American Schools Go on Utterly Insane Hiring Spree Since 1950. Kids Shrug, Continue to Do Poorly on Tests


During Monday's presidential debate, Gov. Mitt Romney declared his undying affection for America's teachers:

Moderator Bob Schieffer chimed in: "I think we all love teachers."


But a new study from the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice finds that it's not just teachers who are getting the love money, though they are getting plenty of it as well.

America's public schools saw a 96 percent increase in students but increased administrators and other non-teaching staff a staggering 702 percent since 1950, according to a new study of school personnel by the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice….Teaching staff, in comparison, increased 252 percent.

Even states that had actual decreases in enrollment often had major bumps in education hiring:

  • Maine had a decrease of 10.8 percent in student population yet increased its non-teaching staff by 76.1 percent.
  • South Dakota lost 3.9 percent of its student population yet increased non-teaching staff by 55.4 percent.
  • The District of Columbia lost 14.8 percent of its students yet increased non-teaching staff by 42 percent.

Here's the money math:

If non-teaching personnel had grown at the same rate as student population, American public schools would have an additional $24.3 billion annually. Scafidi's report concluded that $24.3 billion is equivalent to an annual $7,500 raise per teacher nationwide or a $1,700 school voucher for each child in poverty.

And here's your handy abysmal performance vs. astronomical spending reminder:

education spending vs performance

NEXT: Obama: GOP Alienated Latinos

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I hate teachers. Talentless union hacks. Liberal indoctrinating douchebags.

    Fuck ’em.

    Especially this one.

    This one ain’t too bad. Could use some makeup.

    1. Where in hell were they when I was 15?!?

      1. My high school had two scandals within a span of four days.

        I was a lowly freshman though.

      2. Busy sucking off the varsity offensive backs.

    2. “Especially this one.”


      1. Oh yeah, there’s plenty of crazy in those eyes.

        1. Well, she’s crazy for something…

          *snare roll, cymbal crash*

  2. Moderator Bob Schieffer chimed in: “I think we all love teachers.”

    Teachers do little for kids who don’t want to learn, and little for those who do want to learn because they have to dumb down the lessons for those who don’t want to learn. I concur with sarcasmic; fuck teachers.

    1. Glorified babysitters. If they’re just baby sitters then they should do more baby sitter things. Like sucking my cock.

    2. We all love the idealized concept of teachers.

      The reality, of course, falls short. Especially in the aggregate.

      1. Yeah, but you conservatives hate colleges and universities too. Where funding is mostly organic and merit-based systems are par for the course.

        1. Someone has never heard of federally subsidized student loans, and the unintended consequences of the third party payer system.

        2. The structural funding formulas for universities in my state are not organic or merit-based. It usually involves the Presidents of the Big 3 (UM,UF, and FSU) running to the mic and talking about how they’ll have to close down departments if they don’t get their 15% tuition increase improved. Then, the two universities who actually educate and graduate more students than any of the Big 3 (USF and UCF) get to fight over the bones.

        3. We hate organic shit. And golf.

    3. I don’t love teachers anymore than I love garbagemen and waitstaff.

  3. But we’ve been short-changing our education system for years. We need to hire more teachers!

    1. There was a slight increase in performance! Increase the staff size by another 500%!

      1. Triple the number of vice principals, and add “the fourth meal” to the free lunch program!

  4. Uh – Romney was making a good point there. If you are going to have public schools, they should be run locally.

    1. They were until the GOP imposed NCLB in 2001-02.

      1. I’m glad we agree that NCLB should be repealed, and that schools shouldn’t be under Federal control.

        I suggest we shut down the Dept of Education, also, since it serves no legitimate purpose. You agree with that, too, right?

        1. shut down the Dept of Education


          1. Too bad we can’t just take a voice vote here.

        2. AS long as SCOTUS protects the 1st Amendment – I agree.

      2. Good thing NCLP wasn’t written by Ted Kennedy and supported by any number of Dems in the Congress.

        1. Quit calling the Bush GOP “Dems”. Blame the party in power for once.

          1. 197 Democrats in the House voted for NCLB. Exactly 10 voted against it.


            Go fuck yourself and die you retarded little monkey.

          2. Fascinating. Shrike seems to think it’s still 2006.

      3. I’ll second that – funny that he thinks we’re going to defend the GOP.

        1. Even if we were Republicans, few of us would defend NCLB.

        2. John said that libertarianism is the ideological extreme of the Republican party.

          So obviously we’re here to defend the GOP.

      4. They were until the GOP imposed NCLB in 2001-02.

        What’s that you said? Tomorrow is Thursday? Why no, I can’t wait either, shrieky!

