DOCSLIB.ORG

THE STAFFING SURGE the Great Teacher Salary Stagnation and the Decades-Long Employment Growth in American Public Schools

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
THE STAFFING SURGE the Great Teacher Salary Stagnation and the Decades-Long Employment Growth in American Public Schools BACK TO THE STAFFING SURGE The Great Teacher Salary Stagnation and the Decades-Long Employment Growth in American Public Schools Benjamin Scafidi, Ph.D. ABOUT EDCHOICE EdChoice is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to advancing full and unencumbered educational choice as the best pathway to successful lives and a stronger society. EdChoice believes that families, not bureaucrats, are best equipped to make K–12 schooling decisions for their children. The organization works at the state level to educate diverse audiences, train advocates and engage policymakers on the benefits of high-quality school choice programs. EdChoice is the intellectual legacy of Milton and Rose D. Friedman, who founded the organization in 1996 as the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. MAY 2017 BACK TO THE STAFFING SURGE The Great Teacher Salary Stagnation and the Decades-Long Employment Growth in American Public Schools Benjamin Scafidi, Ph.D. TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................5 Student Achievement Remained Flat During the Costly Modern Staffing Surge........................6 National Public School Test Scores .................................................................................................6 National Public High School Graduation Rates............................................................................7 The Kids Are Not Worse Off .....................................................................................................................8 Critiques of the Original Staffing Surge Report ...................................................................................8 Report Roadmap ........................................................................................................................................9 Beyond the Staffing Surge, FY 2009 to FY 2012 .......................................................................................9 Back to the Staffing Surge, FY 2012 to FY 2015 ......................................................................................10 Student Outcomes in American Public Schools After 2008 ............................................................11 Increases in Public School Resources After FY 1992 and the Great Teacher Salary Stagnation ........................................................................................................................................... 12 Increases in School Resources—Where Did They Go? .................................................................... 13 Updating the Modern Staffing Surge and Its Opportunity Costs to FY 2015 .................................. 14 Changes in American Public School Staffing Ratios .............................................................................. 16 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................... 17 Appendix 1: State-Specific Data .................................................................................................................. 21 Appendix 2: Expanded Notes and Sources for Figures .........................................................................35 Notes ...............................................................................................................................................................41 About the Author ...........................................................................................................................................45 Acknowledgments .........................................................................................................................................45 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Growth in Students and Public School Personnel, FY 1950 to FY 2009 .........................5 Figure 2: Growth in Students and Public School Personnel, FY 1992 to FY 2009 .........................6 Figure 3: NAEP Public School 17-Year-Olds’ Reading and Math Test Scores, 1992 and 2008 ..............................................................................................................................7 Figure 4: Public High School Graduation Rates, 1970, 1991, and 2009 .............................................8 Figure 5: Staffing Retreat—US Public Schools, FY 2009 to FY 2012 ...............................................10 Figure 6: Back to the Staffing Surge—US Public Schools, FY 2012 to FY 2015 ..............................11 Figure 7: NAEP Public School 17-Year-Olds’ Reading and Math Test Scores, 2008 and 2012 .............................................................................................................................11 Figure 8: Public High School Graduation Rates During the Staffing Retreat, 2009 and 2013 ........................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 9: Increase in Real Public School Spending Per Student, FY 1992 to FY 2014 .................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 10: Inflation-Adjusted Average Teacher Salaries, FY 1992 and FY 2014 ........................... 13 Figure 11: Changes in Inflation-Adjusted Public School Spending, Teacher Salaries, and Staff, FY 1992 to FY 2014 ................................................................................................ 14 Figure 12: Staffing Surge in American Public Schools, FY 1992 to FY 2015 .................................. 15 Figure 13: Student–Staff Ratios in American Public Schools, 1950, 1992, and 2015 ................... 16 Figure 14: Growth in Students and Public School Personnel, United States, FY 1950 to FY 2015 ................................................................................................................. 17 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Change in Inflation-Adjusted Per-Student Spending and Average Teacher Salaries by State, FY 1992 to FY 2014 .....................................................................................22 Table 2: Changes in Public School Students and Staff and Opportunity Costs by State, FY 1992 to FY 2015 ..........................................................................................................23 Table 3: Student–Staff Ratios by State, FY 1992 to FY 2015 .............................................................29 Table 4: Student–Teacher Ratios by State, FY 1992 to FY 2015 ....................................................... 