Where is the fat in private schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One the one hand the cost of tuition is exorbitant and the cost of building maintenance and teachers salaries is much lower.

Who is responsible for the excess costs?

My guess is that with more reasonable administrative salaries and more conservative financial aid policies the Tuition could be lowered by 20 percent.

Any other ideas about where the fat is coming from?

Did the private schools ask you for help with their budgets?

They are private. They can do whatever they want.

You don’t get to tell them how to manage their money.

Jesus who are you people? As high paying consumers we absolutely have input as to how schools manage their money as does the board. You are part of the problem.

Oh please, you're not on the board.
And consumers vote with their feet: if you think it's overpriced, go elsewhere. You don't get to decide that a product other people willingly pay for is fat that should be cut.
- DP

Exactly.

Not really. You can also have the right to complain to the service provider, and ensure the quality of the service a customer deserves. First you complain, and if there is no improvement you leave. Why this is true for your cable company but not for a school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given how much better kept and better run private schools seem to be, with smaller class sizes, I think the administrative salaries are justifiable.

But should they be paid considerably more than the teachers, who are the ones directly doing the work?

If a school had to do without its administrators or its teachers for a week, which would be the more noticeable absence? Doesn’t that speak to the value of their jobs?

If the teachers left for a week, the administrators would hire new ones. Yes, I would like to see teachers be paid more. No, I don’t have a problem with administrators being paid well.

No, the school would shut down without its teachers. The school can function without its administrators.

You pay for instruction, which is provided by teachers.

The whole question is silly. Clearly either would be a crisis. But administrators would go find the teachers that want to work. Teachers would have no motivation to hire administrators initially, until something got bad and they realized they were in over their heads with running a school. Then… they’d promote from within. The new leaders would claim much larger salaries and hire new teachers to replace themselves. Back to where we started.

Nope. It’s easier to find administrators than teachers. You know how many teachers have their admin degrees, even in private schools? There are tons of teachers looking to jump to admin to get out of the classroom. Meanwhile, there’s a teacher shortage.

And the best run school I’ve ever worked for had teachers at the helm. Every administrator was a teacher and still kept a foot in the classroom. If only ALL schools operated that way.

And at that “best run school” all the administrators were being paid below market rate because they felt obligated to not earn more than the teachers?

They were paid about 15% more because they had summer hours.

It may be hard for you to believe, but the best people to run a school are teachers. When you have a bunch of non-teachers trying to dictate educational policy, you’re left with low teacher morale, poor teacher retention, and ineffective instruction in the classroom. Been there, done that.

But admin who continue to teach? The policies make sense. Educational outcomes are stronger because school leadership is invested in the work of the classroom. Observations and evaluations mean something because they come from people who demonstrate they know the job and can also do it themselves.

BS

No, it’s not. Teachers perform the work of the school. It’s that simple.

Teachers sell the school, too. They are responsible for the strength of the programs, the level and engagement of instruction in the classroom, and the overall climate of the school. What you buy into with your tuition dollars is built and maintained by the teaching staff, not people removed from it in offices.

Some schools understand this. Some don’t. Guess which type of school attracts strong teachers.

The biggest BS I was calling on you is that the administrators were working for 15% more than the teachers. Was it a little K through three with 45 kids? Maybe. Was it a super legit school with hundreds of kids? No way!
I’m sure that some great administrators were also excellent teachers. And I do know that some administrator still teach a class or two. But you’re painting with a very broad brush when you don’t leave from for the possibilities of excellent people that don’t fit your criteria precisely.
And as somebody above pointed out, a great school for $60k a year offers much more than just great teachers. And read what I said carefully. I absolutely believe in great teachers being vital. But the whole system has to be held together by administrators. It’s just a fact. And if you don’t like how much they earn compared to you, maybe you should try to become one of them.

I’ll stay in the classroom, but thank you for the offer. I happen to be very good at what I do and that’s where I belong. Doing good work.

And, since you asked, it was a large high school. The admin salaries reflected only the fact they were 12 month employees instead of 10. And each administrator still taught at least one class. The school saw the value of the teacher and the organizational chart reflected that. There were no excessive admin positions with bloated salaries.

Schools are not held together by people in offices. They are held together by the people doing the work. All you need to know to see that’s true is the answer to this:

If you don’t have the teachers, the school can’t open. If you don’t have the administrators, it can be business as usual.

Why don’t you go back to that school? It sounds like the right place for you. The head of school was only making around $100k? CFO? Associate head? Name the top 10 administrative positions and what they were earning. When was this? Where was it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given how much better kept and better run private schools seem to be, with smaller class sizes, I think the administrative salaries are justifiable.

