By Benjamin Scafidi, Ph.D.
America’s public schools are bloated with bureaucracy and skinny on results. But by adopting a stricter diet, states could realize savings that would benefit students, empower their parents, and reward great teachers.
Nationwide since 1950, the number of public school administrative and non-teaching positions has soared 702 percent, while the student population increased just 96 percent. Over that same period, teachers’ numbers also increased―252 percent―but still far short of administrators and non-teaching personnel.
Notably, that hiring trend has been just as prominent over the past two decades. From 1992 to 2009, students’ numbers increased 17 percent, whereas administrators and other non-teaching staff rose 46 percent. And during that time, some states actually lost students yet kept hiring more non-teachers.
For instance, in Hawaii, student enrollment in public schools jumped about 3 percent while non-teaching personnel grew almost 69 percent. In the District of Columbia, the student population declined some 15 percent, while non-teaching personnel increased 42 percent.
Of course, those hiring patterns might be warranted if students’ academic gains kept pace. Academic outcomes, however, have not experienced similar growth. Public high school graduation rates peaked around 1970, and government data show reading scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fell slightly between 1992 and 2008. Math scores on the NAEP Long-Term Trend were stagnant during the same period.
Such irresponsible use of taxpayer dollars is indefensible. As state leaders continue to find ways to keep their fiscal houses in order, they shouldn’t fret that today’s economy is causing some to trim fat in public schools. It will serve teachers, students, and taxpayers well.
For example, had non-teaching personnel increased at the same rate as students nationwide, American public schools would have an additional $24.3 billion annually―funds that could be used to give quality teachers raises, scholarships to students in need, relief to taxpayers, or some other worthy purpose. For some states (like Oregon, Washington, and Idaho), savings would be in the millions; for others (like California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio), they’re in the billions.
The reallocation of those savings toward students and teachers would make America’s education system far less top-heavy―a needed transition, particularly when compared with our international competitors. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the United States spends more of its taxpayer funds for public schools on non-teaching personnel―and less on teachers―relative to other OECD members. In 2007, American public schools spent 54.8 percent of operating expenditures on teachers, while the average for all OECD nations was 63.8 percent. At the same time, American public schools devoted 25.7 percent of operating expenditures to non-teaching staff; the OECD average was only 14.9 percent. Thus, American public schools spend around 72 percent more on non-teaching staff as a proportion of their operating budgets relative to the other nations in the OECD. It is worth mentioning that overall spending per student in American public schools ranks among the very highest in OECD nations.
There is evidence Americans would support reductions in public school staffing. According to 2012 polling data by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 69 percent of adults surveyed favor “reducing the number of district-level administrators to the bare minimum” as a “good way to save money because it means cutting bureaucracy without hurting classrooms.” Only 20 percent said it was “a bad way to save money because districts need strong leadership and good leaders cost money.”
If parents―like those in the Fordham survey―had a say in the direction of America’s schools, institutions of learning would look far different. Such empowerment would bring about greater efficiency and productivity as parents choose less-bloated schools where the taxpayer funding for their children’s education can go the furthest.
Benjamin Scafidi, Ph.D. is a senior fellow with the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice and a guest contributor to Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market research organization.
Download PDF
The sad irony is that when gifted teachers let the kids run, they can run things so well it is just about scary. Search Michael Becker, Hood River Middle School. These kids are entrepreneurial on a level that is head-turning.
So what else is new? Just as in other aspects of our world, centralized planning does not work. Measure results & publish successes, mediocrity & failure. Then get out of the way. Of course, that can be embarrassing to many.
How should results be measured?
I totally agree with the main content of this article. However, I am a bit confused. The 2nd paragraph has statistics for both teaching and non-teaching positions. The way I read that is both of these statistics is the “hiring trend” referenced in the following paragraphs yet I can only find numbers relative to the non teaching positions. How did the number of teachers react to the loss of students? You kind of left me hanging.
And why, during the Wisconsin uproar, didn’t we hear anything from the unions about reducing the administrative staff. It is always the teachers that are going to get the short shrift……
Thanks for this article. I agree with the 3 comments. I’d be interested whether focus on test scores and centralization cause more admin and non-teaching staff to be hired.
I love hearing the results people want, learning the basic definitions of what’s being talked about, then consider the side effects.
1) How many students per teacher do you want? (classroom size). If we are hiring too many teachers, how many do you want to fire?
2) How many teachers per admin/support staffperson do you want? If we are hiring too many, how many do you want to fire? It sounds like you definitely think we are hiring too many. I’d love to learn what you want instead.
3) What percent of the admin/support is bureaucracy/coordination of teachers, and what percent supports students and parents? Hiring a friendly greeter at the front desk would be very different than hiring an efficiency expert.
4) For the real numbers, we have to talk “full-time equivalency” for any job and look at average salary with benefits. Are you counting a part-time staff person earning $10/hour working 5 hours/week as a full time job? How many full time jobs are we talking now in 2012 compared to 1950 and 1980? Let’s look at numbers for Oregon, because that’s what we can do something about.
5) For the real numbers, we have to talk total cost, then find where it goes. How much has the total budget per student (real dollars adjusted for inflation) increased relative to cost of living? How much has the total outsourcing gone to private contractors?
6) How much do you want teachers to be paid on average including benefits? (In Oregon the average is $83,000/year, including PERS, so that number is going down.)
7) How much do you want the average admin/support person to be paid including benefits?
8) If you could end all public education and only pay private companies, would you prefer that to the current system? (The average cost of government paying contractors is twice as inefficient as government employees doing it themselves.)
9) How much would you charge taxpayers per student on average, whether public or private?
Sources:
1) http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2009/10/in_class_size_were_no_49.html
6) Teachers in Oregon are paid $82,854 average total salary with benefits. Brian Reeder, Acting Project Coordinator of Oregon Department of Education, quoted by Tax Fairness Oregon, published at http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/profile/person?personId=100754999&targetid=profile $82,854 salary would be good enough: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/opinion/01eggers.html
8) “Bad Business: Billions of Taxpayer Dollars Wasted on Hiring Contractors” http://www.pogo.org/our-work/reports/2011/co-gp-20110913.html and http://www.usaspending.gov/trends?trendreport=default&viewreport=yes&maj_contracting_agency_t=&pop_state_t=&pop_cd_t=&vendor_state_t=&vendor_cd_t=&psc_cat_t=&tab=Graph+View&Go.x=Go filter by Contract Spending in Oregon.
There are several reasons for the growth of non-teaching personnel in public schools: increasing administrative/regulatory burdens imposed by state and national governments, more difficult disciplinary problems, pupil transportation, etc. It’s not clear that, given these causes, a higher ratio of non-teaching to teaching staff is necessarily wasteful. Looking at Oregon schools and districts, relatively higher ratios are associated with better learning outcomes, higher student retention, lower per-pupil costs, and other good things. There is a good chance that these findings result from biased data or inadequate statistical controls, but it is also possible that it really does make sense for non teaching staff to handle the paperwork, the disciplinary issues and so forth, so that teachers can concentrate on teaching.