Tuesday, June 21, 2011
A very nice interactive map showing immigration patterns across/around the US from as far back as 1890...
HT: Microeconomics...The NYTIMES has a very nice interactive--Immigration Explorer. Select a particular country and see how this nationalities migration pattern has moved around/across the US. It goes as far back as 1890! Very informative and may be helpful for a research project.
Foreign Direct Investment is good for US. The Trade Deficit is bad for the US. How did my two-sided coin just become one-sided?
Foreign Investment in U.S. Jumped 49% in 2010 From 2009
If this is good news, then why is this NOT:
The BLUE line represents the US trade deficit with the rest of the world. It is negative because on a consistent basis we buy more stuff from the rest of the world than they buy from us. On net, after imports are subtracted from exports, we get "stuff" and they get dollars. What do they do with those dollars? They can buy some of our goods/services. They can buy US financial assets (stocks, corporate bonds, government debt/bonds, mortgages, etc). They can buy US physical assets (buildings and such) or invest in building new physical assets in the US (Honda or Mercedes building a auto manufacturing plant).
A dollar spent on imported goods/services does not disappear. Unless lost or hoarded, those dollars we exchange with foreigners MUST make their way back to the US at SOME TIME in the future, right? Otherwise, they are relatively worthless to the holder.
So, I guess as the Administration (Dem or Rep) is touting the good news of increased Foreign Direct Investment in the US, it SHOULD show as much enthusiasm for the trade deficit. But it does not seem to work that way. I guess if you believe there is such a thing as a one-sided coin, then I suppose it is possible.
To learn more about this concept of the "Balance of Payments", I encourage you to go to Welkerswikinomics. A much more detailed explanation from a REAL economics teacher...
Despite a world struggling through an economic crisis, direct foreign investment in the U.S. jumped $75 billion in 2010, the White House said Monday.
“The United States remains the No. 1 destination for foreign investment in the entire world,” said the chairman of U.S. President Barack Obama‘s Council of Economic Advisers, Austan Goolsbee. In times of crisis, he said, the U.S. is the “safest harbor.”
Direct foreign investment in the U.S. jumped 49% to $228 billion from $153 billion in 2009. Goolsbee said these investments support 5.7 million workers in the U.S.
President Obama, in a statement, hailed the important role of foreign investments in the U.S. He said the country’s openness to foreign investors helps explain the boost. He said the U.S. has the “world’s most productive workforce,” a culture of innovation, remarkable colleges, and a business environment marked by transparency and the rule of law.
If this is good news, then why is this NOT:
 |
| Source: Calculated Risk |
A dollar spent on imported goods/services does not disappear. Unless lost or hoarded, those dollars we exchange with foreigners MUST make their way back to the US at SOME TIME in the future, right? Otherwise, they are relatively worthless to the holder.
So, I guess as the Administration (Dem or Rep) is touting the good news of increased Foreign Direct Investment in the US, it SHOULD show as much enthusiasm for the trade deficit. But it does not seem to work that way. I guess if you believe there is such a thing as a one-sided coin, then I suppose it is possible.
To learn more about this concept of the "Balance of Payments", I encourage you to go to Welkerswikinomics. A much more detailed explanation from a REAL economics teacher...
See video demonstration of a Table Saw safety device in action---Will the inventor get his finger cut-off? You gotta see this!
Numerically the injuries that result from table saw accidents may be small, the "hebbie-jebbie" factor is quite high. The Comsumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is proposing that table saws come equipped with the safety device demonstrated in this video. Yikes! Get ready to wince!
HT: Freakonomics...
HT: Freakonomics...
"...At the same time, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has directed its staff to draft regulations governing the safety of table saws. An estimated 40,000 people are injured every year when hands, fingers or other body parts find their way into the path of a table saw blade. Inventor Stephen Gass has come up with a technology he calls SawStop, which senses if the spinning blade is starting to contact human skin and slams the blade to a halt within a few thousandths of a second. Gass even puts his finger into the path of the blade to demonstrate. See the video here.
The CPSC is apparently considering requiring that all new table saws come equipped with the SawStop technology, thus increasing the price of the product...""
Would you like a Dental Implant to go with your trip to The Galapagos Islands? Medical Tourism is on the rise. The difference in cost is HUGE!
More and more Americans are seeking healthcare from foreign sources, especially high dollar procedures. Below is a sample list of procedures and their costs in the US and other countries. What is the deal with Turkey?
