Teacherpocalypse Continues: Now With More Teachers, Fewer Students
In 2008-2009, American public schools picked up an additional 81,426 teachers. In the same period, the number of students declined by 157,114.
To review: More teachers, fewer students to teach.
This new batch of Census data about education spending should squelch the tired old line that mean Republicans with their budget crises are sending teachers to the nation's poorhouses by the thousands. Teachers are not under seige—far from it.
Some other facts along the same line, crunched for your convenience by the folks at the Education Intelligence Agency:
Twenty-seven states had fewer students in 2009 than in 2008, but 16 of them hired more teachers.
This time period is particularly unbalanced; $100 billion in stimulus funds flowed into local school systems from the federal government. The money was intended to save existing education jobs, but a subsidy for something has a funny way of producing more of it.
Still, even in relatively less stimulated years, the trend is just as absurd. The number of teachers is growing much faster than the student population:
From 2004 to 2009, student enrollment increased a cumulative 0.7 percent, while the K-12 teacher workforce increased 6.5 percent. Per-pupil spending increased 26.7 percent (about 12.5% after correcting for inflation). Spending on education employee salaries and benefits increased 27.5 percent.
Via Reason Foundation education guru Lisa Snell.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Educators know that 100 percent proficiency is impossible, given the enormous variation among students and the impact of family income on academic performance. Nevertheless, some politicians believe that the right combination of incentives and punishments will produce dramatic improvement. Anyone who objects to this utopian mandate, they maintain, is just making an excuse for low expectations and bad teachers.
To prove that poverty doesn't matter, political leaders point to schools that have achieved stunning results in only a few years despite the poverty around them. But the accounts of miracle schools demand closer scrutiny. Usually, they are the result of statistical legerdemain.
Families are children's most important educators. Our society must invest in parental education, prenatal care and preschool. Of course, schools must improve; every one should have a stable, experienced staff, adequate resources and a balanced curriculum including the arts, foreign languages, history and science.
If every child arrived in school well-nourished, healthy and ready to learn, from a family with a stable home and a steady income, many of our educational problems would be solved.
Waiting for a School MiracleBy DIANE RAVITCH
Rest here
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06.....l?_r=1&hp;
Ravitch's argument isn't really consistent. If there's very little impact from school, then there's little point in spending more resources on teachers or schools.
If you believe the premise "If every child arrived in school well-nourished, healthy and ready to learn, from a family with a stable home and a steady income, many of our educational problems would be solved," then there's very little reason to accept her other premise of "Of course, schools must improve; every one should have a stable, experienced staff, adequate resources, etc."
And while she's right about some statistical legerdemain, she falls for the same crap saying that "our society must invest in prenatal care and preschool." The scientific evidence for preschool is thinner than the scientific evidence for the right teaching methods or combination of incentives.
I'm not so sure, perhaps what she is saying is that schools cannot do much to turn around kids with the deficets she is describing, but that a bad school can let down kids without such deficets.
Yes, but in practice it pretty much ends up boiling down to a logical argument of "we should spend more money on schools for middle class kids from good families, but it's not worth doing so for poor kids until we improve their family life, since the money will be otherwise wasted." It does support letting poor kids whose parents do care escape their crappy local schools via vouchers or charters or whatever.
If the schools are not adequately funded then kids who do have a chance of being positively impacted by education may not be, but for those who do not have a chance via their extra-school variables not much can be done either way.
Since most schools have some of each group there they should be adequately funded.
How much more until we're adequate? I think I know their answer...
"If the schools are not adequately funded..."
What evidence do you have that public schools in general are not adequately funded? To the extent that resources in public edducation are a problem, I thonk demonstrable that most school systems are bloated with support staff which do not contribute much to educating the school's students. It's not a problem of financial resources, but a failure to allocate those resources efficiently.
Which basically undermines the primary justification for public education, ie class mobility.
If every child arrived in school well-nourished, healthy and ready to learn, from a family with a stable home and a steady income, many of our educational problems would be solved.
And if pigs had wings, they would fly, and if unicorns shat gold nuggets, all our finacial problems would be solved!
if unicorns shat gold nuggets, all our finacial problems would be solved!
Not mine. I'm long gold, so a herd of bullion-crapping unicorns would be bad news for Dean, Inc.
You lost me at "Our society must invest", Minge.
It is kind of hard to think of you as part of society Gobbie, but maybe she was talking rhetorically.
You have to love how the left is pushing the use of 'invest' as a euphemism for 'confiscate and piss away a shit load more of the taxpayer's money'.
