Bearpitbull 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?

---

Agree. Classic example of a double standard and the death of true conservatism. Show me another organization with that many employees that gets paid less. I suspect market forces demand it to get a non moron. People want to ***** about the weirdest things.

---

Comparing a CEO of a company to a superintendent is absurd.

Exactly. My old classmate was a coach, teacher, assistant principal, principal, and then assistant superintendent for 6 or so years at a large 6A school before finally applying for superintendent at a 5A. He knew and dreaded what he was getting into. His retirement was based on his last years spent as superintendent so it was a career decision.

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.

Page 3...

If the floor is raised by hiring better people and more money equates to better people in charge then it should stand to reason that there would be a strong correlation between superintendent pay and school academic success. There is a very poor correlation between those two across the state as a whole. There is a far stronger correlation between a district's ability to pay more and super pay than anything else I have seen.

Logos Stick said:

---

Bearpitbull 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?

---

Agree. Classic example of a double standard and the death of true conservatism. Show me another organization with that many employees that gets paid less. I suspect market forces demand it to get a non moron. People want to ***** about the weirdest things.

---

Comparing a CEO of a company to a superintendent is absurd.

---

Lol this. Aside from almost all of them being cowards who turn a blind eye to the out of control woke/DEI BS being pushed, with many actually being left winged advocates, they are nothing alike.

A lot of this goes back to service. So many on here will **** on politics, public schools, and other institutions that are "being overrun by liberals" but they won't do anything to take them back because it's uncomfortable and requires some sacrifice. It's amazing how so many will extoll the many virtues of the Founding Fathers but have no interest in actually having the same virtues.

They're as responsible for the state of this country as anyone else.

You're correct. The school board hires and fires the superintendent and sets the salary. The problem with inner city schools and woke/ dei leaders reflects the school board majority.

Fenrir said:

---

If the floor is raised by hiring better people and more money equates to better people in charge then it should stand to reason that there would be a strong correlation between superintendent pay and school academic success. There is a very poor correlation between those two across the state as a whole. There is a far stronger correlation between a district's ability to pay more and super pay than anything else I have seen.

---

Reading comprehension fail (likely due to your poor public education).

The ceiling in many districts are set lower due to their students and parents. You are asking people to perform miracles on a large scale. Some things are simply impossible, like getting you to objectively look at the system.

Glad for the ad hom. Really drives home your very cogent point.

As to your argument, it's not supported. If the floor was raised by good people consistently and more money equated to good people consistently the floor would get raised as you claim. That there is little correlation between super pay and district success level indicates that there is a flaw somewhere in this claim.

Fenrir said:

---

Glad for the ad hom. Really drives home your very cogent point.

As to your argument, it's not supported. If the floor was raised by good people consistently and more money equated to good people consistently the floor would get raised as you claim. That there is little correlation between super pay and district success level indicates that there is a flaw somewhere in this claim.

---

Again, you can't comprehend the actual issue. Not shocked.

Mas89 said:

---

You're correct. The school board hires and fires the superintendent and sets the salary. The problem with inner city schools and woke/ dei leaders reflects the school board majority.

---

It's a reflection of apathy and the ease of online virtue signaling. Thankfully some people are finally waking up and realizing that you actually have to participate, and possibly make some sacrifices, for a democratic institution to work.

But that's hard and gets in the way of the things that I want to do.

I absolutely comprehend that parent and students set the ceiling. In fact the correlation between family success is one of the single highest factors in school and student success. On the other hand, your inability to understand that your argument that good admin/staff can raise the floor and that more money equates to better admin/staff is not supported by a comparison between super pay and school success is certainly interesting though given your propensity to ad hom about others' intelligence and education.

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Eso si, Que es said:

---

[...]

---

The tax rate dropped while the taxable base rose. They still got their same piece of the taxpayer pie that they always have. So whatever argument you are trying to make, make sure and include the part where taxpayers are increasingly paying their ever increasing salaries while taxpayer salaries are stagnating and kids aren't performing any better.

---

There's a former democrat state rep who was pretty moderate especially on teacher salaries. He once asked a teachers' lobbyist group about this. The question was, "Are you saying that if we pay teachers more, we'll get better teachers than the ones we have, or are you saying that if we pay them more they'll work harder and do a better job?" He lost his job to a more progressive democrat.

