While I was reading one of the chapters in my text today, I came across this quote that struck me. It was something that I have felt for quite some time, but now I actually have the research to back it up.
"While total instructional expenditures per pupil went up 64 percent between 1960 and 1980, spending on administration and other noninstructional matters rose 107 percent. The number of non-classroom instructional personnel in our school systems grew by 400 percent between 1960 and 1984. And during those years, money spent on teacher salaries dropped from over 56 percent to under 41 percent of total elementary ans secondary school spending. Too much money has been diverted from the classrooms; a smaller share of the school dollar is now being spent on student classroom instruction than at any time in recent history. It should be the basic goal of the education reform movement to reverse this trend toward administrative bloat and to reduce the scale of the bureaucratic "blob" draining our school resources."
-William J. Bennett, Former Secretary of Education (1988)
I have thought for quite some time that in the education industry there is quite a bit of waste going on with funds provided. (probably true for all government agencies) If you look at successful businesses, they are very efficient with their funds, there is little to no waste. It's all about reducing the bottom line. In our district particularly there has been much complaint about too many administrators at the district level who don't really do anything. Jobs being done by three people that could just as well be done by one. And these jobs being done at 6 figure salaries.
Maybe in the future, as I become an administrator myself, I will see the need for these expenses. But from my current perspective, it seems wasteful to me. One of the other things we've been talking about in my class is the shortage of quality teachers. I know this is a fact and one of the reasons is because of teacher pay. If less money was wasted by district and state bureaucracies, then more money could be spent to attract quality teachers to the industry.
Just a thought!
I believe that top heavy governance is a pervasive cultural trend that transcends virtually all industries. As lean and mean as successful businesses are at the operating level, very very few (Warren Buffet, etc…) apply those principles to corporate leadership. I can’t say whether government is leading that edge or just falling into form, but I suppose it doesn’t matter… Bottom line is that there is a problem. Administrators are glorified politicians, and politicians take care of their own. Not enough money is getting to the classroom/teachers/students. I think anyone who doesn’t deliberately choose ignorance can agree to the latter.
ReplyDeleteIdeas about the way to fix it are a little more subjective. As much as I’d like to believe that a handful of good legislators or administrators could shift the paradigm from the top down… I don’t think that any positive change would be sustainable. My opinion is that in order for the positive trend to be sustainable, it must be spearheaded from the bottom up. Unless parents, students, and teachers come together in the family unit as much as in the classroom and decide that the priority is lifting one’s head above the fog of mediocre knowledge, then it’s going to tough row to hoe for any administrator. How do we inspire/achieve that desire in citizens? …frankly, I don’t know. Talking about it isn’t a bad start, though.
Education is a weird animal. We do not directly turn a profit, but profits anywhere else would be hard got without us. It makes sense to build the best and brightest workforce, but it's expensive.
ReplyDeleteAs we become administrators, maybe that's something we could keep at the forefront of our thinking - "How will this improve student learning?" If it can't really be justified in that way get rid of it? Although, I don't think it's that simple. Principals can't make sweeping reform. They are told how many teachers they can hire and the district sets the pay. So, cutting back on some non-essential won't necessarily equal better or more teachers.
Thanks for the great post, Ray. I agree with Wilson that family is the key. Right now, we have a system controlled by bureaucrats. We need to empower parents and students to choose the best schools for them. If we do so, inefficiently run schools will yield poor results, so students will transfer. Those schools that treat their teachers the best will draw the best teachers. Those that are responsive to student needs will draw and retain students and funding.
ReplyDeleteAs an interesting side note, I just finished writing a paper about this very topic. One of the main points of my paper was that money spent does not always equate to better schools. Some of the statistical figures I found that support this were pretty interesting.
ReplyDeleteIn the state of Utah we are constantly hearing about how we are last in per pupil spending in the entire nation. In fact, we are dead last, by quite a bit. During the 2006-2007 school year Utah spent $6,116 per student well below the national average of $10,337 per student. But if you look at indicators of achievement a very different story appears.
In drop-out rates, Utah ties for 14th in the nation at 3.1% compared to the national average of 4.4%.
Looking a ACT scores during the same year Utah graduates had an average composite score of 21.7 ranking 23rd in the nation, just above the national average of 21.2.
I think one of the major factors for this disparity of numbers comes from what a few of you have pointed out, the family. In Utah our culture values education more than in other states and the expectation is higher for students than in other areas.
So it's not all about the money, we can do good things even with limited resources.