4 ms·

Who are these "administrators" that always come up in the context of education in the US? The word makes it sound like some bureaucrat or secretary, but it seem

Who are these "administrators" that always come up in the context of education in the US? The word makes it sound like some bureaucrat or secretary, but it seems like they have a lot of decision making power. Are they school employees, do school directors count as administrators? Or are they part of the local government or state government? Elected officials responsible for education in some area? Who are they and how come there are so many of them?

liability 7y ago
They're local elected government officials, which means they are usually bored baby boomers with more free time than common sense.
- panzagl 7y ago
  No, 'administrators' usually means non-teaching educational staff of a school and district- principals, vice-principals, deans, directors, superintendents and similar. They're employees. Local elected officials form a school board, which may then have various committees composed of board members, administrators, teachers, and parents.
  - liability 7y ago
    You're right, I was thinking of the school board. School boards seem to be major proponents of ipadification.
Spooky23 7y ago
There are five layers of governance. The Congress gives away money with high-level strings attached. States set curriculum guidelines (or micro-manage the curriculum), set rules and standards, and provide lots of money. School boards make local budget and taxation decisions and exercise other management functions that vary by state and district. The "administrators" are appointed management who are employees of the school. The superintendent (aka the CEO/commissioner) of the district usually has an individual contract with the board. The rest of management is usually civil service or appointed management/confidential employees. In some states they may be unionized to some degree. In the rural school I went to in the 90s, there was a superintendent, CFO, elementary/middle/high school principals and assistants, and about a dozen clerks/secretaries. Today, the district has fewer students, but has added a compliance officer, CIO, special education deputy superintendent, and a bus superintendent.
cosmie 7y ago
> Who are these "administrators" that always come up in the context of education in the US? "Administrators" is generally a generic term used to refer to non-teaching individuals involved in the running of the education. Who those individuals are is highly varied though. Education is controlled at the state level in the United States, not the federal level[1]. So what you end up with are completely different ways of running/managing things. So state-level bureaucracy has it's say in things. Then there's a state-level department of education with a secretary or commissioner (possibly elected, possible appointed), which manages high level details like enforcing compliance with legislation and certification and whatnot. But they generally further cede control to a local entity which is in charge of the school system for that locality (could be as small as a special district inside of a single city or as large as multiple counties). This is the level that manages local infrastructure, school zoning, shared services like IT, etc. This can also be led by either an elected or appointed figure, depending on both local and state laws. As long as they're acting within the bounds of what the state level legislation and department of education has dictated, the local district can run things how they see fit. All of these layers are purely administrative, and performs no actual teaching (but likely and hopefully is staffed with people that come from teaching or education backgrounds). Then you get to the actual school level, where you'll have a few administrators that handle the management of that individual school, but is predominantly staffed by actual teachers. Administrators at this level are generally always hired, rather than elected individuals. [1] While the federal government has no direct control of education, it indirectly wields influence by dangling money in front of states[2]. Which is what it does with practically everything else it doesn't technically have any jurisdiction of. States are free to manage education however they want, but the federal government provides states with subsidies for education that are tied to particular regulations or policies. States that implement and meet the regulations get free federal money, states that don't implement or meet them give up the associated subsidy and have to make up the funding shortfall with more state or local taxes. This has a trickle down effect where teachers ultimately have very little say in what or how they teach, since they have so many different masters they have to please to ensure their school stays funded. [2] https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/education/k-12-education-subsidies https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/education/k-12-educatio...
tathougies 7y ago
So at my mother's school there was the principal and vice principal, obviously. Each one of them was typically getting their masters or EdD and thus running experiments on the students to write about in their theses. Of course, given that this is teaching and teachers are one of the most unethical professions in existence, there was no IRB approval for these studies (Sowell addresses this concern in his book 'Education in America'). After the principal there is a 'district'. The district is made up of completely ineffective administrative staff who are unable to manage even the most basic office tasks. My mother once was offered a contract to teach in our local district, and the secretary sent a piece of blank paper for her to sign -- twice. And then, there is the superintendent, which is an employee (unelected in most places). The superintendent is like the principal of principals. Of course, like the principals, he or she too is conducting unapproved research on the children, without any kind of oversight. Above that is an elected school board made up of people pushing their own agenda. Oh, and then there's the teacher's union, a quasi-governmental body, which demands a premium of the teacher's salary (thus inflating the cost of hiring a teacher). Rather than advocating on behalf of teachers (which is their nominal job), they spend most of the money lobbying for leftist causes meant to enrich the union representatives. Of course the union has no accountability to voters and has a shadow structure to the school district, all of which has to be paid for out of your tax dollars, because why not? That's just at the local level. There are then even more layers at the regional, state, and national level.

