Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Stitt vs OK Dept of Ed
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jakeman" data-source="post: 3640194" data-attributes="member: 10690"><p>One Super per county. A few assistants in the larger districts, based on number of students.</p><p></p><p>No reason to consolidate schools. Just need to consolidate the administration. In other words, if you like your school, you get to keep your school. (Seems like I’ve heard that before) I’d be okay with consolidating some of the HS’s but I’d be okay with keeping the little kids closer to home. I know a bunch of rural k-8 only schools already. They seem to be fine. Maybe we need some more of those. </p><p></p><p>No reason for Middleburg or Friend, or the 300 just like them to have their own Superintendent. It’s wasteful of taxpayer money. The students don’t benefit. It’s a administration racket is what it is. My ex is a former teacher and a current VP in a really large district with 2 HS’s. One Super handles that district. Schools graduating less than a couple 100 kids don’t need a Super.</p><p></p><p>It’s needed to happen for decades, but without blowing the whole thing up and starting over it never will. It’s a super bureaucracy and it exists only for the benefit of the Superintendents, and it will be next to impossible to change because the bureaucrats have the people believing they’re needed. It’s a racket.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jakeman, post: 3640194, member: 10690"] One Super per county. A few assistants in the larger districts, based on number of students. No reason to consolidate schools. Just need to consolidate the administration. In other words, if you like your school, you get to keep your school. (Seems like I’ve heard that before) I’d be okay with consolidating some of the HS’s but I’d be okay with keeping the little kids closer to home. I know a bunch of rural k-8 only schools already. They seem to be fine. Maybe we need some more of those. No reason for Middleburg or Friend, or the 300 just like them to have their own Superintendent. It’s wasteful of taxpayer money. The students don’t benefit. It’s a administration racket is what it is. My ex is a former teacher and a current VP in a really large district with 2 HS’s. One Super handles that district. Schools graduating less than a couple 100 kids don’t need a Super. It’s needed to happen for decades, but without blowing the whole thing up and starting over it never will. It’s a super bureaucracy and it exists only for the benefit of the Superintendents, and it will be next to impossible to change because the bureaucrats have the people believing they’re needed. It’s a racket. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Stitt vs OK Dept of Ed
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom