LADY BUDGETDOWN | ROCHESTER COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Well, dear readers, apparently Plymouth-Canton wasn't the end of this particular rabbit hole. 🐇🪶
After separating school/building administrators from district/central administrators there, I decided to apply the same analysis, using the same years and the same data sources, to Rochester Community School District.
Here's what I found.
From 2014–15 to 2024–25:
🔻 PUPILS
14,996 → 14,775.57
Down 1.47%
🔻 SCHOOL/BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
50.01 FTE → 35.00 FTE
Down 30.0%
Now look at the district side of the ledger.
🔺 DISTRICT/CENTRAL ADMINISTRATORS
18.03 FTE → 42.00 FTE
Up 132.9%
In other words, Rochester's pupil count was relatively stable over the decade, declining just 1.47%.
Its school/building administrator FTE declined 30.0%.
But its district/central administrator FTE more than doubled, increasing 132.9%.
That doesn't tell me those positions were unnecessary. It doesn't tell me why they were added. And it doesn't tell me whether responsibilities were reorganized, positions were reclassified, services were brought in-house, or the district's needs changed.
But it certainly gives me a question:
What changed at the district/central level?
What positions or responsibilities account for district-level administrative FTE growing from 18.03 to 42.00 while pupil enrollment remained relatively stable and building administration declined?
There may be a perfectly reasonable explanation. I'd simply like to understand what it is.
Because once again, sometimes the interesting part isn't simply whether administration changed.
It's where it changed.
🪶 With receipts & respect.
Sources: Michigan Department of Education Bulletin 1014, 2014–15 and 2024–25; National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data, LEA Staff data, 2014–15 and 2024–25.
#RochesterCommunitySchools #RCS #SchoolSpending #FiscalTransparency #SchoolAdministration #PublicEducation #LadyBudgetdown