How much of Brooklyn’s school district is administrators rather than teachers, how much of its budget administration takes, and how much of both is simply the district’s size.
8 terms bear on this page; the 6 most used are above. Full definitions, what each measure does not support, and the source behind it: How these numbers work.
01 How much of this district is administration?
How much of this district is administrators, how much of its budget administration takes, and how much of both is simply its size. Every figure below is a count of positions or a share of spending, from the state’s own uniform collections, for the district that employs the staff.
Loading…
Loading…
Source: CT State Department of Education, EdSight FTE Staffing report and enrollment dashboard (October 1 collection, by school year), and the Education Financial System per-pupil expenditures by function (by fiscal year), joined with the town-to-district map in ct_town_school_districts.json by Data/build_administration.py into administration.json. Each tile names the year its own figure comes from. Rank and median beneath a tile are across every Connecticut district with a published figure that year; a tile is flagged only when it sits in the lowest or highest tenth, and a position is not a grade.
03 Where do those positions sit?
Loading…
Source: EdSight FTE Staffing report via administration.json (staffing.groups.admin_central and admin_school, the state’s categories carried separately). A one-year step in either bar can be a staffing change or a change in how a position was classified that year; the source offers no way to tell the two apart, and the insight box names any step large enough to be worth that caution.
04 How many students are there for each administrator?
Loading…
Source: EdSight via administration.json — numerator staffing.enrollment (the October 1 headcount, not the average membership the OPM finance files use); denominators the administrator categories and the two teacher categories, for the same district and the same school year. The two lines are on different scales of the same axis and are not comparable to each other in level; what each shows is its own movement.
05 How much of this is simply district size?
Loading…
Source: both axes from EdSight via administration.json, same district and same school year on each point — vertical, the administrator share described above; horizontal, staffing.enrollment. The fit is a description of these points and not a prediction for any district. The box below also gives the size question without a model, as the observed median share in each quarter of districts by enrollment, so a reader is not asked to take a fitted slope on trust. The statewide version of this chart, with every district ranked, is on the administration ranking page.
06 How does that share compare with the peer districts?
Loading…
Source: EdSight FTE Staffing report via administration.json, most recent school year the district reports. Peer towns come from this town’s own comparison groups; each is mapped to the district that operates its schools, so a regional district serving several peer towns is one bar, not several. Districts with no reported staffing that year are omitted rather than charted at zero, and the insight box names them.
08 How do those administration dollars compare per pupil?
Loading…
Source: EdSight Education Financial System via administration.json (spending.general_admin and school_admin, each divided by spending.pupils, the pupil count the same file reports for the same district and year). The pupil basis is the state’s for this report and is not the October 1 headcount used by the staffing charts above, so a per-pupil figure here and a per-student ratio there rest on different denominators and are not two versions of one number.
Everything above counts positions or dollars by function. None of it is a salary. Connecticut’s education data portal publishes staffing levels, vacancies, attrition, diversity and preparation — and no compensation figures of any kind, for any district.
That gap is being closed from the records side rather than guessed at. Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-153d(b) every board of education must file a signed copy of each teacher and administrator contract with the town clerk and with the Commissioner of Education, so the negotiated salary schedules for nearly every district in the state sit together at the State Department of Education. Superintendent contracts are not bargaining-unit agreements and are not filed there; each is a separate request to its own board of education.
Until those schedules are in hand this page carries no pay figure at all, rather than an estimate standing in for one. A district with fewer, better-paid administrators can spend more on administration than a district with more of them, and nothing here can currently tell those two apart.
Brooklyn’s own series behind the charts on this page, as text. Each table names the dataset it came from and the year of every row. The peer towns and group medians the charts also plot are not repeated here; they are in the same source files, linked in the footer.
Canterbury · Hampton · Killingly · Plainfield · Pomfret
The towns that share a border or an immediate labor market. Right for regional context; they are not matched on size or wealth.