31 Table 5: Student–"All Other Staff" Ratios by State, FY 1992 to FY 2015 ........................................33 In addition, though the original two Staffing Surge EXECUTIVE SUMMARY reports calculated the significant opportunity costs of these hiring trends, the present study In reports released in 2012 and 2013, the Friedman delves more deeply into their effect on teacher Foundation for Educational Choice—now EdChoice compensation. —showed that American public schools had been on a six-decade staffing surge. That is, From fiscal year (FY) 1950 to FY 2015, the between 1950 and 2009, public schools added earliest and most recent years with available school personnel at a rate that far exceeded data, American public schools added full-time the increases needed to keep up with student equivalent (FTE) personnel at a rate almost four enrollment growth. This staffing surge was times that of student enrollment growth. These documented using publicly available data that additional personnel were disproportionately state departments of education annually report non-teachers. While the number of FTE teachers to the US Department of Education, where each increased almost two and a half times as fast as public school employee was placed into one of two the increase in students—resulting in significantly categories—teachers and all other staff. “All other smaller class sizes—the number of non-teachers or staff” includes district and school administrators, “all other staff” increased more than seven times teacher aides, counselors, social workers, reading the increase in students. and math coaches, janitors, bus drivers, cafeteria workers, curriculum specialists, etc. It could be argued that this staffing surge was worth it in the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s, the This study updates the original Staffing Surge 1980s, and early 1990s because during those reports by analyzing staffing patterns in American decades public schools began welcoming students public schools using more recent data—through with special needs and were allowed to integrate fiscal years (FY) 2014 or 2015, as available. As by race or were actively integrated by government the annual data on public school staffing became policies. But, the staffing surge has continued even available for the school years after 2009 and after its first 42-year period that ended in 1992. showed that staffing was declining, a new report The modern staffing surge, which began in 1992, on the topic could have been entitled Beyond the has been expensive for taxpayers and has posed Staffing Surge. However, the staffing retreat proved a tremendous opportunity cost on teachers and fleeting. Now, after FY 2012, we are Back to the parents. Staffing Surge. FIGURE E1 Growth in Students and Public School Personnel,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Working Paper 2020-3
    Working Paper 2020-3 COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF THE INDIANA CHOICE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM ON TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT AND GRADUATION RATES Anna J. Egalite [email protected] Andrew D. Catt [email protected] August 3, 2020 ABOUT EDCHOICE EdChoice is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to advancing full and unencumbered educational choice as the best pathway to successful lives and a stronger society. EdChoice believes that families, not bureaucrats, are best equipped to make K–12 schooling decisions for their children. The organization works at the state level to educate diverse audiences, train advocates and engage policymakers on the benefits of high-quality school choice programs. EdChoice is the intellectual legacy of Milton and Rose D. Friedman, who founded the organization in 1996 as the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. The contents of this publication are intended to provide empirical information and should not be construed as lobbying for any position related to any legislation. EdChoice Working Papers are meant for wide circulation, inviting reader feedback, and for informing national and state conversations about reform ideas, policymaking, and implementation, driven by educational choice. EdChoice internally reviews each paper but does not necessarily send out for external reviews. This paper, however, received extensive comments from external reviewers that were acted upon by the authors. We welcome and encourage hearing from you. Please feel free to contact the authors directly—or Paul DiPerna, our Vice President of Research and Innovation—about your impressions and comments. Anna Egalite: [email protected] Drew Catt: [email protected] Paul DiPerna: [email protected] Authors are responsible for the content provided in EdChoice working papers.
    [Show full text]
  • A WIN-WIN SOLUTION the Empirical Evidence on School Choice FOURTH EDITION Greg Forster, Ph.D
    A WIN-WIN SOLUTION The Empirical Evidence on School Choice FOURTH EDITION Greg Forster, Ph.D. MAY 2016 About the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and nonpartisan organization, solely dedicated to advancing Milton and Rose Friedman’s vision of school choice for all children. First established as the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation in 1996, the Foundation promotes school choice as the most effective and equitable way to improve the quality of K–12 education in America. The Friedman Foundation is dedicated to research, education, and outreach on the vital issues and implications related to school choice. A WIN-WIN SOLUTION The Empirical Evidence on School Choice FOURTH EDITION Greg Forster, Ph.D. MAY 2016 Table of Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................3 Choice in Education .................................................................................................................3 Why Science Matters—the “Gold Standard” and Other Methods ....................................4 The Method of This Report .....................................................................................................6 Criteria for Study Inclusion or Exclusion .......................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • THE PRIVATE SCHOOL TEACHER SKILLS GAP What K–12 Private School Educators Know and What They Need to Know
    THE PRIVATE SCHOOL TEACHER SKILLS GAP What K–12 Private School Educators Know and What They Need to Know Michael Q. McShane ABOUT EDCHOICE EdChoice is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to advancing full and unencumbered educational choice as the best pathway to successful lives and a stronger society. EdChoice believes that families, not bureaucrats, are best equipped to make K–12 schooling decisions for their children. The organization works at the state level to educate diverse audiences, train advocates and engage policymakers on the benefits of high-quality school choice programs. EdChoice is the intellectual legacy of Milton and Rose D. Friedman, who founded the organization in 1996 as the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. FEBRUARY 2019 THE PRIVATE SCHOOL TEACHER SKILLS GAP What K–12 Private School Educators Know and What They Need to Know Michael Q. McShane, Ph.D. TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................3 Teaching and Leading in Public and Private Schools ..............................................................................4 Methods .............................................................................................................................................................4 Results ................................................................................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Edchoice Share: Where Are America's Students Getting Their Education?
