There is no way to account for a 200% rise in cost above inflation based simply on adding special education classes. The student to teacher ratio might be lower but as a percentage of the population, special ed is a small portion.

Your argument doesn't hold water.

---

Its right at 10%.

Certainly not negligent or even small

Edit: my mistake, 11.7% in Texas. Add to that, our changing demographics and I would say remaining flat is not small feat.

---

Lol, that chart goes back to 1970. Demographic changes is not the reason.

---

The US hasn't changed demographically since the 70's?

---

The slope is the same over 50 years. So no, demographic changes is not a logical conclusion.

Logos Stick said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

BBRex said:

---

Quote:

---

In 1970, U.S. schools educated only one in five children with disabilities, and many states had laws excluding certain students, including children who were deaf, blind, emotionally disturbed, or had an intellectual disability.

Since the passage of EHA in 1975, significant progress has been made toward meeting major national goals for developing and implementing effective programs and services for early intervention, special education, and related services. The U.S. has progressed from excluding nearly 1.8 million children with disabilities from public schools prior to EHA implementation to providing more than 8 million children with disabilities with special education and related services designed to meet their individual needs in the 2022-23 school year.

In 2022-23, more than 66% of children with disabilities were in general education classrooms 80% or more of their school day (IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection), and early intervention services were provided to more than 441,000 infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families (IDEA Part C Child Count and Settings).

---

https://sites.ed.gov/idea/IDEA-History

---

Look at the slope beginning in 1970 until 1975. That slope is the same as the slope from 1975 until 2012. And I'm being generous with 1975. Just because a law was passed in 1975 doesn't mean there was a waterfall of students the next year and subsequent years.

There is no way to account for a 200% rise in cost above inflation based simply on adding special education classes. The student to teacher ratio might be lower but as a percentage of the population, special ed is a small portion.

Your argument doesn't hold water.

---

Its right at 10%.

Certainly not negligent or even small

Edit: my mistake, 11.7% in Texas. Add to that, our changing demographics and I would say remaining flat is not small feat.

---

Lol, that chart goes back to 1970. Demographic changes is not the reason.

---

The US hasn't changed demographically since the 70's?

---

The slope is the same over 50 years. So no, demographic changes is not a logical conclusion.

---

I am referring to test score lines.

Logos Stick said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

BBRex said:

---

Quote:

---

In 1970, U.S. schools educated only one in five children with disabilities, and many states had laws excluding certain students, including children who were deaf, blind, emotionally disturbed, or had an intellectual disability.

Since the passage of EHA in 1975, significant progress has been made toward meeting major national goals for developing and implementing effective programs and services for early intervention, special education, and related services. The U.S. has progressed from excluding nearly 1.8 million children with disabilities from public schools prior to EHA implementation to providing more than 8 million children with disabilities with special education and related services designed to meet their individual needs in the 2022-23 school year.

In 2022-23, more than 66% of children with disabilities were in general education classrooms 80% or more of their school day (IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection), and early intervention services were provided to more than 441,000 infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families (IDEA Part C Child Count and Settings).

---

https://sites.ed.gov/idea/IDEA-History

---

Look at the slope beginning in 1970 until 1975. That slope is the same as the slope from 1975 until 2012. And I'm being generous with 1975. Just because a law was passed in 1975 doesn't mean there was a waterfall of students the next year and subsequent years.

There is no way to account for a 200% rise in cost above inflation based simply on adding special education classes. The student to teacher ratio might be lower but as a percentage of the population, special ed is a small portion.

Your argument doesn't hold water.

---

Its right at 10%.

Certainly not negligent or even small

---

I'd need to see data on that stat because I don't believe anything you post on this matter without it.

Also, assuming you are correct, 10% special ed is the reason for a 200%+ in spend above inflation? No.

---

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg/students-with-disabilities

cevans_40 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

SouthTex99 said:

---

It's cheaper to pay a great superintendent a big salary than a bad superintendent a low salary. Much cheaper.

---

Lol, sure thing. My fav is the Lake Travis guy making over $400k. There is one HS in Lake Travis and he has a Principal. So what exactly does he do that creates so much value?

