The loudest proponents for greater increases in per-pupil spending compare Colorado unfavorably to the national average. But what does the national average approach to K-12 education teach us? Below is a chart I created from U.S. Department of Education data showing the growth in personnel vs. the growth in student enrollment from 1992 to 2006:
National Growth of Education Personnel
Over the course of the most recent 14 years evaluated, total student enrollment grew by 15 percent while total personnel grew by 30 percent: a 2-to-1 ratio. During that time, K-12 public education went from 1 employee for every 9 students to 1 employee for every 8 students. All but one of the subcategories (librarians) has grown more quickly than enrollment. And a new administrator for every 140 new students?
What has this approach accomplished towards achieving the ends of public education? Look, this isn’t a personal broadside at people who work in public schools. It’s stepping back for the 30,000-foot view to ask what we’re doing at the local, state and federal level enacting policies and programs that largely end up costing more money than achieving effective results.
Close up, it’s hard to see the problem. Yet at the macro level, the flaws of this approach become more obvious — especially in times when the economy is slow and budgets are tight.
Personnel costs typically account for 85 percent of school district expenditures. At least as it exists now, education by its nature is a personnel-intensive enterprise. But what if Clayton Christensen is right about the “disruptive innovation” of technology coming to transform education? Can we then at least expect the rate of personnel growth to match the growth in students, rather than double it?
Rather than chasing after the national average approach, wouldn’t Colorado be wise to think outside the box — like, more than a little bit? Are we brave enough to start heading there?
Popularity: 3% [?]
The graph indicates a steep increase in instructional coaches (99.8%) and instructional aides (65.1%). What are those positions and why are they growing?