http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/griffin/NEWS9/PDF/1212/SP.pdf

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/griffin/NEWS9/PDF/1212/SP.pdf

Is there any particular reason that you posted that? I don't see anything too interesting or surprising there.

So the superintendent in Calumet gets 100,000 a year?

No wonder they are in trouble.

So the superintendent in Calumet gets 100,000 a year?

No wonder they are in trouble.

Exhibit 1 for consolidation

It seems to me there are a.) too many school districts; and b.) some pay levels appear inordinately high.

So the superintendent in Calumet gets 100,000 a year?

No wonder they are in trouble.

Let's be a little open-minded and balanced here, for a moment:
Have you ever been to Calumet? Would you live there for less than $100K?
And, if you opted NOT to actually live there, what about your commuting expenses?

=)

So the superintendent in Calumet gets 100,000 a year?

No wonder they are in trouble.

The Calumet superintendent also serves as the principal. Also in today's world a 100K a year isn't a fat cat salary. It's firmly middle class.

The Calumet superintendent also serves as the principal. Also in today's world a 100K a year isn't a fat cat salary. It's firmly middle class.

Well Calumet is far from "todays world" as are 80% of the listings on the page. Too many districts and complete waste of money.

So wait... ideological consistency time here.

Do we prefer schools with local control and more direct accountability of school board officials?

Do we want to force communities who don't want to consolidate to do so?

Well something that would help a LOT out there in the rural areas would be a consolidation to the county level. It works well for a great number of states. I think it actually would be good in the urban areas too, but there's no way anyone would allow it to happen. That's not to say it wouldn't be extremely difficult to get it passed in rural areas too, but they would be able to see immediate benefit from it better than already large urban areas.

So what does that mean?
*It means a single school board and superintendent and that level admin functions for the entire county.
*That superintendent is going to make more and there may be a few extra layers of management that don't exist today. But you'll be removing so many duplicates and getting rid of a LOT of corrupt small-town "good ole boy" situations. Corruption happens at all size levels, but when the whole thing is more formalized, it's a bit more difficult to sneak it by.
*Purchasing power is VASTLY improved. The economy of scale that a county has over a city would mean computers/books/busses/etc. all can be purchased at a lower cost.

What does that not have to mean?
*That every town loses their high school or whatever. Although consolidating some of these schools really SHOULD be part of it. 20 class A high schools isn't a good situation in comparison to half as many that are twice the size. There is a LOT to consider in each situation so I wont make any blanket statement on that one.
*That each town loses control. To some level, that can be true, but only as far as it is willingly given up. By making the move to county base, you do by definition remove local control. But anyone can run for the board and vote on the elections. You never lose your voice....you vote. In larger districts, it's actually easier to get rid of board members because when someone angers the voter base, they are more likely to turn out for the next election than the supports. Anger tends to light a fire under people's voting butts. In small towns, it can be incredibly difficult to get rid of someone because everyone knows everyone and it can be tricky. Consolidation actually makes the voter's voice MORE powerful...at least IMO.

This is something that's been a topic of discussion for decades and we all come up with our ideas and then nothing happens. Nothing will happen unless the legislature forces the issue...and that's not going to happen. Remember that point about angering the constituency? Well good luck getting the small town representatives to vote to consolidate their town's schools with the next town over.

Exhibit 1 for consolidation

Eliminate half of the school superintendents for a savings of only roughly $25,000,000. Not much of a savings compared to the size of the total state school budget, which is several billion. My guess, though, when administrative consolidation is done only using small neighboring school districts, the savings might look more impressive for the small schools.

Eliminate half of the school superintendents for a savings of only roughly $25,000,000. Not much of a savings compared to the size of the total state school budget, which is several billion. My guess, though, when administrative consolidation is done only using small neighboring school districts, the savings might look more impressive for the small schools.

Doesn't matter, this is the type of thinking that will never help reduce debit and/or find money to put to use where we need it. You can't think "oh that's just a drop in the bucket, it won't matter." Every single dollar counts, whether it's $25,000 or $25,000,000.

Doesn't matter, this is the type of thinking that will never help reduce debit and/or find money to put to use where we need it. You can't think "oh that's just a drop in the bucket, it won't matter." Every single dollar counts, whether it's $25,000 or $25,000,000.

I agree, $25 million is still $25 million that may be better used for needed things (book, teachers etc)