Subject: More on school spending for Patrick and Bob (was:Re: Private schools) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000 16:43:41 -0500 From: Grinch Organization: Happy Skeptics of America Newsgroups: misc.education, sci.econ References: 1 , 2 On 08 Feb 2000 19:07:50 GMT, susupply@aol.com (SUSUPPLY) wrote: >Bob's just not in the mood, I guess: [Following up on the review of Catholic v. Public school spending, nearly 1 to 3 per student in Washington DC.... ] >>... only the cost (which as I have said is of course going to be >>cheaper when both the parochial and public schools spend 2/3 of their >>expenditures on salariesa Both do?? Where does this come from? I reported that *Catholic* schools spend 2/3rds of their budget on instructional salaries. As for urban public schools .... >> the parochial schools pay their teachers a >>fraction of what public schools pay teachers). > >Which means that the other 1/3 is lower in private schools too. Since you fellows have expanded the discussion to include NYC, I'll repost Clayton's favorite data supplied by Alan's favorite former co-worker, who reported regarding NYC public school spending... "These figures are shocking and indicate that less than one-third (32.3%) of the dollars provided by the various funding sources to the Board of Education ever get from the school board to the chalkboard...." "It seems incredible that less than half of the dollars allocated for education ever arrive at the schools." But *given* that less than half the dollars do, it's not so incredible that alternative schools can do as good or better a job for less money, is it? (Might the following enlighten somebody that some basic knowledge of economics is indeed relevant to providing educational services?) From... RESOURCE ALLOCATION AND PRODUCTIVITY: A FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE NEW YORK CITY HIGH SCHOOLS By Robert Sarrel, Ed. D., Director of Budget Allocation, Management and Planning, New York City Board of Education, Brooklyn, New York. 178 pages. Published by UMI Dissertation Services, 800-521-0600 [Note: The source is not the Cato Institute ;-) ] ---------------- "URBAN FINANCE -- THE PROBLEM" "[T]he paradox of urban school reform is the steady increase in education cost per pupil with no increase in student outcomes. ... Over the past 20 years, factoring for inflation, (NYC) per-student spending has risen 80% while graduation rates, SAT performances, and Regents results have declined and indicators of student misbehavior, violence and drop-out rates worsened. "To explain this it is necessary to understand the relationship between costs and outcomes by 'unpacking'’ the allocations process from the school board to the chalkboard". . . "Before the Board of Education allocates resources to its divisions, dollars are extracted to support its overhead. The same process occurs when the divisions receive their budgets. Dollars again are siphoned off for overhead and central administration. What remains becomes available for allocation to schools. . . "The magnitude of the decrease in funds available for instruction is examined in this study." [pp. 1-3] -- Bureaucracy -- "School bureaucracy has skyrocketed in proportion to the growth in the number of teachers.... While the number of teachers has grown 58%, the number of school administrators has grown 79%, other staff growth is 500%. Overhead costs have doubled...." [p. 3] "[T]he general allocation process is such that each organizational tier first extracts its share of resources . . . Hence, given the nature of things, the bureaucratic 'blob' thrives at the expense of the classroom." [p.6] "Almost 46% of all personnel now are non-teaching, and even some staff on teaching lines are relieved of pedagogic responsibilities [for administrative duties]." [p.144] "The New York City school system has a vast bureaucratic structure, and it is inconceivable that the public willingly supports this structure as a valid educational expense..." [p.86] -- The Cascade -- "The metaphor of an allocation 'cascade' is useful as it depicts funds flowing from the Central Board of Education, through the system to the school, then from the school to the classroom teacher. At each level dollars are channeled for purposes other than instruction. Although some services related to children may be performed at some of these levels, the proportion varies. "The system currently in place presumes a top-down control of allocation of dollars ...The cascade analogy is appropriate in that each level 'siphons off' and/or 'filters out' dollars ..." [p.85] FINANCIAL IMPACT ON RESOURCES FOR INSTRUCTION "Approximately 50% of the Board of Education’s per-student funding intended to serve students is diverted to non-instructional and bureaucratic purposes before the Division of High Schools receives its initial allotment.... Then, like all central operations, [the Division] takes first what it needs to operate... " [p.57] -- The Cascade in Action -- [Long chart on p. 89 collapsed for USENET presentation]: 100% --- Board of Education per-student funding. Minus 48.6% for: Board of Education overhead, Central Operations overhead, etc. This leaves .... 51.4% for High School Division Minus 15.7% for Division overhead, centrally-controlled costs and managed programs, and administrative non-instructional needs. This leaves .... 35.7% for School Levels Minus 3.4% for teacher time off in lieu of instruction . This leaves .. 32.3% for Classroom Services "The allocation cascade for high schools indicates that less than 47% of the per-pupil allocation of the Board of Education ever gets to the schools; and of this amount, less than 61% gets to instruction in the classroom. "These figures are shocking and indicate that less than one-third (32.3%) of the dollars provided by the various funding sources to the Board of Education ever get from the school board to the chalkboard. "[p. 113] -- Continuing Growth of Bureaucracy During Periods of Financial Cutbacks -- "History shows that the primacy of administrative needs results in growing administrative allocations even when classroom services are reduced in response to overall financial constraints .... "During the 1975 New York City budget crisis, teachers with as many as 10 years experience were excessed and many never returned. The hierarchy, however, continued to grow ... "[p. 167] OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSION "The major increase in school staff other than teachers that has been observed may simply be due to the increasing availability of resources ..." [p.3] "When schools as a whole demonstrate an inability to use available resources effectively, there is little reason to believe that an additional dollar put into the system will improve student achievement." [p. 30] "It seems incredible that less than half of the dollars allocated for education ever arrive at the schools. One way to rethink things would be to reverse the top-down methodology of allocations ... "Without changing the funding of urban schools, we cannot hope to improve education, especially for students at risk. More money poured in at the top would simply enlarge the existing bureaucracy which has already grown far faster than services for students at the bottom." [pp 162-163] ~~ Being that these comments came not from someplace like Cato, but from the budget director of the nation's largest public school system while he was on the job, they're really something -- don't you think? Anyone who's genuinely interested in this subject can order the full text dissertation from http://www.umi.com/ It's got a lot more intersesting material in it too.