I mean it's all good I guess but just don't tell me about how teachers are underpaid. The only time I have really heard from our Super in the last year or two is when he was complaining about anything around vouchers or how we needed to give them more money. Pretty clear as to why.

Oh, and my HS spends well below the average for Texas per pupil and the least of the 6 schools in our District yet we dominate in academics and sports and virtually every EC activity. The idea that money creates better schools is such a joke.

---

You are right. People create better schools. And if you want better people, you have to pay better money. Ultimately the ceiling is set by the students and their parents but the floor can most definitely be raised with better people running the district.

No carry on with your regularly scheduled bashing of anything related to public education.

---

Yes, that is why Washington DC and Baltimore spend more than anyone and have such great schools.

There really is no correlation to money spent and quality of schools. Parental participation and the attitude of the students is 100x more important and it has nothing to do with money. You also don't get the best teachers with money. You get the best teachers by creating an environment that they want to work in. That means good students to want to learn and the ability to challenge them. That means taking care of disciplinary issues with students who are troublemakers.

Hey but keep saying we just need to write bigger checks and it will solve all of our problems though, especially for Superinendents that are often just political animals. I'm not saying money has no impact, it absolutely does. It's just that money without the above is usually setting it on fire and benefiting someone besides the students.

Also, school districts can pay people what they want. My only issue actually comes in when you have schools that are on the receiving end of Robin Hood money. If you are getting money from other schools then you should also lose some of your ability to spend it as you wish. Not that that is ever going to happen. Most people have taken very little time to actually understand why schools succeed or fail or they simply don't want to face hard facts because they are often uncomfortable. It's so much easier to "rely on experts" or write a check (especially with someone elses money).

---

I would love to see where I said that because that would be news to me. I agree with everything you said. I also understand that once you get proven leaders in place, you will need to reward them to retain them. The whole issue is so much more complex than just money, however. And accordingly, this whole thread is pointless other than to complain about someone else making more money than you believe they should without a shred of knowledge as to why they are getting paid what they are.

---

This is what you said, And if you want better people, you have to pay better money.

I'm not saying money isn't a factor, of course it is. I just think it is way overemphasized based on what I have seen. Public schools aren't the same as companies and the people that go into education and are successful are not as driven by money as they are other factors. I don't know of any good teacher or principal for instance that would rather make $15k more to work at a terrible school with rowdy kids that don't want to learn.

My son has some incredibly qualified teachers for instance but they are folks that just love teaching, they aren't doing it for the money. For instance he has a Biology teacher with a Master's from Rice and his Physics teacher has a PhD. Both had worked in industry and decided to go into teaching because they wanted to go to a HS that had motivated students that wanted to learn AP level classes and be pushed. If you think they are going to go to a crap school for a few bucks it's just not happening. A lot of them are married and aren't the primary breadwinner in their household. Some just really love to teach and while everyone loves money that isn't what drives them, if it did they could go do many other things.

You need motivated kids, a learning centered environment, and most of all parents that support that. How much the Super makes has almost nothing to do with that. The best Admins simply support that and allow for teachers to focus on teaching. Money has very little impact on any of it yet it is always the primary thing brought up. BTW, most Supers are all about the money either for themselves or for their empire. I'm very unimpressed with our Super for instance even though he makes huge money. Very little communication to the parents other than getting into politics or the occasional lecture or money ask. We also change Supers every few years so God knows what they spend on those transitions. I just have a very hard time believing they are creating that level of value.

We have an excellent Principal though who runs a tight ship and has a small staff that is clearly focused on supporting teachers and communicates extremely well.

I think part of the issue here though too is when you have such a large gap from what your best teachers make and the Admins it is going to make those teachers all want to be Admins. People like money. It's also going to encourage the creation of more Admins for the same reason. Just not sure how that creates better schools.

Quote:

---

Per pupil education expenditures for students who receive special education services (excluding homebound students) are 1.91 times greater than expenditures for students who receive no special education services. The average expenditure per pupil for students with disabilities (excluding homebound students) was $12,525 compared with $6,556 for the typical regular education student who receives no special education services. The average spending ratio for this group of special education students is 1.91 (=$12,525/$6,556).