You have to love how the right is pushing the use of "confiscate" for taxation in a democracy.
FTFY
You have to love how some people never learned how our government is structured.
Libertarians are not 'the right'. You'd think Minge would have learned this by now. And what pray tell is the government doing via taxation if not confiscating a portion of your income?
Libertarians are not the right, but you are.
Taxation is different than theft, for one thing you set the rate.
Glad you think you know my philosophy beeter than I do. Now I know where lefties such as you get the smug self-righteousness to think you know what's best for others. And please explain how taxation is different from confiscation, which is the actual premise.
Taxation is different than theft, for one thing you set the rate.
And I don't know your philosophy 'beeter' than you, I know your philosophy is different than you attest to here. But that's true for anyone who keeps up with your posts.
Please try to keep up.
You really are a smug self-important ass-nugget. Fuck off, slaver.
Taxation is different than theft, for one thing you set the rate.
A mugger taking your wallet from you is not theft. For one thing you set the rate (by controlling how much cash you regularly carry in your wallet).
Our government is one run by the people. You are the people. Are you robbing yourself?
I thought the government was run by politicians? I'm not a politician, so I don't consider myself part of the government.
Yes MNG, because so many libertarians are knee-jerk, authoritarian Bible-thumpers.
MNG|6.1.11 @ 4:09PM|#
Libertarians are not the right
Missed that the first time?
Oh, my apologies, you were fishing for a little Team Red LOLing to balance the Team Blue LOLing.
I was on HuffPo not long ago and apparent Randroids have become members of the Moral Majority.
I don't think libertarians are conservatives, that's a stupid mistake many on the left make. But I do think a lot of conservatives try to lurk and hang out where libertarians congregate, and they usually try to hide their conservatism.
Conservatives, for all their other faults, understand the language of small government (not that they'll ever follow through once they get into office). Progressives, on the other hand, can't seem to wrap their minds around the idea that government can be too large, too powerful, or too intrusive, especially if the TOP MEN are in charge.
Yeah, that's why the liberals in, say, the ACLU are so busy suing the government and asking the courts for limiting principles on things like the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments, because they simply never recognize the idea of a government too powerful or intrusive.
They occasionally rise to the defense of the 2nd Amendment because, you know how much liberalsProgressives love the idea of armed citizens.
Oh, Minge-hole, Please find my posts where I indicated a violation of libertarian principles, as long as you are flinging shit, ass-nugget.
How the fuck do you think I'm a bible-thumping right-winger? You must have poor reading comprehension, or just must fit everything to your own narrow world view. Fuck off, slaver.
You have to love how the right is pushing the use of "confiscate" for taxation in a democracy.
Confiscate is defined as "Take or seize (someone's property) with authority."
Sounds about right to me.
WTF, I could have sworn I mailed you my latest edition of the Newspeak dictionary.
Taxes are heretoforth referred to as "revenue."
Government spending is heretoforth referred to as "investment."
Fascism is heretoforth referred to as "public-private partnerships."
The term "natural rights" has been struck from the dictionary. All rights must be prefaced as either "constitutional" or "civil."
"The term "natural rights" has been struck from the dictionary"
Along with unicorns.
Ahem. "Unicorn" is still in committee. Alternatives being discussed are "gold shitter", "one-horned pony", "totally awesome horse."
I like "Weaponized Equine"
We were saving "weaponized equine" for Pegasus. Death from above.
Wow! I'm a devotee of the Invisible Pink Weaponized Equine, how cool is that?
Ah, thanks, AC, I just got it - mine was a little late in the mail.
Overall, a wealthier society would solve most of this problem. I know the left likes to treat this as crazy "trickle-down" nonsense, but the fact is that the United States has been a great example of what increased wealth means for all economic strata.
Less regulation, extraordinarily less spending/taxation, and less intervention by government in the marketplace would be a great starting place. That mysterious Golden Goose could lay a lot more eggs without certain people beating it with a stick and wondering why its production keeps going down.
Pro
I agree that a wealthier society would be good for this. I'll only add, why does this have to happen via trickle-down? Sure, if the only way to more overall wealth for more people is to have it trickle down then the left is just being perverse to oppose it. But those on the left think this is a terrible way to get the benefits of a wealthier society to the most people.
You could argue that to the extent wealth increases have historically led to this kind of betterment on a social level it was not because of trickle down but share the wealth strategies and policies. After all, it doesn't help most people until it is shared with them in some way.
