The Observation Deck

Heard a commercial by Blackwell on schools saying that he planned to cap administrative spending at 35%. With all they savings, he planned to keep taxes the same hire teachers and buy computers. Seems reasonable.

My questions are:

1) Does Lakewood spend more than 35% of the school budget on administration?

2) Would this plan help or hurt Lakewood?

3) Is this because of unfunded mandates?

4) Is Mr. Blackwell's plan based in reality?

I've heard this commercial a number of times and it plays well. So I want to know the truth of it.

..

It would seem as though this plan could be relabeled "TEL lite". It works from an assumption that administrative budgets are inflated (and perhaps they are), places a cap on those budgets which may or may not be related to the reality of an individual school system, and then comes up with a figure for "savings" that will be directed elsewhere. I'm not sure of the percentage of "administrative" expenses in Lakewood. Perhaps someone from the board could give us that information. Without numbers, it would be impossible to determine if, and to what extent, there would be administrative cuts, and only then could we determine the effect of those cuts on the ability of the schools to function. We should also keep in mind that there are a number of areas in which "school administrative" expenses are by virtue of the school handling programs and services that are not technically, educational.

I would much rather that each district be given the flexibility (as it has now) to determine where funds should be allocated based on specific needs and programs, as proponded by the board, who answers to the voters, then having some artificial ceiling mandated by Columbus.

Jeff

I am curious. I'm not a Blackwell supporter, but the message does play well.

I really would like to know from someone who knows - if Lakewood is spending more than 35% on administration and if so how much more and what is entailed in it.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be spending that much on it - because I don't know why. But I would like to know where Blackwell is coming from on this issue.

Dr.Rakowsky once presented the idea that American Schools went downhill when they introduced social workers into the mix. Since he is the wisest college professor I have met this idea has carried a lot of weight with me.

Regardless of how schools got "broken", it seems necessary that social worker-type activities may be important to "fix" present shortcomings in schools, or make up for other new shortcomings in society. How else are kids going to learn to pull up their pants and not say words like "#*#$" and "#@**a" too often in public?

But yeah, Blackwell's idea doesn't really address any problem with budgets and effectiveness. "Administration is over here and the class rooms are over here": what does that mean? I guess we can save a lot of bread by not requiring teachers to get Master's Degrees any longer. Is that an Administrative Expense?

You know, I'm surprised that no one has been able to answer this question. I know there are very active school people that post here. On another site, the superintendent comes on and answers questions periodically.

What percent of the dollars are spent on administration? Is it 35%? higher? lower? If it is higher - which is what Blackwell is implying why?

I want to be able to refute or at least explain this. Thanks!

According to Cleveland magazine, Lakewood spends about 9% of its budget on administration, far lower than most districts.

Of course, what is administration? Is it any non-instructional expense? Or just, what we think of as "office staff"? Are school buses and drivers "administration"? Must be, for Lakewood to be that much lower than other districts.

Then again, if physical plant costs count as administration, Lakewood should be higher, because it has so many small buidlings. Or had them.

Blackwell's ads work because they feed into the public perception of governmental offices full of politically-connected freeloaders filing their nails on the taxpayers' dime. I know that's the case in some districts, but I doubt if you'll find much nail-filing going on in Lakewood.

As for "social workers", in some cases, that's where the unfunded mandates come in.

What is this "social worker" concern? I am not a social worker but I play one in my day to day life (we can't be CALLED "social workers" because it is a technicaly term, even if we do social work. Gads, Lewis Carrol is rolling in his grave!). My daughter is in second grade at Hayes and I have yet to see or encounter a social worker, even when we kind of got involved in another child's parental concerns (long, not happy story). All the work was done by the principal and school nurse. Just wondering.

That said, what school district spends 35% on administrative costs??? 35 cents on every dollar spend a student goes to a principal or office staff? I find that highly unlikely. I noticed a plan in the paper today that Blackwell is proposing to do an Amendment for school funding. I didn't get to finish it (stupid short lunch) but he basically said the burden would be removed from property tax but, as with most politicians, fails to say where the rest of the money will come from.

Phil

I think the real meat of Blackwell's idea comes from his thrust towards outsourcing duties and responsibilities otherwise maintained by a great many boards. In one account I read, part of the savings would be realized from contracting out food service, transportation, cleaning....So I guess if you can't privatize public education through vouchers, you can you can attack from the other direction by the privatization of the pieces/parts that are the components of the system.

Jeff

Jeff, thanks for the response. I thought a lot of school boards already outsource the kinds of services you noted? I think a school board should have the freedom to determine how best to do those services and if they can be done for better price but equal or better quality, I am all in favor of outsourcing lunchroom food or cleaning services. It makes a lot of sense. I guess it wouldn't make a lot of sense for Schools in the middle of huge corn fields that might not access to more reasonably priced food service vendors but it does in urban environments where competition for such services can benefit everyone. But to legislate that seems a waste of time. There is enough meddling by the State and Federal officials in our local schools.

Jeff,

I do believe that you are on the right track. After reading the preview of the debate today, I went to Blackwell's web site and reviewed his plan.

.http://www.kenblackwell.com/OnTheIssues/Default.aspx?Section=21

[quote]We need to stop depending on skyrocketing property taxes to fund schools and rely more on the general revenue fund.

Reform is needed.

In an effort to improve Ohio schools’ classroom performance, Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell joined First Class Education National Advisory Chair Patrick Byrne in announcing the start of an Ohio effort to enact what’s been called “The 65 Cent Solution.â€Â

Look. Our officials can blab all day long about their education proposals, but NONE of them are confronting the fact that our school funding system has been declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL four times already. Fixing an ILLEGAL system is not the solution. We need to fix school funding. Michigan did it. They added a 1% tax on income that went straight to schools and was divided on a strictly per-pupil basis. We are one of the few backwards states that funds via property taxes left in America. When are these people going to listen to our Ohio Supreme Court? Until they do, nothing they say will help.

Last I heard more is spent per pupil in Cleveland than in Westlake, Bay Village, Rocky River, and most great school districts that presumeably help drive up property values. The difference is more of that funding comes from the state in Cleveland, whereas the others are more locally funded.

This makes me wonder what sentiments motivated the judges who found the way we fund education "Unconstitutional".

But yeah, Property Taxes are a convuluted hassle. There ought to be no need to reassess property values: tax it by what the last purchaser paid for it, if at all.