---

Quote:

---

Per pupil education expenditures vary by disability category. The per pupil expenditures range from a low of $10,558 for students with specific learning disabilities to a high of $20,095 for students with multiple disabilities. Expenditures for students with specific learning disabilities are 1.6 times the expenditure for a regular education student, whereas expenditures for students with multiple disabilities are 3.1 times higher.

---

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/SEEP5-Total-Expenditures.pdf


And, yes, there are fewer disabled students, but that's only one piece of the puzzle. Add in free and reduced breakfast and lunch, counseling and other services for kids with emotional or other problems, programs for discipline-related issues (you can't just spank the kids anymore, and now some of them are fearless), and so on. There's a lot more expected of public schools than when we were in school.

aggie93 said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

SouthTex99 said:

---

It's cheaper to pay a great superintendent a big salary than a bad superintendent a low salary. Much cheaper.

---

Lol, sure thing. My fav is the Lake Travis guy making over $400k. There is one HS in Lake Travis and he has a Principal. So what exactly does he do that creates so much value?

I mean it's all good I guess but just don't tell me about how teachers are underpaid. The only time I have really heard from our Super in the last year or two is when he was complaining about anything around vouchers or how we needed to give them more money. Pretty clear as to why.

Oh, and my HS spends well below the average for Texas per pupil and the least of the 6 schools in our District yet we dominate in academics and sports and virtually every EC activity. The idea that money creates better schools is such a joke.

---

You are right. People create better schools. And if you want better people, you have to pay better money. Ultimately the ceiling is set by the students and their parents but the floor can most definitely be raised with better people running the district.

No carry on with your regularly scheduled bashing of anything related to public education.

---

Yes, that is why Washington DC and Baltimore spend more than anyone and have such great schools.

There really is no correlation to money spent and quality of schools. Parental participation and the attitude of the students is 100x more important and it has nothing to do with money. You also don't get the best teachers with money. You get the best teachers by creating an environment that they want to work in. That means good students to want to learn and the ability to challenge them. That means taking care of disciplinary issues with students who are troublemakers.

Hey but keep saying we just need to write bigger checks and it will solve all of our problems though, especially for Superinendents that are often just political animals. I'm not saying money has no impact, it absolutely does. It's just that money without the above is usually setting it on fire and benefiting someone besides the students.

Also, school districts can pay people what they want. My only issue actually comes in when you have schools that are on the receiving end of Robin Hood money. If you are getting money from other schools then you should also lose some of your ability to spend it as you wish. Not that that is ever going to happen. Most people have taken very little time to actually understand why schools succeed or fail or they simply don't want to face hard facts because they are often uncomfortable. It's so much easier to "rely on experts" or write a check (especially with someone elses money).

---

I would love to see where I said that because that would be news to me. I agree with everything you said. I also understand that once you get proven leaders in place, you will need to reward them to retain them. The whole issue is so much more complex than just money, however. And accordingly, this whole thread is pointless other than to complain about someone else making more money than you believe they should without a shred of knowledge as to why they are getting paid what they are.

---

This is what you said, And if you want better people, you have to pay better money.

I'm not saying money isn't a factor, of course it is. I just think it is way overemphasized based on what I have seen. Public schools aren't the same as companies and the people that go into education and are successful are not as driven by money as they are other factors. I don't know of any good teacher or principal for instance that would rather make $15k more to work at a terrible school with rowdy kids that don't want to learn.

My son has some incredibly qualified teachers for instance but they are folks that just love teaching, they aren't doing it for the money. For instance he has a Biology teacher with a Master's from Rice and his Physics teacher has a PhD. Both had worked in industry and decided to go into teaching because they wanted to go to a HS that had motivated students that wanted to learn AP level classes and be pushed. If you think they are going to go to a crap school for a few bucks it's just not happening. A lot of them are married and aren't the primary breadwinner in their household. Some just really love to teach and while everyone loves money that isn't what drives them, if it did they could go do many other things.

