Bob Luebke is again suggesting more cuts in Central Services before Wake County school leaders cut into the classroom.
In a blog post Friday, Luebke of the conservative Civitas Institute provides a breakdown by department and average salary for Central Services. He writes that "should additional budget reductions be necessary, such information should be carefully considered so as to minimize the projected impact of budget cuts inside the classroom."
For instance, Luebke's look at September 2009 data shows that the average salary of the six area superintendents is $129,356 and the average salary of the five assistant superintendents is $127,132. Next comes the 34 senior directors with an average salary of $99,308.
The post is in response to the administration's argument that Central Services has borne so much of the cuts in recent years that schools would need to bear most of the next round of cuts. Schools directly accounted for 80 percent of a list of $20 million in potential new cuts to deal with additional reductions in state funding.
Comments
What about the contractors?
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 13:30 — raywilliamsI know that there are ALOT of contractor types within central services that aren't even discussed. And those folks are paid alot more (some get twice as much) than an actual employee doing the same job. These contractors are not the here one month and gone the next types, some of them have been around for years. How the school district gets around the IRS' definition of contractor is baffling. And now with all the cut backs central services is making, they may end up getting more contractors and spending even more money (but it does look good on paper)...
Contractors have a different
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 15:30 — danofncContractors have a different set of rules.
They also don't get state benefits, which means it is probably still cheaper to have them on board.
Perhaps... but...
Sat, 05/08/2010 - 09:00 — raywilliamsPerhaps some folks ought to check out why the Chief Information Officer suddenly resigned immediately after a contract issue with the contractors who run their payroll system. The new company current providing it, ST Tech is run by former WCPSS employees who are now getting paid alot more.
And while we are on this subject, the same CIO who brought in a local company for a computer asset management system (remember the $10 million bond a few years back for a technology "refresh"), how did that go? Your local school is still tracks computers in a spreadsheet and now the former CIO now works for that same company.
Ref:
http://www.sttechinc.com/admin/pdf/STT-News-10202009-2.pdf
http://www.schooldude.com/downloads/TechInsight-EffectiveTechnologyTraining.pdf
All of it is not needed.
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 18:18 — aquaman4life68All of it is not needed. Cut half of those things out and I feel the school level would find a relief and not see ANY negative effects. Ask any teacher out there, with all the new things thrown over to their plate...most of it is to justify some of the very positions we could cut. I just don't know what these people actually do all day, every day of the week. The system should look at what the teachers and the children NEED...and the rest...throw it out!
cut the top 5
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 14:24 — wireless200Take the five highest-paid job titles and summarily cut the numbers in half. How many people think there'd be any difference at the school level?
Should be looking at 2010 Data
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 13:21 — Solon77Should be looking at the most recent data that reflect the cuts that have been made. In addition, benchmarking/comparisons would put this into proper context. Unless one has intimate knowledge on the metrics to effectively run a school system - a simple listing of positions and salaries is meaningless.
Wow...
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 11:45 — Bob_SconceThat's a little more than 4 1/2 central office folks per school. Out of that 733, it appears that there are 237 people in general supervisory positions over the schools, split among different superintendents, directors and "Senior Administrators." That's about 1.5 managers per school, excluding the principals, asst. principals, and so on, who are supposed to manage the schools themselves.
It's unfair to pick on administrators as pure surplusage, but that ratio still seems a bit high.
(The 237 came because Luebke's analysis excludes the Superintendent his/herself.)
It is a little puzzling
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 12:33 — Athey01Outside of the academic world, instead of having 1.5 managers in charge of one facility, I would I have one manager in charge of 3 or 4 facilities. I don't understand what specific duties are required, but someone needs to find out.
The real world
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 16:51 — upinbooneAdademics don't need to consider 'real world' solutions. They work and operate in a govt monopoly (that's redundant) where all of our hard-earned tax dollars flow like beer at a frat party. Just dip on into the tax-dollar river every time another elitist experiment comes along. The attitude of most union/govt employees is one of entrenched entitlement. And why not. What private sector job offers tenure! Not to mention lavish pensions that some also offer.
and ..
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 18:01 — turnerk1And low pay, wide spread public scorn, having their jobs turned into a political football, people who have no training at all assuming they could do a better job, long hours, .....
Amen
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 20:46 — Dove314I'm always stunned at the number of people with no training who assume they know more about education than those with training and in the trenches.
And while there are a few bad apples, most of the state employees I've ever met, including and especially teachers, are figuring out how to do their job for the people of the state in spite of the different people all sending mixed and conflicting directions while they don't receive a pay raise and get furloughed and while their overall benefits decrease over time.
I don't question the value of educators,
Tue, 05/04/2010 - 06:30 — Athey01but I do want those in administrative/management functions to be held fiscally accountable. Too many layers of management does adversely impact teachers, i.e. bureaucatic red tape, etc.