But should they be paid considerably more than the teachers, who are the ones directly doing the work?

If a school had to do without its administrators or its teachers for a week, which would be the more noticeable absence? Doesn’t that speak to the value of their jobs?

If the teachers left for a week, the administrators would hire new ones. Yes, I would like to see teachers be paid more. No, I don’t have a problem with administrators being paid well.

No, the school would shut down without its teachers. The school can function without its administrators.

You pay for instruction, which is provided by teachers.

The whole question is silly. Clearly either would be a crisis. But administrators would go find the teachers that want to work. Teachers would have no motivation to hire administrators initially, until something got bad and they realized they were in over their heads with running a school. Then… they’d promote from within. The new leaders would claim much larger salaries and hire new teachers to replace themselves. Back to where we started.

Nope. It’s easier to find administrators than teachers. You know how many teachers have their admin degrees, even in private schools? There are tons of teachers looking to jump to admin to get out of the classroom. Meanwhile, there’s a teacher shortage.

And the best run school I’ve ever worked for had teachers at the helm. Every administrator was a teacher and still kept a foot in the classroom. If only ALL schools operated that way.

And at that “best run school” all the administrators were being paid below market rate because they felt obligated to not earn more than the teachers?

They were paid about 15% more because they had summer hours.

It may be hard for you to believe, but the best people to run a school are teachers. When you have a bunch of non-teachers trying to dictate educational policy, you’re left with low teacher morale, poor teacher retention, and ineffective instruction in the classroom. Been there, done that.

But admin who continue to teach? The policies make sense. Educational outcomes are stronger because school leadership is invested in the work of the classroom. Observations and evaluations mean something because they come from people who demonstrate they know the job and can also do it themselves.

BS

No, it’s not. Teachers perform the work of the school. It’s that simple.

Teachers sell the school, too. They are responsible for the strength of the programs, the level and engagement of instruction in the classroom, and the overall climate of the school. What you buy into with your tuition dollars is built and maintained by the teaching staff, not people removed from it in offices.

Some schools understand this. Some don’t. Guess which type of school attracts strong teachers.

The biggest BS I was calling on you is that the administrators were working for 15% more than the teachers. Was it a little K through three with 45 kids? Maybe. Was it a super legit school with hundreds of kids? No way!
I’m sure that some great administrators were also excellent teachers. And I do know that some administrator still teach a class or two. But you’re painting with a very broad brush when you don’t leave from for the possibilities of excellent people that don’t fit your criteria precisely.
And as somebody above pointed out, a great school for $60k a year offers much more than just great teachers. And read what I said carefully. I absolutely believe in great teachers being vital. But the whole system has to be held together by administrators. It’s just a fact. And if you don’t like how much they earn compared to you, maybe you should try to become one of them.

I’ll stay in the classroom, but thank you for the offer. I happen to be very good at what I do and that’s where I belong. Doing good work.

And, since you asked, it was a large high school. The admin salaries reflected only the fact they were 12 month employees instead of 10. And each administrator still taught at least one class. The school saw the value of the teacher and the organizational chart reflected that. There were no excessive admin positions with bloated salaries.

Schools are not held together by people in offices. They are held together by the people doing the work. All you need to know to see that’s true is the answer to this:

If you don’t have the teachers, the school can’t open. If you don’t have the administrators, it can be business as usual.

Why don’t you go back to that school? It sounds like the right place for you. The head of school was only making around $100k? CFO? Associate head? Name the top 10 administrative positions and what they were earning. When was this? Where was it?

Of course I’m not going to name the school. This is an anonymous forum. You don’t have to believe me. If your worldview only accepts that school heads demand bloated salaries, then go ahead and believe it.

But ask yourself this: WHY do school heads deserve 3-4-5+ times the amount as a teacher? What value do they TRULY add to the school environment? Why are they “worth” more to you than the people directly impacting your child, doing the real work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One the one hand the cost of tuition is exorbitant and the cost of building maintenance and teachers salaries is much lower.

Who is responsible for the excess costs?

My guess is that with more reasonable administrative salaries and more conservative financial aid policies the Tuition could be lowered by 20 percent.

Any other ideas about where the fat is coming from?

Did the private schools ask you for help with their budgets?

They are private. They can do whatever they want.

You don’t get to tell them how to manage their money.

Jesus who are you people? As high paying consumers we absolutely have input as to how schools manage their money as does the board. You are part of the problem.