You need motivated kids, a learning centered environment, and most of all parents that support that. How much the Super makes has almost nothing to do with that. The best Admins simply support that and allow for teachers to focus on teaching. Money has very little impact on any of it yet it is always the primary thing brought up. BTW, most Supers are all about the money either for themselves or for their empire. I'm very unimpressed with our Super for instance even though he makes huge money. Very little communication to the parents other than getting into politics or the occasional lecture or money ask. We also change Supers every few years so God knows what they spend on those transitions. I just have a very hard time believing they are creating that level of value.

We have an excellent Principal though who runs a tight ship and has a small staff that is clearly focused on supporting teachers and communicates extremely well.

I think part of the issue here though too is when you have such a large gap from what your best teachers make and the Admins it is going to make those teachers all want to be Admins. People like money. It's also going to encourage the creation of more Admins for the same reason. Just not sure how that creates better schools.

---

On a case by case basis, if you want to retain or attract good people, you need to pay them. I think across the board there are likely very many cases where a Superintendent is overpaid. But to discount the impact that a Superintendent can have a school district (especially at the 4A and under level) is foolish.

I agree with a huge majority of what you said. Some Superintendents are not worth a darn and others can have a huge impact on their district. The sheer amount of Administrators in every district needs to be slashed. That part is out of control and is a huge money pit. The fact that a 3A school has to have a Director of Food Services (head lunch lady) that makes more than any teacher is proof of that.

91AggieLawyer said:

---

cslifer said:

---

So you want someone to take responsibility as the head of an organization with over 1000 employees, thousands of students and the current political atmosphere for 100-200k?

---

250K would probably be more in line, but the point is that the 1000 employees you speak of mostly make far less than 100K and the thousands of students you speak of are way out of control. The superintendent is often not the actual head of the district but the figurehead who hires his or her friends to the high places and then blames them when things go wrong. (And yes, I've seen this first hand). The school board should take a more activist role here in weeding out the unproductive administrative positions -- all but eliminating non-campus administration altogether except for bare bones.

Take responsibility? Show me one example state wide where the superintendent has actually taken responsibility and we'll talk. In most cases, when they leave one district it is for another higher paying position elsewhere.

---

This is a great point. The board's responsibility is really to hold the superintendent accountable. The superintendent is responsible for the actual running of the district. The board does have a lot of sway, but there's only so much the board can do if the superintendent is intent on keeping their buddies, for example. Fire three or four superintendents in 10 years, then suddenly applicants dry up.

Cutting non-campus administration to bare bones sounds good, but really what needs to happen in many cases is a more strategic pruning. Communications is prime example. That sounds like an easy place to make a bunch of cuts, but that's if you don't know what they do. There is probably some dead wood, but what happens a lot is that services get reduced or cut (the website isn't updated, parent communication is reduced, nobody is there to help principals with crisis communication when there's an emergency on campus, the TV station is about to run a negative story and you want the district's statement out there, the superintendent needs a slide show for a principal meeting, etc.). Then those positions start to creep back. I'd say most chiefs know who the dead wood is, but for political and other reasons they can't just get rid of it.

BBRex said:

---

Quote:

---

Per pupil education expenditures for students who receive special education services (excluding homebound students) are 1.91 times greater than expenditures for students who receive no special education services. The average expenditure per pupil for students with disabilities (excluding homebound students) was $12,525 compared with $6,556 for the typical regular education student who receives no special education services. The average spending ratio for this group of special education students is 1.91 (=$12,525/$6,556).

---

Quote:

---

Per pupil education expenditures vary by disability category. The per pupil expenditures range from a low of $10,558 for students with specific learning disabilities to a high of $20,095 for students with multiple disabilities. Expenditures for students with specific learning disabilities are 1.6 times the expenditure for a regular education student, whereas expenditures for students with multiple disabilities are 3.1 times higher.

---

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/SEEP5-Total-Expenditures.pdf


And, yes, there are fewer disabled students, but that's only one piece of the puzzle. Add in free and reduced breakfast and lunch, counseling and other services for kids with emotional or other problems, programs for discipline-related issues (you can't just spank the kids anymore, and now some of them are fearless), and so on. There's a lot more expected of public schools than when we were in school.