HT: The Conversable Economist
 |
| Source: The Milliken Foundation |
How many people go abroad for medical procedures?
"In 2009, Deloitte revised its estimates down to 648,000 travelers annually, but forecast 35 percent increases in each of the threesucceeding years. It predicts that more than1.6 million Americans will travel abroad for health care in 2012."
What is the assurance of quality?
"Accreditation from the Joint Commission International (JCI) is recognized worldwide as the gold standard for hospitals. JCI screens facilities for the condition of their physical plants, their management of medications, the quality of their surgical care, their commitment to continuous improvement, and their responsiveness to feedback from patients. In the United States, the organization accredits more than 17,000 facilities, from hospitals to laboratories to long-term-care centers. JCI began accrediting hospitals outside the country in 1999. Today, the organization vouches for the quality of care at some 400 institutions in 45 countries from Austria to Yemen."
Texas IS just like China---well, in this one regard anyway...
Texas one of the fastest growing states in the last ten years in terms of Gross State Product (GSP)---the dollar value of the production of goods and/or services. We are number 2 behind California, but are likely to surpass them in the near future.
For those of you who have lived in Texas a relatively long time, how many people do you know that recently came here from one of the states shown below as a "loser". As a teacher this subject comes up frequently. When I ask students if they moved to Texas sometime during their lifetime to raise their hands, I usually get a 30% to 40% affirmative response. The reason?---business relocation and jobs.
Texas produces $1 Trillion in GSP--that is roughly 1/14th of the total US Gross Domestic Product (GDP). That is a lot of "stuff"....
Texas wins in U.S. economy shift
![]()
""Texas became the USA's second-largest economy during the past decade — displacing New York and perhaps heading one day toward challenging California — in one of the biggest economic shifts in the past half-century...."
"...Texas notched one of the biggest increases in size in a half-century, surpassing $1 trillion in annual economic output. The state gained nearly a full percentage point in its share of the U.S. economy during the decade, reaching 8.3% in 2010. This growth in economic clout has been matched only twice in the past 50 years — by California in the 1980s and Texas itself during the 1970s oil boom.""'
What does Texas produce?
For those of you who have lived in Texas a relatively long time, how many people do you know that recently came here from one of the states shown below as a "loser". As a teacher this subject comes up frequently. When I ask students if they moved to Texas sometime during their lifetime to raise their hands, I usually get a 30% to 40% affirmative response. The reason?---business relocation and jobs.
Texas produces $1 Trillion in GSP--that is roughly 1/14th of the total US Gross Domestic Product (GDP). That is a lot of "stuff"....
Texas wins in U.S. economy shift
"...Texas notched one of the biggest increases in size in a half-century, surpassing $1 trillion in annual economic output. The state gained nearly a full percentage point in its share of the U.S. economy during the decade, reaching 8.3% in 2010. This growth in economic clout has been matched only twice in the past 50 years — by California in the 1980s and Texas itself during the 1970s oil boom.""'
What does Texas produce?
Monday, June 20, 2011
Nice Interactive so you can solve the Social Security problem...Try it out and compare to what I did.
Using the parameters in this interactive provided by the Wall Street Journal, this is how I would go about solving the Social Security problem that looms on the horizon. The selections I made create a bit of a surplus (the triangle shape to the right of the "0.0"-- +.33%). After each ection, I offer explanations and rationales. This is not a prefect simulation, but it is a start.
Seems to me that the problem can only be solved by a mix of tax increases and benefit decreases, that will be progressive in some situations and regressive in others. I tried to do this as sensibly as possible and with some thought...
First, Social Security has to move to a "means tested" entitlement program (the first box checked above). This means that a retiree's OTHER income (savings, investments, 401K's, physical assets, etc) would be taken into consideration in determining how much in Social Security they would receive. The more you have in other independent assets, the less you get in Social Security you would be entitled to receive. The problem comes in as you move down the income scales where the government determines the cut-off points for the level of benefit received. Formulas will have to be created and there are lots of pitfalls there. EVERYONE should receive something (yes, even the rich guys/gals) because if someone contributes all their lives and gets nothing in return, then the program is not an entitlement but a welfare-type program. This IS an important distinction.
Second, the retirement age has to increase from 67 to 68 (the next box checked above). This is not a huge jump, given the increased life expectancy of the average American. This is a regressive policy, however. Statistically, lower income/poor people have shorter life expectancies relative to high income/rich people---wait longer and receive less benefits is regressive in nature. I soften the impact of this in my last point a little bit down the page.