No, you don’t.

Interesting. If a service is subpar lets say in an airline, people normally complain, and sometimes they receive a refund. And if enough people do that, eventually the service improves. Normal procedure in a company. So a school is a whole different animal that no one can complain about? Maybe in North Korea.

You want to call the airline and demand they cut in-flight movies and snacks and live ticket agents because you think that "trimming the fat" will result in lower ticket prices? Go ahead, I guess. But the airline will, correctly, smile and direct you to a no-frills carrier.

[Anonymous]

I just received a letter from DD’s large Catholic school. I will post here since I find it interesting. The letter says their true cost to educate each student is about $15,000. Parishioner tuition is around $10,000. The letter also mentions a scholarship fund that around 10% of the student body receives - students who would otherwise be unable to attend. I have no idea if parish schools are given set amounts by the church or by the Archdiocese?

Our public school district reports that they spend $30,000 per pupil. I’m sure that’s an average (kids who have additional supports like 1-on-1 aides, reading or math support, etc. obviously are getting more of that money spent on them than an average performing NT kid). I actually see more admin bloat at the public than at the Catholic school. I have no idea how much our principal makes, though. I’m sure at the Big 3, there is a lot more admin and they are paid higher salaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One the one hand the cost of tuition is exorbitant and the cost of building maintenance and teachers salaries is much lower.

Who is responsible for the excess costs?

My guess is that with more reasonable administrative salaries and more conservative financial aid policies the Tuition could be lowered by 20 percent.

Any other ideas about where the fat is coming from?

Did the private schools ask you for help with their budgets?

They are private. They can do whatever they want.

You don’t get to tell them how to manage their money.

Jesus who are you people? As high paying consumers we absolutely have input as to how schools manage their money as does the board. You are part of the problem.

Oh please, you're not on the board.
And consumers vote with their feet: if you think it's overpriced, go elsewhere. You don't get to decide that a product other people willingly pay for is fat that should be cut.
- DP

Exactly.

Not really. You can also have the right to complain to the service provider, and ensure the quality of the service a customer deserves. First you complain, and if there is no improvement you leave. Why this is true for your cable company but not for a school.

You don’t tell the cable company how to manage its budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just received a letter from DD’s large Catholic school. I will post here since I find it interesting. The letter says their true cost to educate each student is about $15,000. Parishioner tuition is around $10,000. The letter also mentions a scholarship fund that around 10% of the student body receives - students who would otherwise be unable to attend. I have no idea if parish schools are given set amounts by the church or by the Archdiocese?

Our public school district reports that they spend $30,000 per pupil. I’m sure that’s an average (kids who have additional supports like 1-on-1 aides, reading or math support, etc. obviously are getting more of that money spent on them than an average performing NT kid). I actually see more admin bloat at the public than at the Catholic school. I have no idea how much our principal makes, though. I’m sure at the Big 3, there is a lot more admin and they are paid higher salaries.

How much do each pay their teachers?
Do they provide benefits? Retirement accounts?
How much do they pay for space?
How much federal and state reporting are they required to do?
Are they required to take all students who show up at their door?

Apples and oranges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One the one hand the cost of tuition is exorbitant and the cost of building maintenance and teachers salaries is much lower.

Who is responsible for the excess costs?

My guess is that with more reasonable administrative salaries and more conservative financial aid policies the Tuition could be lowered by 20 percent.

Any other ideas about where the fat is coming from?

Did the private schools ask you for help with their budgets?

They are private. They can do whatever they want.

You don’t get to tell them how to manage their money.

Jesus who are you people? As high paying consumers we absolutely have input as to how schools manage their money as does the board. You are part of the problem.

No, you don’t.

Interesting. If a service is subpar lets say in an airline, people normally complain, and sometimes they receive a refund. And if enough people do that, eventually the service improves. Normal procedure in a company. So a school is a whole different animal that no one can complain about? Maybe in North Korea.

You want to call the airline and demand they cut in-flight movies and snacks and live ticket agents because you think that "trimming the fat" will result in lower ticket prices? Go ahead, I guess. But the airline will, correctly, smile and direct you to a no-frills carrier.

Exactly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given how much better kept and better run private schools seem to be, with smaller class sizes, I think the administrative salaries are justifiable.

But should they be paid considerably more than the teachers, who are the ones directly doing the work?

If a school had to do without its administrators or its teachers for a week, which would be the more noticeable absence? Doesn’t that speak to the value of their jobs?

If the teachers left for a week, the administrators would hire new ones. Yes, I would like to see teachers be paid more. No, I don’t have a problem with administrators being paid well.