I'm not advocating trickle-down anything. But that's what you hear back, usually, when you advocate increasing the overall wealth of the nation. There's a perception that any net increase in wealth is all "rich people." I think that's bogus in our society.
I don't think the left bitches about net increases in wealth but unequal increases.
Consider that someone you think it just as good as you and hard working as you takes you on as a partner. You do 60% of the work in the effort, he 40%, and you both profit but he profits way more, to the tune of 80-20.
A lot of people would torpedo that even though it results in a 'net increase' in their wealth. There actually have been a lot of studies with people where they will forego a benefit to try to punish what they see as someone breaking fairness norms.
"A lot of people would torpedo that..."
If you're saying a lot of people would not accept that 80-20 bargain, you've basically imploded your own hypothetical.
Illiteracy or trolling? You decide!
Illiteracy or trolling? You decide!
I vote for trolling and stupidity.
"Our society must invest" in parental fucking education, Diane? Let's start with your salary, then, when it comes to the cost of teaching the cast of Teen Mom how to parent (good parenting defined, I am sure, by you).
Well, you can pay for it at the front end (education) or the back end (prison, welfare). If the second makes you happier...
So you are arguing that you can demonstrate that sepnding more money on 'educsation' causes a reduction in crime and welfare? Citation Needed
Are the rates of offending or collecting the dole for those with college degrees lower than those without?
Correlation is not causation. Try again.
Actually, it has long been determined that the correlation in the case of stupidity and the frequency with which one throws out the phrase "correlation is not causation" is actually causal.
It has also long been determined that a resort to ad-hominem attacks are evidence of a weak argument.
Let's see the evidence then.
So you posted this twenty minutes after I posted four studies to that effect?
This is why people who ask for citation should be ignored.
Yes, being faced with stupidity in others has a causal relationship with throwing out phrase "correlation is not causation."
It's stupid because people learn this phrase as if it has talismanic power or something, without understanding everything that goes on in statistics.
Yes, mere correlation does not warrant a firm conclusion of causation. But correlation is a necessary sign of causation (along with the correct temporal order, etc), and in many situations where controls cannot be really used (for example, historical situations) it's sometimes the best we have. While it may not totally establish a conclusion it can be the case that not assuming a relationship indicated by correlations can lead to perverse practical paralysis.
MNG, that's because college degrees are a status symbol that help people get jobs. The collect educations that most graduates get don't make them more productive. Their degrees just make it easier for them to get hired.
http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~moretti/lm46.pdf
http://economics.uwo.ca/facult.....dcrime.pdf
Neither of which demonstrates that more spending on education causes a reduction in crime.
There is a relationship between educational attainment and crime, and a relationship between educational spending and educational attainment.
There is a relationship between educational attainment and crime,
Perhaps having something to do with the sorts of people who get advanced degrees, and those who knock off banks.
and a relationship between educational spending and educational attainment.
Perhaps having something to do with expanding the size and number institutions in the business of handing out certain credentials, and the number of those credentials handed out.
Perhaps having something to do with the sorts of people who get advanced degrees, and those who knock off banks.
Several of the articles address this issue
http://www.iza.org/conference_....._s3348.pdf
http://www.wipol.uni-bonn.de/l.....spring2011
I'm rather surprised by the second study's result that people who are older than most of their peers in their first year of primary school go on to be much less likely to graduate high school.
The front end of more schooling is prison for many of these kids who are likely to go on to commit crimes. So what you're arguing, MNG, is that it's better to sentence all of them to prison for the crimes of their cohorts, rather than punishing only the guilty, if it reduces crime?
I certainly am convinced that you can reduce crime by punishing those likely to commit it ahead of time and restraining their choice, but that doesn't make me favor it.
No, I'm actually pointing out how in Libertopia there will be no schools but there will be prisons. If there is a relationship between having schools and less crime then this seems strange, to oppose spending the money up front but ok it at the back end.
If every child arrived in school well-nourished, healthy and ready to learn, from a family with a stable home and a steady income, many of our educational problems would be solved.
If farts were rainbows and unicorns were edible, we'd all be better off!
sounds like katherine has a prob w locally-elected boards of education who approve hiring.
OO can't read.
Clearly his school district lacked adequate staff.
Or maybe he was undernourished during his developmental years.
No, I'm guessing he was deprived of oxygen at birth.
I thought rat milk would be good for my baby.
Why oh why didn't WIC save my baby? Look at what he's turned into!
*rat malk
And faculty - specifically in the English department.
"To review: More teachers, fewer students to teach."
_
that's what katherine wrote. again the local boards approve hiring. effin local control - hows that work?