---

Things we have now that we didn't have in the 80s

-2 counselors per campus
-Assistant Principal at the elementary level
-Curriculum director (Assistant Superintendent)
-Registrar
-Resource officer (Cop w/a vechicle)
-Director of Technology
-Assistant Director of Technology

BBRex said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

cslifer said:

---

So you want someone to take responsibility as the head of an organization with over 1000 employees, thousands of students and the current political atmosphere for 100-200k?

---

250K would probably be more in line, but the point is that the 1000 employees you speak of mostly make far less than 100K and the thousands of students you speak of are way out of control. The superintendent is often not the actual head of the district but the figurehead who hires his or her friends to the high places and then blames them when things go wrong. (And yes, I've seen this first hand). The school board should take a more activist role here in weeding out the unproductive administrative positions -- all but eliminating non-campus administration altogether except for bare bones.

Take responsibility? Show me one example state wide where the superintendent has actually taken responsibility and we'll talk. In most cases, when they leave one district it is for another higher paying position elsewhere.

---

This is a great point. The board's responsibility is really to hold the superintendent accountable. The superintendent is responsible for the actual running of the district. The board does have a lot of sway, but there's only so much the board can do if the superintendent is intent on keeping their buddies, for example. Fire three or four superintendents in 10 years, then suddenly applicants dry up.

Cutting non-campus administration to bare bones sounds good, but really what needs to happen in many cases is a more strategic pruning. Communications is prime example. That sounds like an easy place to make a bunch of cuts, but that's if you don't know what they do. There is probably some dead wood, but what happens a lot is that services get reduced or cut (the website isn't updated, parent communication is reduced, nobody is there to help principals with crisis communication when there's an emergency on campus, the TV station is about to run a negative story and you want the district's statement out there, the superintendent needs a slide show for a principal meeting, etc.). Then those positions start to creep back. I'd say most chiefs know who the dead wood is, but for political and other reasons they can't just get rid of it.

---

What the hell happened to the letter pinned to the kids shirt?

Parent communication is the dumbest complaint I ever hear. Does no one talk to their kid anymore?

Aggie95 said:

---

Quote:

---

Wowzers. I guess the real money in education is at the top.

---

Always been that way. Salaries for principals is pretty high as well. I can somewhat understand that as they are on the front lines and handling issues on school grounds. I'm sorry, but Superintendents are glorified spokespeople and have very little impact on day to day function and success of a school system. Those salaries should probably be closer to the $150k-$200k for the top end.

---

You have no idea the headache principals can cause.

Owlagdad said:

---

BBRex said:

---

Quote:

---

In 1970, U.S. schools educated only one in five children with disabilities, and many states had laws excluding certain students, including children who were deaf, blind, emotionally disturbed, or had an intellectual disability.

Since the passage of EHA in 1975, significant progress has been made toward meeting major national goals for developing and implementing effective programs and services for early intervention, special education, and related services. The U.S. has progressed from excluding nearly 1.8 million children with disabilities from public schools prior to EHA implementation to providing more than 8 million children with disabilities with special education and related services designed to meet their individual needs in the 2022-23 school year.

In 2022-23, more than 66% of children with disabilities were in general education classrooms 80% or more of their school day (IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection), and early intervention services were provided to more than 441,000 infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families (IDEA Part C Child Count and Settings).

---

https://sites.ed.gov/idea/IDEA-History

---

Nothing like the "least restrictive environment" where Mom demands from the ARD committee that her kid who functions like a 6 month old be put in Physics class because said child may soak up learning and when kid snaps out of it ,then kid is college ready. Meanwhile your kid has to listen to the gurgling and the cooing of kids full time aid during the lecture.

---

TBF, that's been going on for years.

No I don't care about test scores if it grades how many pronouns a kid knows.

Quote:

---

It's cheaper to pay a great superintendent a big salary than a bad superintendent a low salary. Much cheaper.

---

Then do not hire/retain bad superintendents and pay the great ones less. If these were private schools, I would say, "I am happy for those SIs", but these are public officials. Govt. school should be last resort for areas where private school does not exist.