No, the school would shut down without its teachers. The school can function without its administrators.

You pay for instruction, which is provided by teachers.

The whole question is silly. Clearly either would be a crisis. But administrators would go find the teachers that want to work. Teachers would have no motivation to hire administrators initially, until something got bad and they realized they were in over their heads with running a school. Then… they’d promote from within. The new leaders would claim much larger salaries and hire new teachers to replace themselves. Back to where we started.

Nope. It’s easier to find administrators than teachers. You know how many teachers have their admin degrees, even in private schools? There are tons of teachers looking to jump to admin to get out of the classroom. Meanwhile, there’s a teacher shortage.

And the best run school I’ve ever worked for had teachers at the helm. Every administrator was a teacher and still kept a foot in the classroom. If only ALL schools operated that way.

And at that “best run school” all the administrators were being paid below market rate because they felt obligated to not earn more than the teachers?

They were paid about 15% more because they had summer hours.

It may be hard for you to believe, but the best people to run a school are teachers. When you have a bunch of non-teachers trying to dictate educational policy, you’re left with low teacher morale, poor teacher retention, and ineffective instruction in the classroom. Been there, done that.

But admin who continue to teach? The policies make sense. Educational outcomes are stronger because school leadership is invested in the work of the classroom. Observations and evaluations mean something because they come from people who demonstrate they know the job and can also do it themselves.

BS

No, it’s not. Teachers perform the work of the school. It’s that simple.

Teachers sell the school, too. They are responsible for the strength of the programs, the level and engagement of instruction in the classroom, and the overall climate of the school. What you buy into with your tuition dollars is built and maintained by the teaching staff, not people removed from it in offices.

Some schools understand this. Some don’t. Guess which type of school attracts strong teachers.

The biggest BS I was calling on you is that the administrators were working for 15% more than the teachers. Was it a little K through three with 45 kids? Maybe. Was it a super legit school with hundreds of kids? No way!
I’m sure that some great administrators were also excellent teachers. And I do know that some administrator still teach a class or two. But you’re painting with a very broad brush when you don’t leave from for the possibilities of excellent people that don’t fit your criteria precisely.
And as somebody above pointed out, a great school for $60k a year offers much more than just great teachers. And read what I said carefully. I absolutely believe in great teachers being vital. But the whole system has to be held together by administrators. It’s just a fact. And if you don’t like how much they earn compared to you, maybe you should try to become one of them.

I’ll stay in the classroom, but thank you for the offer. I happen to be very good at what I do and that’s where I belong. Doing good work.

And, since you asked, it was a large high school. The admin salaries reflected only the fact they were 12 month employees instead of 10. And each administrator still taught at least one class. The school saw the value of the teacher and the organizational chart reflected that. There were no excessive admin positions with bloated salaries.

Schools are not held together by people in offices. They are held together by the people doing the work. All you need to know to see that’s true is the answer to this:

If you don’t have the teachers, the school can’t open. If you don’t have the administrators, it can be business as usual.

Why don’t you go back to that school? It sounds like the right place for you. The head of school was only making around $100k? CFO? Associate head? Name the top 10 administrative positions and what they were earning. When was this? Where was it?

Of course I’m not going to name the school. This is an anonymous forum. You don’t have to believe me. If your worldview only accepts that school heads demand bloated salaries, then go ahead and believe it.

But ask yourself this: WHY do school heads deserve 3-4-5+ times the amount as a teacher? What value do they TRULY add to the school environment? Why are they “worth” more to you than the people directly impacting your child, doing the real work?

Don’t be so dramatic. You’re welcome to your anonymity. But naming this alleged school of labor utopia does not reveal your identity.
Why does anyone deserve exactly what they earn? I’m happy to say that teachers are underpaid. But if you- as a teacher- have no idea what a good head can do for school, or even what the demands of that job are, even on a so-so head, and what the market is, I can’t explain it to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One the one hand the cost of tuition is exorbitant and the cost of building maintenance and teachers salaries is much lower.

Who is responsible for the excess costs?

My guess is that with more reasonable administrative salaries and more conservative financial aid policies the Tuition could be lowered by 20 percent.

Any other ideas about where the fat is coming from?

Did the private schools ask you for help with their budgets?

They are private. They can do whatever they want.

You don’t get to tell them how to manage their money.

Jesus who are you people? As high paying consumers we absolutely have input as to how schools manage their money as does the board. You are part of the problem.