Good teachers are very important, but a school with bad parents can't really be fixed. Pay teachers everything in the world and they can't fix what happened the five years before that kid started school, much less the 2/3 of a day the kid doesn't spend at school.

Fenrir said:

---

I absolutely comprehend that parent and students set the ceiling. In fact the correlation between family success is one of the single highest factors in school and student success. On the other hand, your inability to understand that your argument that good admin/staff can raise the floor and that more money equates to better admin/staff is not supported by a comparison between super pay and school success is certainly interesting though given your propensity to ad hom about others' intelligence and education.

---

Cry more.

You keep repeating the same stat over and over as if their is any correlation to be had. That's why I keep ignoring it. Tell me what happens to the test scores when a district changes leadership. That's all that really matters at the end of the day. What does the superintendent do for his/her specific district? If you want a successful and proven superintendent who has systems in place that work to better academic performance, it is going to come at a cost. Trying to judge a complex situation by a single metric (superintendent salary) is one of most absurd arguments I have ever seen.

cevans_40 said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

I absolutely comprehend that parent and students set the ceiling. In fact the correlation between family success is one of the single highest factors in school and student success. On the other hand, your inability to understand that your argument that good admin/staff can raise the floor and that more money equates to better admin/staff is not supported by a comparison between super pay and school success is certainly interesting though given your propensity to ad hom about others' intelligence and education.

---

Cry more.

You keep repeating the same stat over and over as if their is any correlation to be had. That's why I keep ignoring it. Tell me what happens to the test scores when a district changes leadership. That's all that really matters at the end of the day. What does the superintendent do for his/her specific district? If you want a successful and proven superintendent who has systems in place that work to better academic performance, it is going to come at a cost. Trying to judge a complex situation by a single metric (superintendent salary) is one of most absurd arguments I have ever seen.

---

And somehow you're missing the point that if this were generally true there would be a stronger correlation between super pay and school performance. It's certainly not the only comparison I have done but you keep going back to the argument that you need to pay more for a successful super. The reality is that there is almost zero correlation across a large population between super pay and school district performance across the state of Texas. Are there individual supers that are going to be highly successful and can make a place better? I'm quite sure that's the case, there are always going to be people that make situations better and they should be paid commensurately. However me saying that there should be a stronger correlation doesn't mean it should be 1:1, it just means that there is more than the almost absolute zero correlation that currently exists. What the results of testing actually show is that school districts that succeed generally have a community and families that are successful themselves and push their kids to succeed. This largely happens regardless of whether or not the super is paid $150k or $400k.

Fenrir said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

I absolutely comprehend that parent and students set the ceiling. In fact the correlation between family success is one of the single highest factors in school and student success. On the other hand, your inability to understand that your argument that good admin/staff can raise the floor and that more money equates to better admin/staff is not supported by a comparison between super pay and school success is certainly interesting though given your propensity to ad hom about others' intelligence and education.

---

Cry more.

You keep repeating the same stat over and over as if their is any correlation to be had. That's why I keep ignoring it. Tell me what happens to the test scores when a district changes leadership. That's all that really matters at the end of the day. What does the superintendent do for his/her specific district? If you want a successful and proven superintendent who has systems in place that work to better academic performance, it is going to come at a cost. Trying to judge a complex situation by a single metric (superintendent salary) is one of most absurd arguments I have ever seen.

---

And somehow you're missing the point that if this were generally true there would be a stronger correlation between super pay and school performance. It's certainly not the only comparison I have done but you keep going back to the argument that you need to pay more for a successful super. The reality is that there is almost zero correlation across a large population between super pay and school district performance across the state of Texas. Are there individual supers that are going to be highly successful and can make a place better? I'm quite sure that's the case, there are always going to be people that make situations better and they should be paid commensurately. However me saying that there should be a stronger correlation doesn't mean it should be 1:1, it just means that there is more than the almost absolute zero correlation that currently exists. What the results of testing actually show is that school districts that succeed generally have a community and families that are successful themselves and push their kids to succeed. This largely happens regardless of whether or not the super is paid $150k or $400k.