![]()
Third, a payroll tax increase over an extended period of time, from a total of 12.4% to 14.4%. This is a 16% increase in payroll taxes over 20 years. Currently, workers pay 6.2% of their gross earnings in Social Security and the employer pays 6.2% on your behalf as well, for a total of 14.2%. This is regressive in that lower income people pay a higher percentage of their total income in payroll taxes than do higher income people. Currently, the maximum income that is subject to the 6.2% Social Security tax is $106,000. Any income OVER that amount is not subject to SS Tax. The interactive does not give an option for a moderate increase over the $106,000, but I would be in favor of increasing it, but not to the $200,000 level suggested in the interactive.
![]()
Lastly, as mentioned above I would make provision for the "very poor" elderly population amongst us (box checked above). This is a progressive policy. Do I really need to explain/justify that one? Pretty self-explanatory, in my opinion.
I believe my choices reflect a political "Moderates" approach to solving the Social Security problem. Liberals will not like that I don't put more of the burden on the "rich" and Conservatives won't like that I means tested the program AND raised taxes. However, I do not know of a better way out of our predicament. Do you?
Please try the interactive yourself but really think about what (1) you would do and (2) what could actually be implemented. Two very different things...
Seems to me that the problem can only be solved by a mix of tax increases and benefit decreases, that will be progressive in some situations and regressive in others. I tried to do this as sensibly as possible and with some thought...
 |
| Source: WSJ |
First, Social Security has to move to a "means tested" entitlement program (the first box checked above). This means that a retiree's OTHER income (savings, investments, 401K's, physical assets, etc) would be taken into consideration in determining how much in Social Security they would receive. The more you have in other independent assets, the less you get in Social Security you would be entitled to receive. The problem comes in as you move down the income scales where the government determines the cut-off points for the level of benefit received. Formulas will have to be created and there are lots of pitfalls there. EVERYONE should receive something (yes, even the rich guys/gals) because if someone contributes all their lives and gets nothing in return, then the program is not an entitlement but a welfare-type program. This IS an important distinction.
Second, the retirement age has to increase from 67 to 68 (the next box checked above). This is not a huge jump, given the increased life expectancy of the average American. This is a regressive policy, however. Statistically, lower income/poor people have shorter life expectancies relative to high income/rich people---wait longer and receive less benefits is regressive in nature. I soften the impact of this in my last point a little bit down the page.
Third, a payroll tax increase over an extended period of time, from a total of 12.4% to 14.4%. This is a 16% increase in payroll taxes over 20 years. Currently, workers pay 6.2% of their gross earnings in Social Security and the employer pays 6.2% on your behalf as well, for a total of 14.2%. This is regressive in that lower income people pay a higher percentage of their total income in payroll taxes than do higher income people. Currently, the maximum income that is subject to the 6.2% Social Security tax is $106,000. Any income OVER that amount is not subject to SS Tax. The interactive does not give an option for a moderate increase over the $106,000, but I would be in favor of increasing it, but not to the $200,000 level suggested in the interactive.
I believe my choices reflect a political "Moderates" approach to solving the Social Security problem. Liberals will not like that I don't put more of the burden on the "rich" and Conservatives won't like that I means tested the program AND raised taxes. However, I do not know of a better way out of our predicament. Do you?
Please try the interactive yourself but really think about what (1) you would do and (2) what could actually be implemented. Two very different things...
Nice Graphic: What happens on the internet in a minute...
HT: Carpe Diem
 |
| Source:MSNBC |
""Let's say that it takes you exactly one minute to read through this post. In that time, over 6,600 photos will be uploaded to Flickr, about 70 new domains will be registered, over 1,200 new ads will be created on Craigslist, and more. Here's what happens on the Internet every 60 seconds.
Now keep in mind that the data below and the infographic above come from the Shanghai Web Designers team. We have done our best to confirm that the statistics provided line up with known data, but you should still take everything with a hefty serving of salt.