  5. Anyway, like I was sayin’, teacher is the fruit of the school. You can barbecue it, boil it, broil it, bake it, saute it. Dey’s uh, teacher-kabobs, teacher creole, teacher gumbo. Pan fried, deep fried, stir-fried. There’s pineapple teacher, lemon teacher, coconut teacher, pepper teacher, teacher soup, teacher stew, teacher salad, teacher and potatoes, teacher burger, teacher sandwich. That- that’s about it.

    1. A teacher sandwich with my young blond theater teacher and my young brunette English teacher would have been teh awesome!

  6. Teaching staff, in comparison, increased 252 percent.

    But the teacher’s lounge sizes remained static.


  7. Threadjack =

    Feds sue Bank of America on Behalf of Fannie Freddie…..wsuit.html

    Something about the nature of the story here gets under my skin.

    – Government mandates increased subprime lending by issuers
    – Government encourages sponsored entities Fannie and Freddie to create massive artifical demand for these products by buying up whatever the market threw at them, as fast as possible, inflating their actual value
    – Issuers compete desperately to find anyone who meets criteria; in course of which, they throw quality measures out the window
    – Asset bubble pops and financial system thrown into complete disarray; banks begin to teeter
    – Government forces banks to take massive bailouts, and also forces a few to merge (e.g. BOA, Merrill?)
    – Government realizes they got stuck holding reams of this crappy paper they were telling the market to provide each other – decides to sue the institution they previously forced into merger

    – Government makes allegations with no sense of self-awareness whatsoever =

    “The fraudulent conduct alleged in today’s complaint was spectacularly brazen in scope,” Bharara says in a statement. “Countrywide and Bank of America made disastrously bad loans and stuck taxpayers with the bill.”

    Seriously – that last line is just appalling. Do we get to sue the DoE now for Solyndra?

    1. BoA sucks. Like, seriously sucks. Fuck ’em. Long and hard.

      1. sarcasmic| 10.24.12 @ 4:03PM |#

        BoA sucks. Like, seriously sucks. Fuck ’em. Long and hard.

        Is there a bank you *like*?

        I am by no means particularly fond, but I do think the BoA-Merrill ‘shotgun wedding’ forced by Paulson et al is certainly to blame for how much they have sucked (particularly as a stock)


        Bernanke and Paulson assured Lewis that if Merrill’s fourth quarter numbers were as bad as Lewis believed, the Treasury would provide a rescue package similar to what Citigroup got in November. etc.

        Meaning… most of the bad paper they’ve been cleaning off their books for the last 3 years were from deals which the Federal Government essentially *forced* them to do in order to create ‘stability’. (and stick the taxpayers with the bill! duh)

        meaning, one might say BoA is poorly run, and i wouldn’t disagree. But you can’t say all of their problems were their own doing.

        1. Merrill turned into a good buy – though forced by Paulson.

          Countrywide was the diseased sore that attached itself to Bank of America.

          1. I now force you to buy this steaming piece of shit, promising it will grow forth flowers eventually

            And you will thank me, because you are an idiot.

    2. And if they hadn’t made those loans, the government would now be suing them for discriminatory lending practices.

      1. Yup.

        The big banks’ deal with the devil does have its price, though, so it’s hard to care…

        1. That’s it, right there.

          Big Bankster is Beelzebub to the fed’s Satan when it comes to the mortgage market. Systematic fraud was absolutely endemic, mostly for the purpose of pumping profits (via the fed-enabled securitization racket) rather than avoiding discrimination suits.

          Fuck BoA. My only question is, where are the rest of the banks? BoA isn’t exactly an outlier here.

          1. My only question is, where are the rest of the banks?

            You actually think its a *good* thing the Fed is suing banks for creating shitty paper they were the instigators and prime customers of?

            oh, and to answer your question – They’re all trying to keep up with the latest round of Federally-stimulated mortgage bond demand=


            Eleven out of 12 Fed officials on Wednesday voted to continue buying an additional $40 billion of mortgage-backed securities each month. The central bank began buying the bonds on an open-ended basis last month in a bid to boost the housing market and drive down long-term interest rates to spur spending and investment.

            Fed officials said in September they would continue buying mortgage bonds until the labor market showed substantial improvement

            For those who didn’t pass econ 101: that last sentence is roughly equivilent to saying: “I’m going to shoot squirrels in Alaska until Israeli-Palestinian relations improve””

      2. Bullshit. The Feds are suing Countrywide (BAC bought them in 2008) for selling Fannie SHITTY LOANS THAT FAILED even government standards.