---

Put a poor superintendent in a good district and watch things go south. Put a good superintendent in a poor district and things will get incrementally better.

The stat you keep parroting is beyond useless.

But "zero correlation" and all.

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).

Again, the tax rate dropped BECAUSE tax valuations rose. Each jurisdiction can only take in 3% more revenue on the existing tax base than the previous year. If valuations rise 10%, the tax rate must come down so that they don't increase overall revenue from taxes more than 3%. But make no mistake, they get their 3%. Their revenue is still growing.

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.

But it's all about the children?

Riiiiight.

Separately.... about once a week I drive by a $70,000,000+ high school football stadium with acres of concrete for parking (the yearly maintenance costs have to be huge)... all on prime real estate not far from a major toll road.

Trajan88 said:

---

But it's all about the children?

Riiiiight.

Separately.... about once a week I drive by a $70,000,000+ high school football stadium with acres of concrete for parking (the yearly maintenance costs have to be huge)... all on prime real estate not far from a major toll road.

---

Hey now. Let's not get out of hand in our criticism here.

Democracy can be difficult sometimes.

Just a couple of thoughts:

First, I get Fenrir's point about the absence of correlation, but I'd say that ultimately a superintendent can't change what happens at home. A good superintendent can make processes run better, improve the climate and culture of the district for employees, and keep looking for ways to improve student performance. But there are two huge barriers:

1. parents who don't care and expect the schools to raise their kids (or who flat don't care about their kids at all or, sadly, hate their kids).

2. The lack of qualified teachers. The lack of respect for teachers means that very few college students are looking to become teachers, and current teachers (old and new) are leaving the profession in droves. A new trend is to take anyone with a college degree and try to get them certified while they are teaching. Many of the candidates are marginal to begin with, and the odds of them completing certification while working a difficult full-time job aren't very good. But they are bodies to fill vacancies with.

The bottom line here is that even top-notch superintendents face real barriers to success.

Second, there are actually a quite a few superintendent jobs that go unfilled, particularly in rural areas. A superintendent candidate has to get a superintendent certification before they can apply for the job. A lot of rural districts (particularly in districts that are hours away from urban centers) find they are having to offer higher than expected salaries to lure candidates.

I don't mind the high salaries I mind not having appropriate success criteria in place to measure performance.

Gaw617 said:

---

I don't mind the high salaries I mind not having appropriate success criteria in place to measure performance.

---

There are plenty of ways to measure performance. Financials, test scores, attendance, discipline records.....


Just impossible to compare across a broad spectrum. Its like trying to compare the manager of a department store in an affluent area versus one in an inner-city solely based on profit.

Robinhood at work for some of these.

Quote:

---

test scores

---

test scores versus money spent on public education over time:

BBRex said:

---

Just a couple of thoughts:

First, I get Fenrir's point about the absence of correlation, but I'd say that ultimately a superintendent can't change what happens at home. A good superintendent can make processes run better, improve the climate and culture of the district for employees, and keep looking for ways to improve student performance. But there are two huge barriers:

---

My belief is that the bolded is the driving factor in school and student success for better and for worse, much more so than any other variable I've seen.

Logos Stick said:

---

Quote:

---

test scores

---

test scores versus money spent on public education over time:

---

I bet you could make a graph showing the cost of services that schools are expected to provide, particularly in special education, since 1970, and it would look pretty much the same.

BBRex said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Quote:

---

test scores

---

test scores versus money spent on public education over time:

---

I bet you could make a graph showing the cost of services that schools are expected to provide, particularly in special education, since 1970, and it would look pretty much the same.

---

I bet you can't because that chart is adjusted for inflation!

The cost of public school has risen well above the inflation rate and the results are pathetic!

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

Chambers County tax payers must have hired a real genius.

Good superintendents are few and far between. Served on a school board for a decade and it's all about cronyism.

Not impressed. As soon as one or two board members that hired them leave they jump ship. They "lost their board". Here's an idea - put in the work to explain and defend your policies. I get that they want the easiest job poosbile with no resistance oe push back. Hell, we all want that but it doesn't happen all the time.

Superintendents are the most thin skinned narcissistic lot in the school systems.

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.