[Anon_Forever]

>Take 15% of the students out of a class and you get 15% less income, but you still need the same number of teachers, admins, building costs, etc.

Those should scale somewhat linearly too though. Consolidate classrooms to keep the same student-to-teacher ratio and you'll need less teachers. Less teachers means less administration. Less children means less buildings, etc.

There's so much dead weight in administration that can be cut. This may force the hand.

[stevenicr]

As much as I agree that there is a ton of dead weight in the public school system as a whole, and I strongly feel that the buildings themselves are a big part of that in many parts of the country,

I don't agree that the 15% scales linearly in most cases you can't remove 15% of a principal, or security guard, and in most cases there aren't enough math teachers or similar for a good class size to really help - if a school has 2 math teachers you can't remove 15% of them because you have 6 less kids in the school.

I am all for less buildings, less football fields and all that though for sure - a complete rework of the whole complex would benefit most kids in the low and middle.

[_aavaa_]

A) this will be politically difficult. And can’t simply be handwaved away by saying it should happen anyway. Cynically, I also don’t see the administration getting any smaller…

B) you can’t get rid of a classroom in a building. Your stuck with it.

[Anon_Forever]

No doubt it'll be politically difficult, I agree with you there. I'm also cynical when it comes to administration not wanting to slim down.

Indeed you can't get rid of classrooms, but I see lots of schools with temporary buildings that can be removed. You could also consolidate schools, but it may be difficult to forecast and plan.