Wasting money on public education

[Master Shake]

Between 1950 and 2009, the number of K-12 public school students increased by 96 percent. During that same period, the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) school employees grew by 386 percent. Of those personnel, the number of teachers increased by 252 percent, while the ranks of administrators and other staff grew by 702 percent—more than 7 times the increase in students. Though this trend has abated somewhat in recent years, these increases remain dramatic. From 1992 to 2009, for example, the bump in school FTEs was 2.3 times greater than that of students, with forty-eight states upping the number of nonteaching personnel at a faster rate than their increase in students. Even where student populations dropped over the past two decades, public school employment increased. Maine, for example, lost roughly 11 percent of its pupils, yet saw a 76 percent increase in the number of non-teaching personnel. Ohio schools saw a 2 percent increase in student population coupled with a 44 percent increase in non-teaching personnel. These numbers are jaw-dropping when they stand alone. Attach them to salary and benefits costs and they become jarring.

http://www.edexcellence.net/commenta...urge.html#body

This is why speding more money on public education is like flushing it down the toilet. It just buys more overhead. I am sure that you'd find similar numbers for higher ed.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Wasting money on public education

Between 1950 and 2009, the number of K-12 public school students increased by 96 percent. During that same period, the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) school employees grew by 386 percent. Of those personnel, the number of teachers increased by 252 percent, while the ranks of administrators and other staff grew by 702 percent—more than 7 times the increase in students. Though this trend has abated somewhat in recent years, these increases remain dramatic. From 1992 to 2009, for example, the bump in school FTEs was 2.3 times greater than that of students, with forty-eight states upping the number of nonteaching personnel at a faster rate than their increase in students. Even where student populations dropped over the past two decades, public school employment increased. Maine, for example, lost roughly 11 percent of its pupils, yet saw a 76 percent increase in the number of non-teaching personnel. Ohio schools saw a 2 percent increase in student population coupled with a 44 percent increase in non-teaching personnel. These numbers are jaw-dropping when they stand alone. Attach them to salary and benefits costs and they become jarring.

http://www.edexcellence.net/commenta...urge.html#body

This is why speding more money on public education is like flushing it down the toilet. It just buys more overhead. I am sure that you'd find similar numbers for higher ed.

I'm willing to bet that if these numbers are accurate (I only bring it into question because of the source), the main driver for them is special education. Not to be insensitive, but back in the 50s, they'd kick the special ed kid out of the classroom. Special Ed is typically now between a quarter and a third of public school spending in most districts.

The admin costs are ridiculous and bloated, just like the top of the pyramid in every other organization in the world today. You'll get no argument from me there. But I just don't buy the number of teachers (252% increase) exploding like this article claims.

I mean, I just don't buy that there are more than 1.5 times the teachers per student in general education classes now than in the 50s. Class size is usually about 25, rooms are built for 30 people. If Ms. Winkler's numbers are right, that would mean that in the 50s the typical classroom had 45 kids in it. It didn't. All you have to do is look at the classrooms in school buildings that have been around since the 50s. They're usually made for 30 kids. There's no way to fit 45-50 in. And there's sort of a natural limit to how many kids you can control with one teacher.

[don]

Re: Wasting money on public education

I'm willing to bet that if these numbers are accurate (I only bring it into question because of the source), the main driver for them is special education. Not to be insensitive, but back in the 50s, they'd kick the special ed kid out of the classroom. Special Ed is typically now between a quarter and a third of public school spending in most districts.

The admin costs are ridiculous and bloated, just like the top of the pyramid in every other organization in the world today. You'll get no argument from me there. But I just don't buy the number of teachers (252% increase) exploding like this article claims.

I mean, I just don't buy that there are more than 1.5 times the teachers per student in general education classes now than in the 50s. Class size is usually about 25, rooms are built for 30 people. If Ms. Winkler's numbers are right, that would mean that in the 50s the typical classroom had 45 kids in it. It didn't. All you have to do is look at the classrooms in school buildings that have been around since the 50s. They're usually made for 30 kids. There's no way to fit 45-50 in. And there's sort of a natural limit to how many kids you can control with one teacher.

you're overlooking the ideological agenda . . .

