Seth Rosenblatt

Seth Rosenblatt

Readers of my posts know that I often claiming the conventional wisdom inside public educational activity circles – a public sector "mythbuster" if you lot volition – whether it be the myth of furlough days or the hollow critique of "waste, fraud, and abuse."  Another of my favorite examples is the all too often stated "truism" that if a schoolhouse commune needs to brand budget cuts (as we all have had to do recently), it'due south best to make cuts "abroad" from the classroom.

The spirit backside the refrain is sound. If we are forced to make cuts to our budget, shouldn't we try to make those cuts that have the least direct effect on our students? Information technology sounds good, just similar most pieces of mutual wisdom, information technology ignores the interconnectedness and complication of educating a child equally well as fails to encounter the inherent tradeoffs that need to be made in difficult budget decisions.

We all know that the classroom is but one venue for learning, and the entire school environment is critical, including the library, gym, music room, art room, guidance counselor's office, sports fields, or fifty-fifty dwelling. Certainly, some of the most disquisitional and intense interactions betwixt educators and students happen in a classroom, but bullheaded adherence to this prioritization ignores the inherent "leverage" of other places and roles in the school. For case, school counselors (assuming we even have them) make the job of classroom teachers more constructive by elevating the civilisation of the school, dealing with behavioral issues, and helping all students be more constructive learners and members of the community; i.e., their office has leverage. Strict observance to the "cutting away from the classroom" mantra would always advise you should cut the advisor before increasing course size.

I'm not opining on what is actually the all-time solution for any given school district – and that'due south the point. There is no colloquialism that tin make up one's mind this for y'all; information technology's based on the acceptable trade-off for that district. However, I would argue that oft spending money on high-leverage investments is actually a good thing, even though information technology appears "away" from the classroom.

Besides, the refrain makes the false assumption that administrators have a secondary (or no) role in educating children, only are just part of the bureaucratic machine that is a school district. Although a politically user-friendly statement, it is a gross simplification of how school districts really piece of work. Certainly there are some roles that are purely administrative and seem to have very little impact on students' lives. Just even those – besides being more often than not legally required – enable everyone else to do their job. Does the person who ensures teachers go paid not bear upon student learning? Of course she does. How most our principals, our commune staff who work on special education and curriculum, our information technology folks who continue our networks running? Do they affect our students' educational activity? Of form.

Given that California has 1 of the everyman ratio of administrators to students in the country, it's hard not to argue that every one of our administrators provides important leverage in the goal to educate every child. But imagine a school board member (or country legislator) standing up and proverb "we need more coin for administrators in our schools." Instead of educating our constituents, we pander to them and give the illusion that we're beingness most effective with their tax dollar. If an administrator (or any other role for that matter) wasn't critical for student learning, then we need to examine why we hired them.

This faux bifurcation of "near" and "away" from the classroom leads to other silly and often misleading efforts. For example, about parcel taxes, bonds, and other initiatives put on the election contain language that says "no coin for ambassador salaries." Even Proposition 38 contains language that limits what schools tin spend on administrative costs to 1 percent. I appreciate that the backers of this initiative, as well those of our local packet taxes, feel they have to put in this language to appeal to voters, simply once again we're just pandering because it'due south politically expedient to ignore the complex truth; it's hard to explain "highly leveraged positions" in a sound seize with teeth.

Information technology's besides southward a petty dishonest, because money is fungible. Aye, some money is admittedly restricted, simply in full general we're just moving money from the left pocket to the correct pocket. If a district needed to spend coin on administration, information technology just wouldn't use "that" money to pay for information technology, but rather apply "other" money which is freed up due to a parcel tax or initiative. Economically it'south the same result, and the apparent brake rarely has any effect. Then why have it? (Most mandates are underfunded and therefore encroach on general funds anyway.)

We must be reminded of the big picture and the difficulty that school board members take in making upkeep tradeoffs. For instance, most believe that schools need to do a improve chore of evaluating teachers, but what is required to exercise this? We would have to invest in "administrative" costs that are "away from the classroom." School districts get constantly (and justifiably) criticized for not amend engaging with the community in the public process, simply then those aforementioned people will oftentimes weep foul if the district considers hiring a communications person in the district office, because that'due south just calculation administrative costs abroad from the classroom.

I'm non suggesting that in all cases the correct decision is to favor "administrative" costs or those investments seemingly "abroad from the classroom." What I am stating is that we should ditch the audio bites, capeesh the important office that all investments have in fulfilling our mission, and have a reasonable and informed give-and-take near upkeep priorities that make sense for any item commune.

Seth Rosenblatt is the president of the Governing Board of the San Carlos School District, currently in his second term. He besides serves equally the president of the San Mateo County Schoolhouse Boards Clan and sits on the Executive Committee of the Joint Venture Silicon Valley Sustainable Schools Job Forcefulness. He has 2 children in San Carlos public schools. He writes frequently on issues in public education, in regional and national publications also as on his own blog. In his business career, Seth has more than than twenty years of feel in media and engineering, including executive positions in both start-upwardly companies and large enterprises. Seth currently operates his own consulting firm for technology companies focused on strategy, marketing, and concern development. Seth holds a B.A. in Economics from Dartmouth College and an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School.

To get more reports similar this one, click here to sign up for EdSource's no-cost daily email on latest developments in teaching.