HURR DURR
'This new batch of Census data about education spending should squelch the tired old line that mean Republicans with their budget crises are sending teachers to the nation's poorhouses by the thousands.'
It should, but it wont.
a subsidy for something has a funny way of producing more of it.
You mean, if you reward something, you get more of it?
There otta be an Iron Law!
I do wonder what percentage of those added teachers are classroom teachers, and what percentage are extra central office (and elsewhere) sinecures.
...extra central office (and elsewhere) sinecures.
We would have also accepted 'worthless sacks of shit'.
All this hiring is attributable to No Child Left Behind and Special Ed. School districts were told by the Feds that their current employees were not "highly qualified", and so they hired more teachers that were "highly qualified". Similarly, identification of students with special needs, particularly autism, has grown rapidly in the past 10 to 15 years. More SpEd = smaller class sizes = more teachers, even if enrollment is dropping.
And if none of that "works", they appeal to "student-teacher ratios", which can never be low enough.
If it gets to 1 to 1 via homeschooling that would be too low for them 😉
Seriously though I imagine school reformers could easily argue that few places are getting close to ideal student teacher ratios hence no let up on the call for it
Schools are machines built to create docile citizens. They might be able to be retooled a little to be less terrible at imparting knowledge. They perform their task well (look at the acceptable range of opinion and the ignorance and stupidity that it suggests.)
I've said this before, but...
Public Schools are nothing more than a retirement ponzi scheme that uses children as human shields.
You should stop saying it. Kinda dumb.
You should shut the fuck up.
See, the first person's 'maybe' made sense with the post, you copying, that's a bit retarded.
But tiny, impotent rage does funny things to wingnuts.
MNG is going meta! Discussing the discussion! Which means its post is almost as useless as this one!
Public schools are Prussian militarism at its most creative.
Clearly, every child needs to be taken from his or her parents at birth and raised by Ravitch-approved teachers and guardians. But wasn't one of the original arguments - a hundred years ago - for free public education that kids would become much better parents because they'd get nutrional info, civic lessons, and marketable skills?
Somewhere along the way, personal responsibility got left off the curiculum in favor of a welfare mentality and "the world owes me and my kids a living."
Well, that's that what you get for using union labor to teach.
In 2008-2009, American public schools picked up an additional 81,426 teachers. In the same period, the number of students declined by 157,114.
I'd be angry if this wasn't so pathetic.
Clearly, the government needs to send even more money down the same toilet, because so far it hasn't spent enough to be effective. Kind of like how the stimulus would have worked if only it were even bigger.
Clearly, the government needs to send even more money down the same toilet, because so far it hasn't spent enough to be effective. Kind of like how the tax cuts would have worked if only it were even bigger.
FTFY
More money out of toilet = more money in toilet?
I'd have never guessed. From the brilliant minds that brought you "inactivity = activity."
You're hung up on the 'government' thing (common for libertarians) and missing the structure of the analogy.
We should try even more (goverment spending on education/tax cuts) to get (good result). (Implied) We did (government spending on education/tax cuts) and did not get good result, why would more of it work?
The structure is off because you are comparing two entirely different things. People and organizations keeping their property rather than transferring it to the government no more represents an "expenditure" on the government's part than me choosing to work 30 hours a week instead of 40 with the subsequent reduction in income represents an "expenditure" on my part.
See, you're still making the same mistake. The analogy was not between two things thought to be expenditures but between two efforts that don't seem to be working so supporters respond by advocating more of the effort.
Okay, and your application is mistaken because greater effort in support of a failing cause, every so often, is justifiable.
In this particular case (tossing more money at the failing school system), it isn't justifiable.
Of course, the evidence is overwhelming that individuals and companies spending money are more effective than government in producing overall economic growth. Unless you believe in the Magic Multiplier Fairy. "Government waste" is not some myth.
Pro
I don't know much about that to be honest, but I do get skeptical when people with strong dogs in a fight start to use the term "the evidence is overwhelming" that their dog is the winner.
Go do some digging in economics. See how many economists--active ones, not those doing other things (like popularizing economics or working for the government)--actually buy much of Keynesian economics. When I was in school, the idea of there being a strong economic benefit to government controlling much spending was discredited. There are people with political agendas who have distorted the picture, but the science of economics, as much as you can call it that, has generally come down against any strong Keynesian or, for that matter, socialist model.
"Go do some digging in economics."
Ugh. Maybe when the NBA finals are over 😉
"the science of economics, as much as you can call it that, has generally come down against any strong Keynesian or, for that matter, socialist model."