        1. And why were those loans so shitty? Because assholes like you and other liberals spent the 90s campaigning against redlining and making sure that every bank made loans to people who couldn’t afford to pay them back.

          1. Total fucking lie.

            No bank lowered credit standards due to the government (regulations).

            Bank of America never did. The shitty whore they paid to fuck (Countrywide) gave them the disease.

            1. But how did the taxpayers get on the hook for the shitty loans that failed, shrike? BoA and Countrywide did not have the power to do that, they don’t have any Congressional votes.

              1. Gee Hammer it is almost as if the government got BoA and Countrywide to give those bad loans by promising to buy them no matter how bad they were.

              2. That is the point of the lawsuit. It is called a putback.


            2. Palin’s Buttplug| 10.24.12 @ 4:22PM |#

              Total fucking lie.

              No bank lowered credit standards due to the government (regulations).


              The Clinton Administration’s 1995 CRA changes authorized GSE’s to buy subprime mortgages, which it began to do in 1997

              Almost immediately, Fannie began to loosen its standards, requiring people to show lower wealth amounts in order to qualify for mortgages. By 1997, Fannie Mae was offering to buy 97% loan-to-value (LTV) mortgages. If a mortgage is $300,000 on a house worth $500,000, the LTV is 60% (3/5). The higher the mortgage relative to the house value, the higher the LTV. In other words, in 1997, Fannie started offering to buy mortgages that required recipients to put barely any money down. Fannie’s subprime backing caused the percentage of all new US mortgages that were of subprime quality to rise to 13% by 1999, versus 5% in 1994 when the Clinton Administration changed the CRA. According to a 2002 Housing Department report, “From 1993 to 1998, the number of subprime refinance increased tenfold.”

              …again = you really don’t understand any of this, do you?

              1. Strawman.

                Show me where a private commercial bank was forced to lower credit standards (my quote).

                I am well aware that Fannie Mae, as a quasi private entity, sought subprime in competition with Lehman and Bear (among others).

                You wasted your time.

                At issue is the suit against Bank of America. Stay on topic please.

          2. “The Feds are suing Countrywide (BAC bought them in 2008) for selling Fannie SHITTY LOANS THAT FAILED even government standards.”

            So if they failed even government standards, who forced Fannie and Freddie to purchase them? Did BOA put a gun to their heads?

            If not, then that’s like me buying a bag of manure, bringing it home, opening up the bag and upon seeing it’s contents asking, “Why in the fuck is there shit in here?”

            1. So if they failed even government standards, who forced Fannie and Freddie to purchase them? Did BOA put a gun to their heads?

              No one did.

              Countrywide LIED to FNM/FRE about the credit condition of the loans.

              Thus the lawsuit.

              BAC will lose, btw.

        2. selling Fannie SHITTY LOANS THAT FAILED

          Gee, why would anyone *want* to make shitty loans?

          And why would the government mandate endless demand for purchasing them?

 that you mention it… why is the government buying budles of consumer mortgages in the first place?? Isn’t government for like… roads and bridges and shit??

          I mean…. its not like banks would be out there *intentionally lending unqualified people money*…. unless =

          a) government regulators demanded it
          b) a government-sponsored-entity promised to take any and all paper off the hands of issuers, essentially creating an artificial “no-risk” situation which subsequently turned into a whirlwind goldrush of asset-inflation.

          You really don’t understand the first level of this shit at all, do you? In a normal world, people who make ‘bad loans’ eat it and go bust. Which is why they generally *dont*. But in the “Government does everything” planet we currently live in, the Fed both dumped cheap money into the market (prime pump) and promised to be a bottomless buyer of whatever loans were made with that cheap money.

          What do you think happens in that closed-loop world, knucklehead?

          1. Gee, why would anyone *want* to make shitty loans?

            For the fees, dumbass. Then they sold the worst of the lot to Lehman and Bear to roll up into MBS.

            The private market shat itself.

            Get your head out of Limpdick’s ass.

            1. The *private market*??

              You really don’t understand do you.



              A. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Were Created To Inject Liquidity Into the Mortgage Market to Enable Mortgage Lenders to Provide More Loans

              The GSEs are like a government enterprise because they were created by Congress and have a Congressional mandate to help make home ownership a reality for low to middle-class Americans who may not otherwise be able to afford a home. However, they are like a private enterprise because they have shareholders and the structure of a traditional corporation. Fannie and Freddie have dual missions that emphasize this public-private dichotomy: a public mission to support the mortgage market and a private mission to maximize shareholder profits.

              The GSEs make homeownership more accessible by injecting liquidity into the mortgage market. They do this by purchasing “conforming mortgages” (mortgages that meet their underwriting standards) from banks, thrifts, and mortgage companies.