Oh please, you're not on the board.
And consumers vote with their feet: if you think it's overpriced, go elsewhere. You don't get to decide that a product other people willingly pay for is fat that should be cut.
- DP

Exactly.

Not really. You can also have the right to complain to the service provider, and ensure the quality of the service a customer deserves. First you complain, and if there is no improvement you leave. Why this is true for your cable company but not for a school.

You don’t tell the cable company how to manage its budget.

But you can complain if they are overcharging, and you can get refunds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One the one hand the cost of tuition is exorbitant and the cost of building maintenance and teachers salaries is much lower.

Who is responsible for the excess costs?

My guess is that with more reasonable administrative salaries and more conservative financial aid policies the Tuition could be lowered by 20 percent.

Any other ideas about where the fat is coming from?

Did the private schools ask you for help with their budgets?

They are private. They can do whatever they want.

You don’t get to tell them how to manage their money.

Jesus who are you people? As high paying consumers we absolutely have input as to how schools manage their money as does the board. You are part of the problem.

No, you don’t.

Interesting. If a service is subpar lets say in an airline, people normally complain, and sometimes they receive a refund. And if enough people do that, eventually the service improves. Normal procedure in a company. So a school is a whole different animal that no one can complain about? Maybe in North Korea.

You want to call the airline and demand they cut in-flight movies and snacks and live ticket agents because you think that "trimming the fat" will result in lower ticket prices? Go ahead, I guess. But the airline will, correctly, smile and direct you to a no-frills carrier.

You can provide feedback and the airline can take this into account for their customer service. Never seen that in a private school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One the one hand the cost of tuition is exorbitant and the cost of building maintenance and teachers salaries is much lower.

Who is responsible for the excess costs?

My guess is that with more reasonable administrative salaries and more conservative financial aid policies the Tuition could be lowered by 20 percent.

Any other ideas about where the fat is coming from?

Did the private schools ask you for help with their budgets?

They are private. They can do whatever they want.

You don’t get to tell them how to manage their money.

Jesus who are you people? As high paying consumers we absolutely have input as to how schools manage their money as does the board. You are part of the problem.

Oh please, you're not on the board.
And consumers vote with their feet: if you think it's overpriced, go elsewhere. You don't get to decide that a product other people willingly pay for is fat that should be cut.
- DP

Exactly.

Not really. You can also have the right to complain to the service provider, and ensure the quality of the service a customer deserves. First you complain, and if there is no improvement you leave. Why this is true for your cable company but not for a school.

You don’t tell the cable company how to manage its budget.

But you can complain if they are overcharging, and you can get refunds.

Ok. So complain to the school about the tuition or withdraw your kid. They don’t clueless parents to micromanage their budget.

[Anonymous]

^ They don’t *need*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One the one hand the cost of tuition is exorbitant and the cost of building maintenance and teachers salaries is much lower.

Who is responsible for the excess costs?

My guess is that with more reasonable administrative salaries and more conservative financial aid policies the Tuition could be lowered by 20 percent.

Any other ideas about where the fat is coming from?

Dedicated DEI resources. Like, several full time employees. Teachers aren't paid much, but also don't teach the entire day - seems like a few hours a day at most 2-3 per teacher (on some days, none!). They'd probably prefer to actually teach while they are stuck in school. Development offices; up to 10 people in some private schools. That's probably $2m savings right there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One the one hand the cost of tuition is exorbitant and the cost of building maintenance and teachers salaries is much lower.

Who is responsible for the excess costs?

My guess is that with more reasonable administrative salaries and more conservative financial aid policies the Tuition could be lowered by 20 percent.

Any other ideas about where the fat is coming from?

Did the private schools ask you for help with their budgets?

They are private. They can do whatever they want.

You don’t get to tell them how to manage their money.

Jesus who are you people? As high paying consumers we absolutely have input as to how schools manage their money as does the board. You are part of the problem.

Oh please, you're not on the board.
And consumers vote with their feet: if you think it's overpriced, go elsewhere. You don't get to decide that a product other people willingly pay for is fat that should be cut.
- DP

Exactly.

Not really. You can also have the right to complain to the service provider, and ensure the quality of the service a customer deserves. First you complain, and if there is no improvement you leave. Why this is true for your cable company but not for a school.

You don’t tell the cable company how to manage its budget.

But you can complain if they are overcharging, and you can get refunds.

Ok. So complain to the school about the tuition or withdraw your kid. They don’t clueless parents to micromanage their budget.

Normally companies embrace feedback. They don’t call you clueless or tell you to leave if you don’t agree. It’s good that you are not running a big company.