liability 7y ago

They're local elected government officials, which means they are usually bored baby boomers with more free time than common sense.

panzagl 7y ago
No, 'administrators' usually means non-teaching educational staff of a school and district- principals, vice-principals, deans, directors, superintendents and similar. They're employees. Local elected officials form a school board, which may then have various committees composed of board members, administrators, teachers, and parents.
- liability 7y ago
  You're right, I was thinking of the school board. School boards seem to be major proponents of ipadification.

Spooky23 7y ago

There are five layers of governance. The Congress gives away money with high-level strings attached. States set curriculum guidelines (or micro-manage the curriculum), set rules and standards, and provide lots of money. School boards make local budget and taxation decisions and exercise other management functions that vary by state and district. The "administrators" are appointed management who are employees of the school. The superintendent (aka the CEO/commissioner) of the district usually has an individual contract with the board. The rest of management is usually civil service or appointed management/confidential employees. In some states they may be unionized to some degree. In the rural school I went to in the 90s, there was a superintendent, CFO, elementary/middle/high school principals and assistants, and about a dozen clerks/secretaries. Today, the district has fewer students, but has added a compliance officer, CIO, special education deputy superintendent, and a bus superintendent.

cosmie 7y ago

> Who are these "administrators" that always come up in the context of education in the US? "Administrators" is generally a generic term used to refer to non-teaching individuals involved in the running of the education. Who those individuals are is highly varied though. Education is controlled at the state level in the United States, not the federal level[1]. So what you end up with are completely different ways of running/managing things. So state-level bureaucracy has it's say in things. Then there's a state-level department of education with a secretary or commissioner (possibly elected, possible appointed), which manages high level details like enforcing compliance with legislation and certification and whatnot. But they generally further cede control to a local entity which is in charge of the school system for that locality (could be as small as a special district inside of a single city or as large as multiple counties). This is the level that manages local infrastructure, school zoning, shared services like IT, etc. This can also be led by either an elected or appointed figure, depending on both local and state laws. As long as they're acting within the bounds of what the state level legislation and department of education has dictated, the local district can run things how they see fit. All of these layers are purely administrative, and performs no actual teaching (but likely and hopefully is staffed with people that come from teaching or education backgrounds). Then you get to the actual school level, where you'll have a few administrators that handle the management of that individual school, but is predominantly staffed by actual teachers. Administrators at this level are generally always hired, rather than elected individuals. [1] While the federal government has no direct control of education, it indirectly wields influence by dangling money in front of states[2]. Which is what it does with practically everything else it doesn't technically have any jurisdiction of. States are free to manage education however they want, but the federal government provides states with subsidies for education that are tied to particular regulations or policies. States that implement and meet the regulations get free federal money, states that don't implement or meet them give up the associated subsidy and have to make up the funding shortfall with more state or local taxes. This has a trickle down effect where teachers ultimately have very little say in what or how they teach, since they have so many different masters they have to please to ensure their school stays funded. [2] https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/education/k-12-education-subsidies https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/education/k-12-educatio...

tathougies 7y ago

So at my mother's school there was the principal and vice principal, obviously. Each one of them was typically getting their masters or EdD and thus running experiments on the students to write about in their theses. Of course, given that this is teaching and teachers are one of the most unethical professions in existence, there was no IRB approval for these studies (Sowell addresses this concern in his book 'Education in America'). After the principal there is a 'district'. The district is made up of completely ineffective administrative staff who are unable to manage even the most basic office tasks. My mother once was offered a contract to teach in our local district, and the secretary sent a piece of blank paper for her to sign -- twice. And then, there is the superintendent, which is an employee (unelected in most places). The superintendent is like the principal of principals. Of course, like the principals, he or she too is conducting unapproved research on the children, without any kind of oversight. Above that is an elected school board made up of people pushing their own agenda. Oh, and then there's the teacher's union, a quasi-governmental body, which demands a premium of the teacher's salary (thus inflating the cost of hiring a teacher). Rather than advocating on behalf of teachers (which is their nominal job), they spend most of the money lobbying for leftist causes meant to enrich the union representatives. Of course the union has no accountability to voters and has a shadow structure to the school district, all of which has to be paid for out of your tax dollars, because why not? That's just at the local level. There are then even more layers at the regional, state, and national level.