That disclaimer aside and without further ado, here's what's happening each minute:
•Search engine Google serves more that 694,445 queries
•6,600+ pictures are uploaded to Flickr
•600 videos are uploaded to YouTube, amounting to 25+ hours of content
•695,000 status updates, 79,364 wall posts and 510,040 comments are published on social networking site Facebook
•70 new domains are registered
•168,000,000+ emails are sent
•320 new accounts and 98,000 tweets are generated on social networking site Twitter
•iPhone applications are downloaded more than 13,000 times
•20,000 new posts are published on micro-blogging platform Tumblr
•Popular web browser FireFox is downloaded more than 1,700 times
•Popular blogging platform WordPress is downloaded more than 50 times
•WordPress Plugins are downloaded more than 125 times
•100 accounts are created on professional networking site LinkedIn
•40 new questions are asked on YahooAnswers.com
•100+ questions are asked on Answers.com
•1 new article is published on Associated Content, the world’s largest source of community-created content
•1 new definition is added on UrbanDictionary.com
•1,200+ new ads are created on Craigslist
•370,000+ minutes of voice calls done by Skype users
•13,000+ hours of music streaming is done by personalized Internet radio provider Pandora
•1,600+ reads are made on Scribd, the largest social reading publishing company
Impressive? Scary? Overwhelming? We're not sure. But we do know that a lot happened in the few moments it took to look at this blog post — so you better rush to catch up.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
For my 2 or 3 loyal blog readers in the US and around the world, I will be on vacation for a week. See the videos of where I will be...
We are going to spend a week in Olympic National Park in Washington (the State). I have never been to the Pacific Northwest, so I am looking forward to it. We are staying 3 days at Lake Quinault in the rainforest and 3 days at Kalaloch Lodge on the coast. Not flashy, but cool temperatures and hopefully small crowds this early in the season.
Lake Quinault Lodge:
Kalaloch on the coast:
Lake Quinault Lodge:
Kalaloch on the coast:
Friday, June 10, 2011
Where does your State rank in a Freedom Index...If you would prefer to "Live Free OR Die" then move to the head of the line..
US States ranked on several measures and given a Freedom ranking. Always important to look at "who" is measuring "what", so take the outcome below as you will. The results are interesting none-the-less. I spent my formative years New Hampshire so I am biased in favor of this ranking. If you want more information on the metrics of this study, go HERE...
 |
| Mercatus Center |
A nice graphic showing Skilled Immigrants out number Un-skilled immigrants in the US. This is a GOOD thing for us. Now we don't have to do math and science if we don't "feel like it"...
For the first time, immigrants classified as "skilled" outnumber those classified as "un-skilled" in the US. This graphic shows where in the country this is taking place. I saw this and immediately thought of two maps I posted a couple of weeks ago.The first one is the wage differential around the US and the second one for job postings relative to the areas population. Both are posted below... Notice a pattern? If you step back and look at them all together it i fairly obvious what is going on. Skilled immigrants "appear" in places where there are lots of job openings relative to the population AND the average wage in those areas is higher relative to other areas of the country. I believe many (most?) of these jobs are of a technical nature and require math and science knowledge at the highest levels. The demand simply cannot be satisfied domestically. What do you think? Please, REALLY think about this before you respond. Looking for thoughtful answers, not arrow slinging...Thanks!
 |
| Source: Chartporn |
Nice graphic on the short history of the cost of computing---Pause and think about the power you have at your finger tips...
The data for the graph from CARPE DIEM is HERE...You "techies" who appreciate the history of computing will appreciate the information there. Another reason to stop, look at your computer, and smile at all its glory. I am amazed that a schmuck like me has access to this power...
 |
| Source: Carpe Diem |
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Part 1 of my analysis of KISD finances vs Mansfield, Irving and Richardson ISD's. I hope I don't get fired...or promoted...it could go either way...
One of the biggest criticisms taxpayers have of school districts is the amount of money spent on the salaries of different categories of employees. I have been known to voice this concern myself. I am going to use my amateur social science skills and do a PER STUDENT analysis of KISD and 3 other school districts---Mansfield ISD, Irving ISD and Richardson ISD. I choose Mansfield ISD because the student enrollment is almost identical to KISD and they have a similar feeder school alignment that KISD has--meaning they have an Intermediate School level. I have found this is unique in Region 10 and Region 11, both cover the D/FW Metroplex. I choose Irving and Richardson based on similar student populations as well. I DID NOT look at any specific data before choosing these districts, so I did not cherry-pick districts to obtain any pre-determined outcome.
I am going to look at the student to employee ratio AND the student to employee salary ratio. Assigning a per student cost relative to salaries makes a cross-district comparison valid.
In this part I calculate the Student Population-to-Employee Ratio. It is a rough indicator or how many employees a district believes it is necessary to serve the student population. Below you will find the districts and their student populations.