You do realize as the taxable values of properties go up, the local school district gets no additional revenue right? They get a basic allotment, set by the state. Same dollar as 2019. We all pay more taxes each year but the schools see none of the increase. All state controlled.

Looks like Dr Jenny got her compensation "corrected" from $700K+ on the website. LOL

cslifer said:

---

So you want someone to take responsibility as the head of an organization with over 1000 employees, thousands of students and the current political atmosphere for 100-200k?

---

A $200,000 superintendent salary comes with a retirement annuity worth roughly $3.3 million and a retirement age of 57. Every year of service thereafter adds over $100,000 to that annuity.

A $250,000 superintendent salary comes with a retirement annuity worth over $4.1 million and a retirement age of 57. Every year of service thereafter adds over $150,000 to the annuity.

A $300,000 superintendent salary comes with a retirement annuity worth over $4.95 million and a retirement age of 57. Every year of service thereafter adds over $200,000 to the annuity.

A $300,000 superintendent with 25 years of overall service in the ISD, not as super, but since their first job, will retire with a $204,600 pension for life without having saved a dime.

You don't get into admin for the money during the job, you get into admin for the money after the job, with 30 years of comfort in front of you.

valvemonkey91 said:

---

I live in Barber Hill independent school district. We are very happy with the way Dr. Poole runs things. Barbers Hill excels in every measurable category they use to evaluate public schools. About four or five years ago, we had six national merit scholarship finalists in the same class. We have been UIL champs for 27yrs in a row. We are very competitive in Athletics and the arts (band and stage). We have Christmas concerts where our choir sings Christian songs; Mary did you Know, Go tell it on the mountain, etc. it is also open to alumni (as far back as 1977 most recently) to come and participate in thr show including former choir teachers and directors.

Yes, we are in the shadows of petrochemicals but our wealth comes from the tax abatements granted to the multi million dollar industrial warehouses in the district. Through 313 agreements, Poole and his team have amassed over $130MM in the BH Education Foundation and I dare say we are the only school in Texas that has money in the bank. We pay first year teachers around $70K.
Dr. Poole has a PhD from Texas A&M in mathematics and was raised by two public school teachers The only gripe that some people have about Dr. Poole in our district is his steadfast defiance against the encroachment of left-wing social issues. Most of these people that are upset are people that have moved into the district from a more liberal area and do not like our Christian conservative ways. . He Is publicly against the social causes such as th recent bathroom stuff , and relaxed dress codes of long hair and makeup on boys . It seems to be working and he has the overwhelming support of the community.

---

HELL YAH LETSSSS FUCCCCKIN GOOOOO!

how to control society 101

Exactly. And I-10 runs East and West. Anybody there that doesn't like it can pick a direction, Houston or Beaumont public schools.

Mas89 said:

---

Exactly. And I-10 runs East and West. Anybody there that doesn't like it can pick a direction, Houston or Beaumont public schools.

---

AMEN! That's what we say all the time! It is an easy transition from Highway 6 runs both ways.

cevans_40 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

SouthTex99 said:

---

It's cheaper to pay a great superintendent a big salary than a bad superintendent a low salary. Much cheaper.

---

Lol, sure thing. My fav is the Lake Travis guy making over $400k. There is one HS in Lake Travis and he has a Principal. So what exactly does he do that creates so much value?

I mean it's all good I guess but just don't tell me about how teachers are underpaid. The only time I have really heard from our Super in the last year or two is when he was complaining about anything around vouchers or how we needed to give them more money. Pretty clear as to why.

Oh, and my HS spends well below the average for Texas per pupil and the least of the 6 schools in our District yet we dominate in academics and sports and virtually every EC activity. The idea that money creates better schools is such a joke.

---

You are right. People create better schools. And if you want better people, you have to pay better money. Ultimately the ceiling is set by the students and their parents but the floor can most definitely be raised with better people running the district.

No carry on with your regularly scheduled bashing of anything related to public education.

---

Yes, that is why Washington DC and Baltimore spend more than anyone and have such great schools.

There really is no correlation to money spent and quality of schools. Parental participation and the attitude of the students is 100x more important and it has nothing to do with money. You also don't get the best teachers with money. You get the best teachers by creating an environment that they want to work in. That means good students to want to learn and the ability to challenge them. That means taking care of disciplinary issues with students who are troublemakers.