    2021 EdChoice Share: Where Are America’s Students Getting Their Education? By Michael Shaw and Drew Catt Published: Apr 14, 2021 This series coins the term Educational Choice Share (or EdChoice Share) to represent the proportion of all K–12 students who are enrolled in an education savings account, school voucher or tax-credit scholarship program. To get this number, EdChoice divides the total number of a state’s educational choice program participants by the total number of K–12 students in the state, regardless of schooling sector. Not all program data are reported for the most recent school year, so carry-forward participation data are used for programs that don’t yet have 2020–21 data. This post also provides a state-by-state breakdown of public district school share, charter school share, home school share and “out of pocket” private school share—which we describe as “by other means” or “Other Private School Share.” Additionally, evidence suggests that homeschooling figures have surged during the past two school years. These figures are not yet able to be incorporated into our state-based calculations, but we suspect once they are both homeschooling and overall non-district enrollment percentages will rise. The charter school enrollment data are for 2017–18 and the public district school enrollment data (total public minus charter) reflect the 2018–19 school year. The private school enrollment data* and homeschooler estimates are for 2017–18. *New Mexico private school enrollment data did not meet the USDOE’s reporting standards in 2017–18 so we used the 2015–16 private school enrollment data instead for that state.
    [Show full text]
  • How Can Educational Choice Transform K–12 Education in the U.S.?
    PURSUING INNOVATION How Can Educational Choice Transform K–12 Education in the U.S.? Patrick J. Wolf, Ph.D. and Anna J. Egalite, Ph.D. APRIL 2016 About the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and nonpartisan organization, solely dedicated to advancing Milton and Rose Friedman’s vision of school choice for all children. First established as the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation in 1996, the Foundation promotes school choice as the most effective and equitable way to improve the quality of K–12 education in America. The Friedman Foundation is dedicated to research, education, and outreach on the vital issues and implications related to school choice. PURSUING INNOVATION How Can Educational Choice Transform K–12 Education in the U.S.? Patrick J. Wolf, Ph.D. and Anna J. Egalite, Ph.D. APRIL 2016 Table of Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................1 Overview .........................................................................................................................................3 The General State of K–12 Education in the U.S. ......................................................................3 The General State of K–12 Competition in the U.S. .................................................................6 Residential School Choice .......................................................................................................6 Public
    [Show full text]
  • Montana K-12 & School Choice Survey
    MONTANA K-12 & SCHOOL CHOICE SURVEY What Do Voters Say About K-12 Education? Polling Paper No. 10 June 19, 2012 With questions on state performance, education spending and taxes, charter schools, virtual schools, tax-credit scholarships, education savings accounts, and school vouchers Paul DiPerna Research Director [email protected] www.edchoice.org 1 | www.edchoice.org Survey Project & Profile ___________________________________________ Title: Montana K-12 & School Choice Survey Survey Organization: Braun Research, Inc. (BRI) Survey Sponsor: The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice Release Partners: Montana Family Foundation, Montana Policy Institute Interview Dates: April 12 to 19, 2012 Interview Method: Live Telephone | 80% landline and 20% cell phone Interview Length: 12 minutes (average) Language(s): English Sample Frame: Registered Voters Sampling Method: Dual Frame; Probability Sampling; Random Digit Dial (RDD) Sample Size: MONTANA = 604 Split Sample Sizes: “Split A” = 302; “Split B” = 302 Margins of Error: MONTANA = ± 4.0 percentage points Each Split Sample = ± 5.6 percentage points Response Rates: Landline (LL) = 17.2% Cell Phone = 17.5% Weighting? Yes (Age, Gender, Race, and Ethnicity) Oversampling? No Project Contact: Paul DiPerna | Research Director |[email protected] The author is responsible for overall polling design; question wording and ordering; this paper’s analysis, charts, and writing; and any unintentional errors or misrepresentations. 2 | www.edchoice.org Survey Demographics 3 | www.edchoice.org June 19, 2012
    [Show full text]
  • Edchoice As Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners ————