I put screen shots of the data below and the links to the district specific data are below each screen shot. You can go and verify the data your self, if you feel the need. The numbers are from the latest AEIS data from the TEA.
To find the student to employee ratio I took the districts enrollment number and divided it by the number of employees in the particular category. I highlighted the district that has the more favorable ratio--The higher the number the more students this employee "serves". Now, this could be good or bad depending on how you perceive it. Presumably, the higher the ratio the more cost effective this employee is. Again, relative, but when talking about "fiscal responsibility" (as opposed to "educational responsibility") it is an important indicator.
Student Populations for the school districts:
Keller ISD--31,450
Mansfield ISD---31,614
Irving ISD--33,563
Richardson ISD---34,736
1. Total Student to Total Staff Ratio (Student Population/Total Staff)
Keller = 8.94 students per total staff member
Mansfield = 8.43 students per total staff member
Irving = 7.80 students per total staff member
Richardson = 7.33 students per total staff member
2. Total Student Population to Teacher Staff Ratio (Student Population/Total Teachers)
Keller = 16.11 students per teacher
Mansfield = 16.39 students per teacher
Irving = 13.82 students per teacher
Richardson = 13.88 students per Teacher
3. Total Student Population to Professional Staff Ratio (Student Population/Professional Staff)
Keller = 88.09 students per professional support member
Mansfield = 119.75 students per professional support member
Irving = 103.91 students per professional support member
Richardson = 57.98 students per professional support member
4. Total Student Population to Campus Administration Ratio (Student Population /Total Campus Admin)
Keller = 308 students per campus administrators
Mansfield = 295
Irving = 277
Richardson = 274
5. Total Student Population to Central Administration
Keller = 898.57 students per central administrator
Mansfield = 987.93 students per central administrator
Irving = 621.54 students per central administrator
Richardson = 807.81 students per central administrator
6. Total Student Population to Educational Aides
Keller = 111.92
Mansfield = 103.99
Irving = 74.91
Richardson = 110.27
7. Total Student Population to Auxiliary Staff
Keller = 40.01 students per auxiliary staff
Mansfield = 28.37 students per auxiliary staff
Irving = 28.37 students per auxiliary staff
Richardson = 30.33 students per auxiliary staff
For Keller ISD some good and some bad. The glaring negatives are numbers 3 and 5. Mansfield ISD ratios are higher so you would expect their costs to be lower. But are they? For that we will have to now look at the salaries each district pays for the positions examined above. The data directly below is for the numbers calculated above. Scroll down past these to get to the second part...
The second part of this analysis is to take the per student information from above and use it to calculate the per student dollar amount that the particular category of employee costs taxpayers. I am only going to use the categories of employees that are, in general, the most expensive and the ones that are the target of most criticism. Here are the salaries for the 4 school districts...I will meet you down the screen...:)
1. Student cost per Teaching position. Take the salary and divide it by the student per teacher ratio.
Keller = $51,060/16.11 students per teacher = $3,169.45 per student
Mansfield = $51,411/16.39 students per teacher = $3,136.73 per student
Irving = $48,557/13.82 students per teacher = $3,513.53
Richardson = $51,411/13.88 students per Teacher = $3,703.96
Mansfield by has an edge on KISD of $32.72 per student in teacher salary per student. Virtually a wash. KISD has an advantage over Irving ($344.08 LESS per student) and Richardson ($534.51 LESS per student). These are significant amounts!
The positions with the largest dollar variance for KISD relative to the others are Professional Support, which per position is $4,000 to $5,000 LESS than the other 3 districts and Central Administration, which per position varies from $8,000 to $18,000 LESS per position.
2. Student cost per "Professional Support" position. Take the salary and divide it by the student per professional support position ratio.
Keller = $53,475/88.09 students per professional support = $607.04
Mansfield = $58,624/119.75 students per professional support = $489.55
Irving = $57,003/103.91 students per professional support = $548.58
Richardson = $58,624/57.98 students per professional support = $1,011.10
Mansfield's professional support serves its students for $117.49 less per student than KISD. If one is looking for "fiscal accountability" this is one area to look at in KISD. Irving does in for less cost too ($58.46) and Richardson for significantly more than KISD ($404.06).
3. Student cost per Campus Administration position. Take the salary and divide it by the student to Campus Administrator ratio.