Ashford · Beacon Falls · Bozrah · Canaan · Chaplin · Chester · Colebrook · Coventry · Deep River · East Haddam · Eastford · Franklin · Goshen · Hampton · Hartland · Kent · Lebanon · Lisbon · Litchfield · Morris · Norfolk · North Branford · North Stonington · Portland · Preston · Prospect · Salisbury · Scotland · Sharon · Thomaston · Union · Warren · Westbrook · Willington · Woodstock
The CT State Department of Education grouping of school districts on family income, parent education, family structure and enrollment. Last assigned in 2006, and built for education questions rather than town-side spending.
Prospect · Griswold · Plainfield · Wolcott · Coventry · Portland · Thomaston · Seymour · Stafford · Woodstock · Putnam · Plainville
Town-side spending, debt, reserves, and tax comparisons. Chosen by a published formula over state data rather than by hand: the nearest towns by standardized distance on the stated variables.
Hebron · Woodstock · Portland · Colchester · Prospect · Coventry · East Hampton · Plainfield · Wolcott · Granby · Bolton · Marlborough
Education spending comparisons. Chosen by a published formula over state data rather than by hand: the nearest towns by standardized distance on the stated variables.
Brooklyn is left out of each list above, because a town is never part
of the benchmark it is measured against. Group medians elsewhere on the site
exclude it the same way.
Sources: surrounding towns and District Reference Group are
the published groupings; the peer sets are built by a stated formula over CT
OPM data (Data/build_peer_sets.py), not selected by hand.
| Fiscal year | Enrollment (average daily membership) | Education expenditures | Per pupil | Share of total spending |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY 2013-14 | 1,239 | $18,141,251 | $14,642 | 79.9% |
| FY 2014-15 | 1,206 | $18,539,569 | $15,376 | 80.1% |
| FY 2015-16 | 1,225 | $17,955,158 | $14,652 | 80.4% |
| FY 2016-17 | 1,212 | $18,274,053 | $15,081 | 82.1% |
| FY 2017-18 | 1,197 | $18,390,927 | $15,367 | 81.4% |
| FY 2018-19 | 1,234 | $20,547,603 | $16,655 | 82.2% |
| FY 2019-20 | 1,242 | $21,099,355 | $16,982 | 82.2% |
| FY 2020-21 | 1,155 | $21,453,833 | $18,575 | 82.4% |
| FY 2021-22 | 1,192 | $21,950,292 | $18,417 | 80.9% |
| FY 2022-23 | 1,232 | $23,271,706 | $18,885 | 81.1% |
Per pupil here is OPM education expenditures divided by average daily membership. It is not the CT State Department of Education's Net Current Expenditures Per Pupil, which uses a narrower definition of spending and will differ. A town in a regional district reports only the grades it runs. Source: CT OPM, Municipal Fiscal Indicators (ej6f-y2wf) - audited actuals as filed by each town.
| Measure | Brooklyn | Rank, lowest to highest | Statewide median |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total expenditures per resident | $3,334 | 9 of 169 | $4,217 |
| Education expenditures per pupil | $18,885 | 20 of 169 | $22,590 |
| Equalized mill rate | 15.07 mills | 48 of 169 | 17.18 mills |
| Equalized net grand list per resident | $144,614 | 39 of 169 | $189,668 |
| Total fund balance as a share of total expenditures | 13.1% | 31 of 169 | 19.9% |
| Bonded long-term debt per resident | $661 | 30 of 169 | $1,741 |
| Intergovernmental revenue as a share of total revenues | 33.5% | 145 of 169 | 20.5% |
A rank is a position, not a grade. Which end of the list is preferable depends on the measure and on what a reader is trying to find out. Per-pupil spending here is OPM education expenditures divided by average daily membership, which is not the state Department of Education's Net Current Expenditures Per Pupil. Source: CT OPM, Municipal Fiscal Indicators (ej6f-y2wf) - audited actuals as filed by each town. Ranks computed for FY 2022-23 across all 169 towns.