    No. 20-1088 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— DAVID and AMY CARSON, as parents and next friends of O.C., and TROY and ANGELA NELSON, as parents and next friends of A.N. and R.N., Petitioners, v. A. PENDER MAKIN, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Maine Department of Education, Respondent. ———— On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ———— BRIEF OF EDCHOICE AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING PETITIONERS ———— RUSSELL MENYHART LESLIE HINER TAFT STETTINIUS & Counsel of Record HOLLISTER LLP EDCHOICE One Indiana Square 111 Monument Circle Suite 3500 Suite 2650 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Indianapolis, IN 46204 (317) 713-3500 (317) 681-0745 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for EdChoice March 11, 2021 WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................ iii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ..................... 1 SUMMARY .......................................................... 1 ARGUMENT ........................................................ 6 I. The Unconstitutional Underpinning of Maine’s Town Tuitioning Prohibition Against Sectarian Schools is Unmasked by Its History ............................................ 6 A. Dispute Over Which Bible to Read in Public Schools Was Fueled by Religious Bigotry 20 Years Before Maine Adopted Town Tuitioning ........ 6 B. Father John Bapst Was Tarred and Feathered for Protecting the Students’ Freedom of Religion ............ 10 C. Different Century, Same Unconstitu- tional Discrimination .......................... 12 II. Without Intervention, Inequalities Between States Allowing Religious Options in Student-Aid Programs and Those Prohib- iting Them Will Be Magnified .................. 16 III. Substantial Social Science Research Reveals Why Students Seek School Choice and Why Educational Services Provided by Religious Entities Matter....
    [Show full text]
  • Edchoice.Org/Bundle
    To order your free print copies, visit edchoice.org/bundle. EdChoice 101 An introduction to the basics of school choice Brought to you by WELCOME TO EDUCATIONAL CHOICE There are many different schooling options, and we welcome them all under the broad umbrella of choice. But not all educational choice programs are created equal. Public charter schools and public-to-public transfers, for example, have provided options within the traditional system, but those programs leave many schooling types off-limits for families. Our goal as the nation’s oldest school choice organization is to highlight and promote the programs that create the most pathways for students to lead successful lives. That’s why we focus our efforts on three types of programs: education savings accounts (ESAs), vouchers and tax-credit scholarships. In the past, we also highlighted individual tax credits and deductions, but those programs are not far-reaching and tend to provide minimal financial assistance to families. They are included in this publication alongside 529 savings accounts, which also provide limited options. We believe access should be universal and that all families should be able to find what works for their students—regardless of where they live or how much money they make. This guide will introduce you to the fundamentals of school choice and answer some basic questions about why and how these programs work. EMPOWERING PARENTS Any conversation about K–12 education should start with those who benefit from it: students and their families. We trust parents to know their kids, and we want to open the door to opportunities that will help those students learn and grow.
    [Show full text]
  • Educational Spending: Kentucky Vs
    University of Kentucky UKnowledge CBER Research Report Center for Business and Economic Research 12-2008 Educational Spending: Kentucky vs. Other States William Hoyt University of Kentucky, [email protected] Christopher Jepsen University of Kentucky, [email protected] Kenneth R. Troske University of Kentucky, [email protected] Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cber_researchreports Part of the Economics Commons, and the Education Commons Educational Spending: Kentucky vs. Other States School Choice for Kentucky: Many agree with the concept. Some disagree. And some Prepared By: simply want more information. As the public debate continues Dr. William H. Hoyt to grow about how best to provide a quality education to all Kentucky children, it is Dr. Christopher Jepsen important to know the facts about parent choice, and Dr. Kenneth R. Troske how parent choice programs have had an impact on communities, parents and students around the country. All of this analysis is done with one goal in mind: The best possible education for all of Kentucky’s children. December 2008 Study released jointly by the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, Bluegrass Institute and the Center for Business and Economic Research A MESSAGE FROM THE FRIEDMAN FOUNDATION: OUR CHALLENGE TO YOU Our research adheres to the highest standards of scientifi c rigor. We know that one reason the school choice movement has achieved such great success is because the empirical evidence really does show that school choice works.