Keller = $73,103/308 students per campus administrator = $237.34 per student
Mansfield = $74,803/295 students per campus administrator = $253.57 per student
Irving = $76,172/277 students per campus administrator = $274.99 per student
Richardson = $74,803/274 students per campus administrator = $273.00 per student
Keller's campus administration cost per student are $16.23 less than Mansfield's, $37.65 less than Irving's, and $35.66 less than Richardson's. KISD and Mansfield ISD cost are close, relative to Irving and Richardson ISD's.
4. Student cost per Central Administration position. Take the salary and divide it by the student to Central Administration position.
Keller = $91,999/898.57 students per central administrator = $102.38 per student
Mansfield = $110,635/987.93 students per central administrator = $111.99 per student
Irving = $100,028/621.54 students per central administrator = $160.94 per student
Richardson = $110,635/807.81 students per central administrator = $136.96
KISD's Central Administration cost per student is $9.61 LESS than Mansfield's, $58.56 less than Irving's and $34.58 less than Richardson's. This effectively neutralizes the conclusion from part 1 (No 5) concerning the student to central administration ratio, which greatly favored Mansfield. When salaries are taken into consideration KISD's Central Administration salaries are the least expensive to the other districts on a per student basis.
Conclusion:
I took 3 school districts with similar numerical enrollments and calculated a per student to employee ratio and a per student cost for each of the major categories of employees. The former indicates the number of employees a district figures it needs to serve students. The latter shows a per student cost for these same employees.
While number 5 in the first section showed a wide disparity between Mansfield and KISD in Central Admin on a per student basis, that gap was closed when the average salaries of the central administrators wher factored in. This is a significant finding, I believe.
KISD is open for examination on its"professional support" per student ratio AND per student cost for those support personnel.
I think it is safe to say that KISD is as cost efficient in most of the metrics as the very similar Mansfield ISD, with the noted exception of the category of "Professional Support" and BOTH these districts are much more efficient than Irving and Richardson ISD's.
So, when it is suggested that KISD spends too much money on salaries I think the appropriate response would be "Compared to Who?" or is it "whom"?...That is why I am a Social Studies teacher...
I am going to look at the student to employee ratio AND the student to employee salary ratio. Assigning a per student cost relative to salaries makes a cross-district comparison valid.
In this part I calculate the Student Population-to-Employee Ratio. It is a rough indicator or how many employees a district believes it is necessary to serve the student population. Below you will find the districts and their student populations.
I put screen shots of the data below and the links to the district specific data are below each screen shot. You can go and verify the data your self, if you feel the need. The numbers are from the latest AEIS data from the TEA.
To find the student to employee ratio I took the districts enrollment number and divided it by the number of employees in the particular category. I highlighted the district that has the more favorable ratio--The higher the number the more students this employee "serves". Now, this could be good or bad depending on how you perceive it. Presumably, the higher the ratio the more cost effective this employee is. Again, relative, but when talking about "fiscal responsibility" (as opposed to "educational responsibility") it is an important indicator.
Student Populations for the school districts:
Keller ISD--31,450
Mansfield ISD---31,614
Irving ISD--33,563
Richardson ISD---34,736
1. Total Student to Total Staff Ratio (Student Population/Total Staff)
Keller = 8.94 students per total staff member
Mansfield = 8.43 students per total staff member
Irving = 7.80 students per total staff member
Richardson = 7.33 students per total staff member
2. Total Student Population to Teacher Staff Ratio (Student Population/Total Teachers)
Keller = 16.11 students per teacher
Mansfield = 16.39 students per teacher
Irving = 13.82 students per teacher
Richardson = 13.88 students per Teacher
3. Total Student Population to Professional Staff Ratio (Student Population/Professional Staff)
Keller = 88.09 students per professional support member
Mansfield = 119.75 students per professional support member
Irving = 103.91 students per professional support member
Richardson = 57.98 students per professional support member
4. Total Student Population to Campus Administration Ratio (Student Population /Total Campus Admin)
Keller = 308 students per campus administrators
Mansfield = 295
Irving = 277
Richardson = 274
5. Total Student Population to Central Administration
Keller = 898.57 students per central administrator
Mansfield = 987.93 students per central administrator
Irving = 621.54 students per central administrator
Richardson = 807.81 students per central administrator
6. Total Student Population to Educational Aides
Keller = 111.92
Mansfield = 103.99
Irving = 74.91
Richardson = 110.27
7. Total Student Population to Auxiliary Staff
Keller = 40.01 students per auxiliary staff
Mansfield = 28.37 students per auxiliary staff
Irving = 28.37 students per auxiliary staff
Richardson = 30.33 students per auxiliary staff
For Keller ISD some good and some bad. The glaring negatives are numbers 3 and 5. Mansfield ISD ratios are higher so you would expect their costs to be lower. But are they? For that we will have to now look at the salaries each district pays for the positions examined above. The data directly below is for the numbers calculated above. Scroll down past these to get to the second part...
