Why More Spending Doesn’t Produce Better Schools
By Mary Theroux • Wednesday July 28, 2010 5:57 PM PDT • 14 Comments
A new study from Pepperdine University’s Davenport Institute has exposed the fraud continually perpetuated upon the taxpaying public—and visited upon the poor families trapped in criminally failed government schools—that if the state (in this case, California) just had more money it could deliver a good education.
The study concludes that, notwithstanding all the talk of “education budget cuts,” while school spending steadily increased between the 2003-04 and 2008-09 budget years, overall, direct classroom expenditures declined.
Indeed, California spending on education has not been “cut” at all—but, rather, radically increased during the period:
During the five year period, total school spending per capita (not including capital spending) increased by 25.8 percent, which was far greater than the growth in per capita personal income or inflation. During the same period, direct classroom expenditures statewide went from 59 percent of total expenditures to 57.8 percent. These statewide totals reflect a very wide range of variance among individual school districts, whose classroom expenditure ratios ranged from more than 70 percent to less than 45 percent.
Meanwhile, the 2009 National Report Card, produced by the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences, shows California public school students ranking almost last in the country: the average 4th grader’s math score in California ranked 47th, higher only than those in Mississippi, Alabama and Washington D.C., while the average 8th grader’s score ranked even lower—48th—higher only than those in Mississippi and Washington D.C.
The failed Oakland school district is a case study example of the public school system’s top-loaded cost structure, with 152 students per administrator, versus a statewide average of 250. In a district with a budget of nearly $13,000 annually per student, doesn’t anyone wonder why the Oakland school board is considering placing a $195 per parcel tax on the November ballot to raise $20 million a year to raise teachers and staff salaries?
Unfortunately, it’s very rare for such ballot measures to fail. Time and again, voters are extorted for more and more taxes on themselves in the name of the children. And, time and again, every “budget crisis” is visited only upon students, with class sizes increased while the number of school hours, and arts, sports, and library programs are cut.
Meanwhile, while families across California have tightened their own belts in response to economic hard times:
Certificated supervisors and administrators enjoyed a 28% pay hike per student over the five-year span. Pay for classified supervisors and administrators shot up 44% over that time.
It’s time to learn the lesson once and for all: competitive, private enterprise results in the efficient provision of products and services for consumers—even poor, disenfranchised, politically powerless consumers. Government monopolies produce ever-worse services for which they extort ever-greater payola.
Tags: Budget and Tax Policy, California, Education, Elections, Family, Politics, Poverty, Urban Issues 
Teachers are the largest professional group in the US workforce today. There are more elementary and secondary teachers than doctors, lawyers, and engineers, etc.
“During the 1999–2000 school year, a total of about 3,450,000 teachers worked in public and private elementary and secondary schools across the country—representing about 2.7 percent of the overall U.S. workforce that year.4 Elementary and secondary school teachers constituted a greater percentage of the workforce than physicians (0.5 percent), legal professionals (0.8 percent), postsecondary faculty (0.9 percent), engineers (1.0 percent), firemen and law enforcement workers (1.0 percent), registered nurses (1.5 percent), or any other professional group that year. Elementary and secondary school teachers constituted about the same percentage of the workforce as all secretaries and administrative assistants (2.7 percent) and slightly less than retail workers (2.8 percent) (U.S. Department of Labor 2002). http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2005/analysis/sa01.asp
Many teachers also live in communities where there is school budget voting. I suspect teachers are more likely to go to the polls to vote to approve larger school budgets and teacher salary increases..
When you add together the budget votes of spouses and close relatives of teachers, it is not surprising that salaries of teachers are rising.
They have the voting power to give themselves and other teachers raises, under the guise of improving children education.
Milton Recht | Jul 28, 2010 | Reply
One of the gravest failures of Government in the U.S. during my 63 year life is the belief that if you just throw enough money at a problem or situation it will go away. Money and only money is not, has not and never will be the entire answer to any problem. Education is not my field but I did raise a daughter through college. The astronomic waste of dollars and the continual dumbing down to make things work frustrated me to no end.