              And did they ever *lower* those standards… dear me… yes! And under Obama too…?


              1. Yes, FNMA was created in the 1940s. So what?

                Please address Bank of America and why they are being sued.

    3. Fascinating how privately owned companies with absolutely no power to pass legislation seem to have done so anyway, and Congress is in no way to blame for sticking taxpayers with the bill.

    4. As a previous BoA hostage, I mean, customer, not enough bad things can happen to them to satisfy me.

      With that out of the way, the government is not in the business of self-awareness or good stewardship. And the only reason Countrywide and BoA were able to stick the taxpayers with the bill is because the government green-lit the aforementioned sticking.

      1. I think you completely misunderstand the narrative here.

        If anything, this case is not about ‘hurting’ BoA as much as it is a bit of historical revisionism by Federal prosecutors.

        Its theatre.

        Its like the Mafia Don going, “Vito… are you telling me these fur coats were *stolen~!* I am AGHAST!! Look, you’re going to have to return the $500 I gave you, because i wouldn’t want my customers to be misinformed… and really, Vito, I think maybe you’ve been running with the wrong crowd”

        A $1bn settlement over a multi-trillion asset bubble is not exactly slavery-reparations.

  8. Classroom size is the most idiotic concept ever foisted on parents. Parents think having their kid in a small class is like having a private chef. But what they don’t realize is that the private chef is very unlikely to be Gordon Ramsey and more likely to be one of the people whose restaurant he is always trying to save.

    From a productivity stand point, small class sizes do nothing but limit the productivity of your best teachers. It is no wonder smaller class size has never been positively correlated with increased achievement.

    1. Being basically a government monopoly, there is no price system to communicate information. So like everything government they try to come up with silly metrics for measuring themselves. And they all suck.

      Bring on the vouchers!

      1. For sure. Think of it this way. Suppose your school had some guy who was like Jamie Escalante (that guy in LA who could teach Calculus to anyone). You would want your kid in his class right? But no, we have small class sizes at this school. Only ten kids get into his class and your kid didn’t win the lottery. He is going to this other guy who may or may not be able to teach. That is what reducing class size effectively does, reduces access to the best teachers. No way would a school that was run for the benefit of anyone but the teachers’ union do that.

        1. solution — drive out the Jamie. he’s making other teachers look bad and not everyone can enroll in his class, which is not fair.

    2. Oh, I had a few teachers like Gordon Ramsey. Always screaming and unpleasant to be around.

    3. Since the plural of anecdote is data:

      In the government schools in Turkey, I had the same elementary teacher for first and second grades (and would have had her through fifth grade if we hadn’t emigrated).

      1st grade, there were 72 kids in my class.
      2nd grade, 63 kids, including 5 who were held back from the class ahead. The rest had been held back or moved.

      I learned nothing new in math classes in the U.S. till 6th grade. It was a podunk school in Ankara. YMMV

  9. My wife has recently started teaching 3rd grade in the Texas public education system. From what I can deduce it sounds like the kids whose parents don’t give a damn and the kids whose parents give too much of a damn take up over 80% of her attention. Leaving the kids with normal parents to count tiles on the ceiling to offset their boredom.

    Maybe public schools should be more like reality TV, where the class gets to vote the irritating kids off the island.

    1. That is called private school.

  10. After a relevant post in the MLs, I looked into FL spending at a state level on public education. As you can see, education spending to implement this has been $25B over 10 years. And we got jack shit out of it. Our schools aren’t any better, we’ve just got full employment for education majors.

    1. Whoops. This should have been under John’s class size post.

  11. I hate teachers. Talentless union hacks. Liberal indoctrinating douchebags.

    I’m actually tempted to use this line at this California Prop 30 debate I’m participating in later today.

  12. Many classical liberals of old supported public schools. Much of it was due to their hostility to the Roman Catholic Church. That worked out well didn’t it?

    1. Unintended consiquences. It sounded like such a good idea getting children out of the hands of the Papists and putting them into public funded schools to make them into good little secular liberals.

    2. Bloody papists~!

      What did 800 jesuit universities ever do for anyone?! I’m so much happier we have public universities now, where I can learn important things, like marketing or communications studies, instead of that silly crap in latin and greek.

  13. It sounded like such a good idea getting children out of the hands of the Papists and putting them into public funded schools to make them into good little secular liberals.

    That was only in Catholic countries. In the US and English Canada it was all about making kids good little Protestant liberals. That has changed obviously.

    1. Well, let’s not forget about the Indian Boarding Schools.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.