 |
| KELLER ISD |
 |
| MANSFIELD ISD |
 |
| IRVING ISD |
 |
| RICHARDSON ISD |
The second part of this analysis is to take the per student information from above and use it to calculate the per student dollar amount that the particular category of employee costs taxpayers. I am only going to use the categories of employees that are, in general, the most expensive and the ones that are the target of most criticism. Here are the salaries for the 4 school districts...I will meet you down the screen...:)
 |
| Keller ISD |
 |
| Mansfield ISD |
 |
| Irving ISD |
 |
| Richardson ISD |
1. Student cost per Teaching position. Take the salary and divide it by the student per teacher ratio.
Keller = $51,060/16.11 students per teacher = $3,169.45 per student
Mansfield = $51,411/16.39 students per teacher = $3,136.73 per student
Irving = $48,557/13.82 students per teacher = $3,513.53
Richardson = $51,411/13.88 students per Teacher = $3,703.96
Mansfield by has an edge on KISD of $32.72 per student in teacher salary per student. Virtually a wash. KISD has an advantage over Irving ($344.08 LESS per student) and Richardson ($534.51 LESS per student). These are significant amounts!
The positions with the largest dollar variance for KISD relative to the others are Professional Support, which per position is $4,000 to $5,000 LESS than the other 3 districts and Central Administration, which per position varies from $8,000 to $18,000 LESS per position.
2. Student cost per "Professional Support" position. Take the salary and divide it by the student per professional support position ratio.
Keller = $53,475/88.09 students per professional support = $607.04
Mansfield = $58,624/119.75 students per professional support = $489.55
Irving = $57,003/103.91 students per professional support = $548.58
Richardson = $58,624/57.98 students per professional support = $1,011.10
Mansfield's professional support serves its students for $117.49 less per student than KISD. If one is looking for "fiscal accountability" this is one area to look at in KISD. Irving does in for less cost too ($58.46) and Richardson for significantly more than KISD ($404.06).
3. Student cost per Campus Administration position. Take the salary and divide it by the student to Campus Administrator ratio.
Keller = $73,103/308 students per campus administrator = $237.34 per student
Mansfield = $74,803/295 students per campus administrator = $253.57 per student
Irving = $76,172/277 students per campus administrator = $274.99 per student
Richardson = $74,803/274 students per campus administrator = $273.00 per student
Keller's campus administration cost per student are $16.23 less than Mansfield's, $37.65 less than Irving's, and $35.66 less than Richardson's. KISD and Mansfield ISD cost are close, relative to Irving and Richardson ISD's.
4. Student cost per Central Administration position. Take the salary and divide it by the student to Central Administration position.
Keller = $91,999/898.57 students per central administrator = $102.38 per student
Mansfield = $110,635/987.93 students per central administrator = $111.99 per student
Irving = $100,028/621.54 students per central administrator = $160.94 per student
Richardson = $110,635/807.81 students per central administrator = $136.96
KISD's Central Administration cost per student is $9.61 LESS than Mansfield's, $58.56 less than Irving's and $34.58 less than Richardson's. This effectively neutralizes the conclusion from part 1 (No 5) concerning the student to central administration ratio, which greatly favored Mansfield. When salaries are taken into consideration KISD's Central Administration salaries are the least expensive to the other districts on a per student basis.
Conclusion:
I took 3 school districts with similar numerical enrollments and calculated a per student to employee ratio and a per student cost for each of the major categories of employees. The former indicates the number of employees a district figures it needs to serve students. The latter shows a per student cost for these same employees.
While number 5 in the first section showed a wide disparity between Mansfield and KISD in Central Admin on a per student basis, that gap was closed when the average salaries of the central administrators wher factored in. This is a significant finding, I believe.
KISD is open for examination on its"professional support" per student ratio AND per student cost for those support personnel.
