Buzz Mills gets shot down for 1-to-1 teacher to adminstrator lie

by David Safier

Bureaucrats_official Boy, is this fun! I posted earlier that GOP Guv hopeful Buzz Mills bested the Goldwater Institute's Matthew Ladner when Mills tweeted:

1:1 ratio of administrators to teachers. Cut admin to appropriate level – improve education while freeing budget $$$

Ladner only maintains that bus drivers are bureaucrats, not administrators — and, for those of you keeping score, Ladner still hasn't backed down. To paraphrase Seinfeld's George Costanza, Ladner holds to the maxim, "It's not a lie if I pretend to believe it."

On Phoenix's Channel 12 News Sunday Square Off, host Brahm Resnik tears Mills a new one on the topic. Mills tries to stick to his "1-to-1 teacher to administrator" assertion, but Resnik won't let go. Finally, when Resnik pulls out some figures showing how few of the non-teachers are administrators, Mills says it's a scandal there are so many custodians — or something.

Mills tries to divert the discussion by saying how few non-teachers there are at a charter school he visited, and of course (Mills said), charters do a better job of educating students than traditional schools. Resnik smartly doesn't take the bait . . . but what the hell, I will.

First, Buzz, charters have more administrators per student than traditional schools. Second, students in charters in Arizona show a slightly lower student achievement than students in traditional schools.

So, Buzz, you're wrong, wrong and — am I through yet? Nope, one more — wrong again. Three for three. A loser's hat trick.

(h/t to Democratic Diva for the catch and the video)


Discover more from Blog for Arizona

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

1 thought on “Buzz Mills gets shot down for 1-to-1 teacher to adminstrator lie”

  1. Aside from his appalling, bold-faced use of the ridiculous “1:1” misinformation, I was curious about Mill’s claim about a 400+ charter operating with ‘only 3 administrators’. I think that would sound about right if he was only counting the principal & secretaries, but it sure sounded fishy since his ‘administrators’ definition encompasses custodians, food service people…not to mention the HR, accounting, and other reporting roles schools need to operate.

    Although Benchmark School’s operational budget is not fully published on-line, I did pull up their most recent IRS 990 filing. Here’s what I found:

    In 2007 (the most recent report), Benchmark reported program service costs of $2,964,869.
    Included in those fees is $68,450 for travel, $17,112 for conferences & meetings, and a list of usual administrative fees ($65,000 for accounting, $12,000 for telephone, etc.).

    Although schools don’t need to list every employee in their tax filings, what really caught my eye were the few administrative compensation plans that they did need to report:

    Barbara Darroch, President & Charter Director: $116,461
    Bruce Darroch, Treasure & Charter Director: $58,321
    Carole Challoner, Secretary & Charter Director: $97,733
    Whitney Challoner, Charter Director: $80,779

    (IRS 990, page 5)

    Just in case you don’t have a calculator handy, that is a grand total of $353,294 in compensation for the top for the top administrators of ONE school. Their salaries equates to roughly 12% of Benchmark’s entire operational budget.

    I’m not saying this to put down Benchmark Schools — they are an excelling school and it is quite possible that all of the people listed above cover most of the administrative functions and are fairly compensated for their effort. I personally do not think it is out of line for the head of a successful school of any kind to make a six-figure income.

    I am tired, however, of politicians like Buzz Mills tossing out misinformation at the expense of regular public schools.

    It is fine to debate the merits of ‘school choice’, but only if we are using real data and accurate statistics. I’m glad Resnik called him out on one level — I hope he digs deeper and highlights WHY Mills is using this erroneous information in another story.

Comments are closed.