The median tenure for superintendent of the 10 largest public school systems is just 4 months. The average tenure is 2 years 9 months.
The median tenure for CEO of the 10 largest corporations is >12 years. The average is >16 years.
It is impossible to effectively run a complex organization with this level of turnover. High performing organizations find a great leader & insulate her from from the fray. The politics of local schools creates the opposite: excessive focus on short term noise & constant change.
Tenure of superintendents of the 10 largest school districts:
Tenure of CEOs of the 10 largest corporations (mkt cap):
Amazon 1 month
Visa 5 years
Google 6 years
Microsoft 8 years
Apple 10 years
JPM 16 years
Facebook 17 years
Tesla 18 years
Nvidia 28 years
Berkshire 55 years
60% of the superintendents of the 10 largest school systems have been on the job <6 months.
3 of the 10 systems are being run by interim superintendents.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The fundamental problem with Congress is that every well-organized interest group holds an effective veto on legislation. Thus the only substantive domestic proposals that have a chance of surviving the sausage making in this Congress are new spending bills without a pay-for. 1/6
Inevitably, any reform to improve a system has opposition. Unable & unwilling to take on special interest groups that object, Congress finds it expedient to throw money at a problem rather than improve existing system. If all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. 2/6
Health care is prime example. We could get much better outcomes with same (enormous) expenditure, but interest groups veto any reform. Without any perceived constraint on deficits, it's easier for Congress to increase health spending rather than improve the existing system. 3/6
There’s been seismic shift in the Houston energy industry of late. A year ago, there was a lot of defending the oil & gas sector and denouncing renewables. Anecdotally, about 75% of the talk was O&G and 25% clean energy. It feels like those numbers have reversed. 1/4
Three-quarters of discussions now are about wind, solar, batteries, transmission, lithium, cleantech, etc. Even those who are not ideological believers are taking the cues from the financial markets, which have no interest in oil production growth anymore. 2/4
The markets are rewarding those in a growth industry (zero carbon energy) vs one in secular decline. Plus, the capital available to O&G has dried up. Every energy PE firm in town is raising $ for clean energy (good luck pitching an oil fund to a university endowment now). 3/4
Texas failed to insure against the consequences of a 100 year weather event but insurance costs $. And Texans hate any increase in taxes, fees, or service costs, even when the $ is used to prevent property damage and deaths. The story of drainage in Houston is a good example. 1/6
After major flooding in '98, '01, '06, '08, and '09 with significant property damage including 3 events with fatalities, Houston voters were asked to approve an impervious surface fee in 2010 to fund new drainage (average cost of $5/month per property). 2/6
Flooding was highly salient. This wasn't to fix a problem that happened every 20 or 50 or 100 years. It was to address an issue that happens every 2 or 3 years. Still, the vote was highly contentious, only passing 53-47%, & dominated mayoral politics for the following decade. 3/6
3 reports on philanthropy this week: (1) Total giving increased 2%, from $450 to $459 bln. -@blackbaud (2) DAF accounts increased from $112 to $142 bln over 2 yrs. -@AEI (3) Fidelity DAF distributed $9.1 bln last year.
Combined, these studies show the best & worst of DAFs. 1/
On the + side, DAFs are very useful vehicles for donors. They allow ease of execution, low costs, & tax efficiency that promotes giving. For donors looking to contribute appreciated assets or bunch donations into a single year to get the tax benefit, these are great vehicles. 2/
However, the data shows growing problem of asset accumulation within philanthropic vehicles without a commensurate increase in giving to working charities. DAF assets should not be growing at a faster absolute dollar pace (15 bln/yr) than total $ giving to nonprofits (9 bln). 3/
NFL has hard salary cap. NBA sets a max player contract. Euro soccer limits the $ a team can lose. Pro team owners recognize folly of competing in zero-sum industry with huge external pressure to spend. College athletics, though, continues to engage in self-destructing acts. 1/
Recently fired head football coaches (+ assistants) are owed buyouts of $24 mil @ Texas and $22-30 mil @ Auburn. That public universities are paying coaching staffs 8-figure payments NOT TO WORK during Covid-era budget cuts in academic programs is wrong on so many levels. 2/
Boosters and alums get caught in the obsession, thinking their school should be above average. If Boise State can do it… If Stanford…If Oklahoma… But by definition, half of teams will be below avg. The mindset becomes “we just need a different coach and better facilities…” 3/
I'm proud to join a coalition of philanthropists and foundations to announce an effort to accelerate charitable giving. The effort calls for common-sense tax reforms to help increase the amount and flow of resources to charities. Short thread on the issues and our proposals. 1/
Private foundations (PFs) and donor advised funds (DAFs) are important vehicles to support giving. But asset aggregation in these vehicles is not enough. Our tax laws should ensure these dollars get distributed to the community in a timely manner. Today they don't. 2/
Moving money to a DAF is a tax strategy, not philanthropy. Distributing the money from a DAF to nonprofit orgs that support the community is when it becomes a charitable act.
Tax law should encourage both actions, not just the former.
3/