Hey but keep saying we just need to write bigger checks and it will solve all of our problems though, especially for Superinendents that are often just political animals. I'm not saying money has no impact, it absolutely does. It's just that money without the above is usually setting it on fire and benefiting someone besides the students.

Also, school districts can pay people what they want. My only issue actually comes in when you have schools that are on the receiving end of Robin Hood money. If you are getting money from other schools then you should also lose some of your ability to spend it as you wish. Not that that is ever going to happen. Most people have taken very little time to actually understand why schools succeed or fail or they simply don't want to face hard facts because they are often uncomfortable. It's so much easier to "rely on experts" or write a check (especially with someone elses money).

---

I would love to see where I said that because that would be news to me. I agree with everything you said. I also understand that once you get proven leaders in place, you will need to reward them to retain them. The whole issue is so much more complex than just money, however. And accordingly, this whole thread is pointless other than to complain about someone else making more money than you believe they should without a shred of knowledge as to why they are getting paid what they are.

---

This is what you said, And if you want better people, you have to pay better money.

I'm not saying money isn't a factor, of course it is. I just think it is way overemphasized based on what I have seen. Public schools aren't the same as companies and the people that go into education and are successful are not as driven by money as they are other factors. I don't know of any good teacher or principal for instance that would rather make $15k more to work at a terrible school with rowdy kids that don't want to learn.

My son has some incredibly qualified teachers for instance but they are folks that just love teaching, they aren't doing it for the money. For instance he has a Biology teacher with a Master's from Rice and his Physics teacher has a PhD. Both had worked in industry and decided to go into teaching because they wanted to go to a HS that had motivated students that wanted to learn AP level classes and be pushed. If you think they are going to go to a crap school for a few bucks it's just not happening. A lot of them are married and aren't the primary breadwinner in their household. Some just really love to teach and while everyone loves money that isn't what drives them, if it did they could go do many other things.

You need motivated kids, a learning centered environment, and most of all parents that support that. How much the Super makes has almost nothing to do with that. The best Admins simply support that and allow for teachers to focus on teaching. Money has very little impact on any of it yet it is always the primary thing brought up. BTW, most Supers are all about the money either for themselves or for their empire. I'm very unimpressed with our Super for instance even though he makes huge money. Very little communication to the parents other than getting into politics or the occasional lecture or money ask. We also change Supers every few years so God knows what they spend on those transitions. I just have a very hard time believing they are creating that level of value.

We have an excellent Principal though who runs a tight ship and has a small staff that is clearly focused on supporting teachers and communicates extremely well.

I think part of the issue here though too is when you have such a large gap from what your best teachers make and the Admins it is going to make those teachers all want to be Admins. People like money. It's also going to encourage the creation of more Admins for the same reason. Just not sure how that creates better schools.

---

On a case by case basis, if you want to retain or attract good people, you need to pay them. I think across the board there are likely very many cases where a Superintendent is overpaid. But to discount the impact that a Superintendent can have a school district (especially at the 4A and under level) is foolish.

I agree with a huge majority of what you said. Some Superintendents are not worth a darn and others can have a huge impact on their district. The sheer amount of Administrators in every district needs to be slashed. That part is out of control and is a huge money pit. The fact that a 3A school has to have a Director of Food Services (head lunch lady) that makes more than any teacher is proof of that.

---

No doubt there are good Supers that make an impact. Just a LOT of waste.

My ISD has a Super. His Chief of Staff. A Chief Academic Officer. Chief Communications Officer. Chief of Schools. Chief of Educational Access. Then 4 "Area Superintendents". I'm guessing all of them make heavy 6 figures and that's all completely separate from the actual Schools themselves and their Admins. I'm sure some are good at their jobs too. I just tire of hearing how they always want more money but I see so little of it actually go to my son's school because we have the audacity of being successful and the source of most of the revenue. The parents pick up the slack and make it great and that attracts great teachers who want to teach motivated students. I'm sure the Supers think it is their brilliance that makes it all happen though, they sure act like it.