I think it is safe to say that KISD is as cost efficient in most of the metrics as the very similar Mansfield ISD, with the noted exception of the category of "Professional Support" and BOTH these districts are much more efficient than Irving and Richardson ISD's.
So, when it is suggested that KISD spends too much money on salaries I think the appropriate response would be "Compared to Who?" or is it "whom"?...That is why I am a Social Studies teacher...
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
How do we keep the elephant from becoming extinct? Easy! Let people shoot them, eat them and sell the ivory. Get over your squimishness. The elephants NEED you to support this!!
Below is a graphic (HT: Carpe Diem) comparing the elephant population of Kenya and Zimbabwe from 1970 to 2011. You can see they run counter to each other. Why? It is the result of how each country dealt with the problem of "The Tragedy of the Commons"...Kenya banned hunting of elephants and Zimbabwe gave ownership rights to the elephants to local communities. It may be distasteful to many the way they went about saving the elephant from extinction but they, well, saved the elephant from extinction. Please read the excerpt below and at least consider the effectiveness of this approach. The elephant population needs you to help them survive!
The following is from Defining Ideas (HT: Carpe Diem)
 |
| Source: Carpe Diem |
In the 1970s, Kenya had about six times as many elephants as Zimbabwe, and today Zimbabwe has three times more elephants than Kenya (see chart). What happened that caused the dramatic reversal in elephant populations in the two African countries?
Terry Anderson and Shawn Regan of the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) explain in their excellent article "Shoot an Elephant, Save a Community":
"Anti-hunting groups succeeded in getting Kenya to ban all hunting in 1977. Since then, its population of large wild animals has declined between 60 and 70 percent. The country’s elephant population declined from 167,000 in 1973 to just 16,000 in 1989. Poaching took its toll on elephants because of their damage to both cropland and people. Today Kenya wildlife officials boast a doubling of the country’s elephant population to 32,000, but nearly all are in protected national parks where poaching can be controlled.
In sharp contrast to Kenya, consider what has happened in Zimbabwe. In 1989, results-oriented groups such as the World Wildlife Fund helped implement a program known as the Communal Areas Management Program for Indigenous Resources or CAMPFIRE. This approach devolves the rights to benefit from, dispose of, and manage natural resources to the local level, including the right to allow safari hunting. Community leaders with local knowledge about wildlife and its interface with humans help establish sustainable hunting quotas. Hunting then provides jobs for community members, compensation for crop and property damage, revenue to build schools, clinics, and water wells, and meat for villagers.
By granting local people control over wildlife resources, their incentive to protect it has strengthened. As a result, poaching has been contained and human-wildlife conflicts have been reduced. While challenges remain, especially from the current political climate in Zimbabwe, CAMPFIRE has quietly produced results with strikingly little activist rhetoric.
Between 1989 and 2005, Zimbabwe’s total elephant population more than doubled from 37,000 to 85,000, with half living outside of national parks. Today, some put the number as high as 100,000, even after decades of legal, trophy hunting. All of this has occurred with an economy in shambles, regime uncertainty, and mounting socio-political challenges."
Looking to buy a Used Car? Flood damaged cars from the Mid-west are making their way into the marketplace. See how you can check for yourself if the car you want is a deal or not...
The chart below shows the dramatic increase in the price of used compact and midsized cars in the past year. The bump has really occured just in the last few months as gas prices spiked and the demand for these classes of vehicles increased. There is a huge incentive for dealers and other used car brokers to get cars and bring them to market as soon as possible. I would like to offer a warning to you: BE CAREFUL in purchasing a used car!
Tens of thousands (100's of thousands?) of cars that were damaged by the floods and other storms in the Mid-west this spring are hitting or will soon hit the market. Insurance companies take possession of the vehicles after paying off the claims to customers and then sell them to salvagers. The cars are then cleaned up and made to look REAL good. They make their way to auto auction houses and eventually to car lots across the country.
PROTECT YOURSELF!! Go HERE for a FREE vehicle history check on any used car you might purchase, courtesy of the Tx Dept of Motor Vehicles. I have not used this and don't know how good it is compared to Carfax. If you try it, let me know...
 |
| Source: Manheim Consulting |
PROTECT YOURSELF!! Go HERE for a FREE vehicle history check on any used car you might purchase, courtesy of the Tx Dept of Motor Vehicles. I have not used this and don't know how good it is compared to Carfax. If you try it, let me know...
 |
| Texas Dept of Motor Vehicles |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
View My Stats