[Master Shake]

Re: Wasting money on public education

I'm willing to bet that if these numbers are accurate (I only bring it into question because of the source), the main driver for them is special education. Not to be insensitive, but back in the 50s, they'd kick the special ed kid out of the classroom. Special Ed is typically now between a quarter and a third of public school spending in most districts.

The admin costs are ridiculous and bloated, just like the top of the pyramid in every other organization in the world today. You'll get no argument from me there. But I just don't buy the number of teachers (252% increase) exploding like this article claims.

I mean, I just don't buy that there are more than 1.5 times the teachers per student in general education classes now than in the 50s. Class size is usually about 25, rooms are built for 30 people. If Ms. Winkler's numbers are right, that would mean that in the 50s the typical classroom had 45 kids in it. It didn't. All you have to do is look at the classrooms in school buildings that have been around since the 50s. They're usually made for 30 kids. There's no way to fit 45-50 in. And there's sort of a natural limit to how many kids you can control with one teacher.

The Special Ed kids should be in Special Ed classes like we had when I was a kid. Mainstreaming is a feel-good waste of money that only works on TV programs. I'll bet that a good part of the bloat is also due to crap like program coordinator positions.

Class sizes in the 50's were about 35 - 40. Of course, there was more expected of student behavior then and no squeamishness about expelling kids who misbehaved.

[Master Shake]

Re: Wasting money on public education

you're overlooking the ideological agenda . . .

Which is what, don?

[shiny!]

Re: Wasting money on public education

I'm willing to bet that if these numbers are accurate (I only bring it into question because of the source), the main driver for them is special education. Not to be insensitive, but back in the 50s, they'd kick the special ed kid out of the classroom.

You can thank the federal government for this. They mandated that every child must have an education- even mentally retarded children in vegetative states who need their diapers changed. Even violent teenagers who do not want to be in school and have no intention of doing anything but disrupt the education process for every other child. Their violent behavior is considered part of their emotional disability so they cannot be expelled.

Now it's been decided that separating special ed children from the regular ed environment is discriminatory and shaming, so the big move is for "full inclusion". This means putting them in regular ed classrooms accompanied by special handlers. Most special ed kids hate full inclusion because the other kids tease them so badly. Special ed teachers hate full inclusion, too, because it doesn't serve anybody well.

I have nothing but respect for special ed teachers (I was married to a talented, brilliant, and very frustrated one for nineteen years). But the ridiculous laws that come down from DC, the administrators sprouting up like mushrooms that take up all the funding, the insane amounts of documentation paperwork , the waste and bureaucracy in public education is like a cancer. Public education can't be fixed.

Special Ed is typically now between a quarter and a third of public school spending in most districts.

If a virus afflicted 1/4 to 1/3 of our children it would be considered an epidemic worthy of herculean efforts to find a cure, similar to the polio vaccination program of the 50's and 60's. Why is no one similarly alarmed that 1/4 to 1/3 of our children are so damaged that they are considered "special needs"? These kids are going to have problems for the rest of their lives, and society is going to be on the hook for it. Why is this not considered a national emergency?

[dcarrigg]

Re: Wasting money on public education

The Special Ed kids should be in Special Ed classes like we had when I was a kid. Mainstreaming is a feel-good waste of money that only works on TV programs. I'll bet that a good part of the bloat is also due to crap like program coordinator positions.

Class sizes in the 50's were about 35 - 40. Of course, there was more expected of student behavior then and no squeamishness about expelling kids who misbehaved.

I said that I don't think they were 35-40 just because I have been in classrooms built in the 30s-50s, and they were usually just big enough for 30 desks (not all of which would be full, I figure). But I didn't have any data. So, I found this report from U Rochester that spells it out. It looks like there are indeed more teachers per student now, but it looks like there were an average of 27 kids per class in 1950, not 35-40. Moreover, it looks like class sizes have dropped by about a kid per decade if one discounts special education. Moreover again, most cost increase in public education looks to be non-teacher related. It's actually a really interesting report, if a decade and change old. Worth a read in my view.