    [Show full text]
  • How the Democrats Have Destroyed Public Education in the Inner Cities
    Shame of the Schools.qxp_Layout 1 8/8/18 4:32 PM Page 1 SHAME OF THE SCHOOLS How the democrats have destroyed public education in the inner cities. John Perazzo Copyright 2018 David Horowitz Freedom Center PO BOX 55089 Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964 [email protected] www.frontpagemag.com Printed in the United States of America $7.95 each Shame of the Schools How the Democrats Have Destroyed Public Education in the Inner Cities By John Perazzo 1 2 Democrats always congratulate themselves on being the only party truly concerned with education, especially of the underprivileged, and regularly attack conservatives and Republicans for their “callous indifference.” The Democratic Party Platform, presenting itself as a savior of the underclass, calls for billions of dollars in “bold new investments” by federal and state governments to make good public schools available to every child, “no matter what zip code they live in.”1 Shamelessly playing the race card, leftwing Democrats work overtime to establish the idea that the failure of our inner-city schools is wholly the responsibility of mean-spirited, tight-fisted, and outright racist Republicans ready to consign minority children to the social ash heap. What they say: • The Texas Democratic Party says: “Owing to inadequate investment in public education, minority and economically disadvantaged Texas students continue to suffer from a persistent achievement gap.”2 • Illinois State Board of Education Superintendent Tony Smith, a Democrat, laments the “deep inequity” built into the state’s system of funding public education: “We 1 https://www.democrats.org/party-platform 2 https://www.txdemocrats.org/our-party/texas-democratic-party-platform/ 3 have a population of very high-need students in Chicago and they are not getting enough currently.”3 • Graie Barasch-Hagans, an activist affiliated with the leftist group Philadelphians Organized to Witness Power and Rebuild (POWER), says: “There is a clear racial bias in schools funding in Pennsylvania.
    [Show full text]
  • State of the States Then and Now: Milton Friedman’S Vision
    THE OFFICIAL NEWSLETTER OF EDCHOICE • ISSUE 3: SPRING 2017 STATE OF THE STATES THEN AND NOW: MILTON FRIEDMAN’S VISION CHAMPIONS OF CHOICE PRESIDENT’S LETTER NEVADA FALLS SHORT ON EDUCATION SAVINGS ACCOUNTS “I just don’t want this session to be defined by private schools meet demand; and a preview of an ESAs because there are a lot of other things that upcoming publication about Milton Friedman’s have happened that are going to improve the historic vision for educational choice and what the quality of life for the people of Nevada.” future holds. Those were the words of Nevada Gov. Brian But as we reflect on the year so far and our work Sandoval immediately following his state’s failure in the states, I want to hold Nevada up as a in June to fund a constitutional, nearly universal textbook case of what could and should have been, education savings account (ESA) program that a clear contrast between the profiles in courage was originally enacted two years ago. Unlike the we’ve seen in other states—such as Arizona and Governor, we had hoped this session would be Indiana—versus politics as usual, which far too defined by ESAs, the most flexible and empowering often takes precedence over the interests of form of educational choice in America today. students and families. Nevada’s ESA would have provided the Nevada’s program remains a trendsetter and opportunity for families not just to pay for private will continue to serve as a model for other states school like a voucher or tax-credit scholarship considering ESA legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • Tennessee K-12 & School Choice Survey
    TENNESSEE K-12 & SCHOOL CHOICE SURVEY What Do Voters Say About K-12 Education? Polling Paper No. 9 June 5, 2012 With questions on state performance, education taxes and spending, charter schools, virtual schools, tax-credit scholarships, education savings accounts, and school vouchers Paul DiPerna Research Director [email protected] www.edchoice.org 1 | www.edchoice.org Survey Project & Profile ___________________________________________ Title: Tennessee K-12 & School Choice Survey Survey Organization: Braun Research Incorporated (BRI) Survey Sponsor: The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice Release Partner: Beacon Center of Tennessee Interview Dates: February 11 to 21, 2012 Interview Method: Live Telephone | 70% landline and 30% cell phone Interview Length: 12 minutes (average) Language(s): English Sample Frame: Registered Voters Sampling Method: Dual Frame; Probability Sampling; Random Digit Dial (RDD) Sample Size: TENNESSEE = 606 Split Sample Sizes: “Split A” = 303; “Split B” = 303 Margins of Error: TENNESSEE = ± 4.0 percentage points Each Split Sample = ± 5.6 percentage points Response Rates: Landline (LL) = 17.5% Cell Phone = 19.6% Weighting? Yes (Age, Gender, Race, and Hispanic origin) Oversampling? No Project Contact: Paul DiPerna | Research Director | [email protected] The author is responsible for overall polling design; question wording and ordering; this paper’s analysis, charts, and writing; and any unintentional errors or misrepresentations. 2 | www.edchoice.org Survey Demographics 3 | www.edchoice.org June 5, 2012
    [Show full text]