I doubt that, if only because of how many folks here bring up academic and professional economists for ridicule over their 'Keynesian' and/or 'socialist' solutions to economic issues...
Research? The horror!
Most mainstream economists are neoclassical (Keynesian outlook on fiscal spending and markets, monetarist outlook on banking, money, and interest rates), though this isn't really a unified school of thought. Orthodox Keynesianism died during American stagflation. The Great Recession is most likely the death knell for neo-Keynesianism and is already forcing many neoclassical economists to rethink their views on the business cycle, which is why heterodox outlooks on recessions (e.g. real GDP, the Austrian business cycle theory) are getting so much attention.
I got my Finance degree in the 80s, but this reflects my recollection. Stagflation was the main culprit.
Then obviously communism and a tax rate of 100% would be the most effective economic plan ever. Let's give that a shot.
Wait, I thought we wanted spending cuts? Which would have worked, maybe, if anyone had ever done them at any time.
I wonder why it is pathetic. People want the teacher-student ration lower, so they've hired more teachers despite student trends. I'm not sure what is so remarkable.
We can all see how that lower ratio is working out--oodles more students who are able to read, write, and do arithmetic! So many more students achieving higher and better test scores!
Interesting, the guy who spoke of unicorns above now criticizes those pushing for better teacher-student ratios because the modest changes in that area have not let to utopian results.
I don't know if I'd call the changes "modest". Teacher/student ratios have been dropping for decades - have we seen anything supporting the idea that it's working? Anything at all, not just "utopian results."
Yes, zoltan is being completely consistent. It's Ravitch who isn't being consistent.
Ravitch correctly knocks the limited result of various other innovations-- and you certainly should know that the positive effects of the extremely expensive better teacher-student ratios are minimal-- but goes on to prescribe something just as impossible to do.
Her "solution" is like asking for unicorns just as much as lowering student-teacher ratios down to a level where it works (or doing Perry Preschool levels of preschool funding), because they're impractical and super-expensive. Better student-teacher ratios don't really help until the ratio gets quite low, and when you add that to how you're presumably hiring marginal teachers who are worse teachers than all the existing ones, I don't think it's worth it.
It would make more sense to hire better teachers than to reduce the student-teacher ratio from 30 to 25.
1. I don't think Ravitch's article is as focused on the solutions to poverty as it is on arguing that the idea that educational efforts can undo the effect of poverty is a myth.
2. I'm not sure your conclusions about teacher-student ratio effects is correct
http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/Reduci....._size.html
http://www.heros-inc.org/summary.pdf
3. I'm guessing Ravitch would agree that hiring better teachers is surely better than just hiring more. I think she is just saying that until some miracle way we can do that occurs having more teachers per student of a given caliber is better than having less of the same caliber.
There have been no improvements, MNG, that's the point. The more money they shovel, the more teachers they hire--still the educational quality goes down.
People want the teacher-student ration lower
Based on erroneous ideas, fomented by those with vested interests, that spending all that money on lower ratios will lead to good results.
People want a lot of things. Especially when other people bear the cost. That doesn't mean they should get them.
I talked to my sister today. I asked her if she would be teaching kindergarten summer school. She said that they were not having summer school in elementary schools in her district this year. "It has something to do with money" was how she described it! You don't say?!
I don't know why parents are not up in arms. Their right to have their children educated at other people's expense is being infringed!
There is a very interesting piece in The Atlantic right now by Joe Klein on his experience in the New York Public School system.
It more or less confirms everything that has been said on this site.
It is all the more interesting from the point of view of a thoroughly dis-illusionsed 'reformer'.
alt-text: If only we could replace one of these two white guys with a cripple, we'd have a politically correct royal flush!
"Our government is one run by the people. You are the people. Are you robbing yourself?"
By that logic, Oscar Grant committed suicide.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/.....153CBO.DTL
MNG, you cannot be serious about that. The implications of that thinking is that the government can never abuse its authority, can never tyrannize a citizen because that would be tantamount to self-harm by the citizen himself?
You, me and every individual citizen are members of the people, but we are not in ourselves "the people". I reserve the right to say that the authority the government has claimed and is using is absurd, asinine and even outright malicious against the rights of the people and that includes taxation.
Go lick your chains MNG, you seem to be a natural slave.
In 2008-2009, American public schools picked up an additional 81,426 teachers. In the same period, the number of students declined by 157,114.
I've seen this dynamic many times in ecology. Obviously, the teachers are eating the students.