[btattoo]

Re: Wasting money on public education

Most special ed kids hate full inclusion because the other kids tease them so badly. Special ed teachers hate full inclusion, too, because it doesn't serve anybody well.

I teach at a project-based charter school and this is not the case. In a project-based environment, students can contribute what skills they have and remain a part of the learning community, as opposed to shunting some of them off into special ed rooms.

I tend to agree that full inclusion in the traditional model does not work. But inclusion is not the problem; the traditional model is.

[don]

Re: Wasting money on public education

Often lurking in these half correct 'reports' are an underlying agenda against many teachers being unionized. If the writer feels otherwise he should make his case, not undermine public education through misdirection data.

[shiny!]

Re: Wasting money on public education

I teach at a project-based charter school and this is not the case. In a project-based environment, students can contribute what skills they have and remain a part of the learning community, as opposed to shunting some of them off into special ed rooms.

I tend to agree that full inclusion in the traditional model does not work. But inclusion is not the problem; the traditional model is.

Good observation. Your school sounds very interesting.

Our public schools teach, or attempt to teach, students that private schools won't accept and that other countries don't teach. We also mandate that special ed students take achievement tests at their age-grade level, same as the regular ed kids. My husband could get most of his kids to improve dramatically, could help them achieve their personal best, but it would not usually be at the same level as their regular ed peers. Forcing kids like these with severe learning handicaps to take standardized achievement tests is not only demoralizing and humiliating for the children, but it brings down the performance grade of the entire school, which affects funding.

Incorporating the test scores of special ed students into the achievement test scores for the entire school is one reason why public schools show lower performance than private schools, and why American schools test worse than schools in other countries.

[jpatter666]

Re: Wasting money on public education

If public schools put half the emphasis on education that they do on their sports teams, the US would be #1 in the world.

Sports teams are ruthless -- only the best need try out, you'd better show up every day and any slacking is slammed by both their teammates and the school community. Failure is not tolerated and the those coaches that can deliver winning teams are the most highly paid members of the staff. Education on the other hand, seems to have changed place with the old sports rule of trying to work within a team, build "character" -- more trying to improve individuals socially.

When on earth did these switch roles?

[Ghent12]

Re: Wasting money on public education

Love this chart. Asians and Native Americans don't exist? You can draw no conclusions from the chart as it is, except that the two largest "racial/ethnic minorities" don't perform as well as the largest "racial/ethnic majority" group does though they have been improving at a faster rate (perhaps; that depends entirely on the scoring methodology). No one can draw any useful conclusions from the chart, like how to improve math achievement.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Wasting money on public education

You can draw no conclusions from the chart as it is

You can draw the conclusion that scores overall do not seem to be getting worse with time. That's the main reason I threw it in there. We tend to have a Jeremiad complex in this country where we assume the schools all went to hell after the boomers got out of them, and all schools were better in the past. That doesn't look like the case here.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Wasting money on public education

A big boo after perusing Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and their stats.

The vast majority of teachers do not belong to a teacher’s union. The NEA is in no way a union and has almost no power.

Walk into an elementary classroom and it looks about the same as it did 40 - 50 years ago. Average class size 6th grade 1960’s = 25. It remains basically unchanged, although it’s gone up since the 2008 financial crisis.

Student/teacher ratio has almost nothing to do with class size. Schools claiming a student/teacher ratio of 12/1 often have no classes with less than 20 students. The bloating is at the top and in non-classroom positions.

In the 60’s there were few counselors, kindergartens, etc.

The ideological agenda is clear once you dig. I agree with Don…come straight out with and use better data.

[shiny!]

Re: Wasting money on public education

My husband belonged to the NEA only because we live in a litigious society, and membership gave him lawsuit protection in case a parent ever tried to sue him. The cheap supplemental life insurance was an added bonus. He never attended union meetings and threw away the magazines they sent without ever reading them. I suspect this is typical of a lot of NEA members.