Unfortunately too many teachers are teachers because it is the easiest degree to earn. Correct this and wages and results will go up. To those excellent instructors for whom this doesn’t fit. I salute you.
parrot man | Jul 29, 2010 | Reply
Mr. Recht brings up a good point. Many people have the ability to vote themselves money – an obvious conflict of interest. This has to stop.
In addition to preventing public sector employees from voting, I think anyone receiving welfare in any amount during an election year should likewise have their voting privileges revoked, and for the same reason. When revenue-consumers outnumber revenue-producers, the opportunity for abuse at the ballot box is irresistible. One glance at the federal and state budget messes is all the evidence one needs.
Steve Hogan | Jul 29, 2010 | Reply
The Economist, some years ago, had an article questioning the monetary value of higher education, and who should bear the costs. Education and transportation are two of the most irresponsible financial operations of state governments.
richard | Jul 30, 2010 | Reply
Mary,
Thanks for the post – 2 questions!
Are teacher’s salaries counted in the stats for direct classroom expenditures?
Also, are teachers counted as part of the Classified or Certified Supervisors/Administrators groups (in the salary increase stats you quote), or are these salary increases for purely outside-classroom roles?
Thanks
So basically we’ve poured tons of money into schools but most doesn’t make it to the classroom.
paula | Jul 31, 2010 | Reply
Thanks, Paula.
Yes, the study based its figures as follows:
And the salary increase stats were only for supervisors and administrators—not classroom teachers.
Best,
Mary
Mary Theroux | Jul 31, 2010 | Reply
Go check my essay. I say time to pull the plug on the middle men and women, the suits, sucking up such a large % of what we spend on so called education. http://mominomaha.blogspot.com/2010/07/first-on-my-blog-post-lets-tackle.html
Nydra K | Aug 2, 2010 | Reply
As a local school board member, I can tell you that a big part of the problem is federal and state mandates that require a plethora of programs, services, studies, reports, compliance, etc., etc., that have little or nothing to do with classroom instruction but which require a lot of people and resources. Most school administrators at the local level do not support these but are forced to deal with them. I’m not defending the current compensation structure for public school teachers, but it’s far too simplistic to suggest that teachers are the core of the problem.
Chris Hocker | Aug 3, 2010 | Reply
Dear Chris,
Nobody is blaming teachers, as such. Teachers are a part of the problem only insofar as they are a very organized, self-interested voting bloc.
The main point that Mary Theroux is making is that public education, as a system, is a failure because it has no market incentives to improve either its quality or efficiency. Therefore, it is simply another government boondoggle designed to enrich certain classes of bureaucrats, and provide tenured employment to millions of teachers, with little regard for the needs of students or the wishes of parents.
Antonio | Aug 3, 2010 | Reply
I quote from Prof. E. G. West’s book ‘Education and the State’ [3rd edition recently published by Liberty Fund Inc.]:
‘From the school years 1971-72 to 1976-77, the total professional staff in U.S. public schools went up 8 per cent. The money cost of education increased by 68 percent (or 21 per cent allowing for inflation). But as inputs thus increased output DECREASED. The number of students fell by 4 per cent as did the number of schools. The educational testing scores of all kinds (SAT, college board examinations and school common tests) showed declining student performance. Pronounced centralization has increased the distance between consumers of education and the suppliers (the administration). In addition it has introduced substantial deadweight costs of taxation.’
I recommend West’s book to anyone who wonders why we spend more and more on state education and get less and less.
I must also recommend my own book ‘Wot, No School? How schools impede education’ by Jonathan Langdale and John Harrison [Best Global Publishing, 2nd edition 2009] for a UK-centric approach to a radical re-think about education and the place of schools in that activity.
Both books are available on Amazon.
John Harrison | Aug 4, 2010 | Reply
Thank you Mary.
There is a principle at work here that’s as old as the earth itself. It applies to these monstrous bureaucracies that overwhelm us.
If you cut the funding in half the effectiveness and efficiency of the organization will automatically double. I think its an inverse thing.
I don’t think I’m the first to say this, but it bears repeating, and I believe it to be a sound financial planning tool. Really.
cam | Aug 8, 2010 | Reply