Monday, July 9, 2012

Student:Teacher Ratios


Salaries, most of which are for teachers & aides, are by far the biggest driver of costs in all schools, including Yeshiva's.  Pointless to talk about cost cutting without addressing the cost of maintaining a low student/teacher ratio.  A lot of people insist that it's crucial to keep the ratio low, but I don't know if any scientific studies have proven that it improves education.  Here's an  article that argues that we need fewer teachers in the public schools and that having fewer of them would save a lot of money without impacting education.  I think the same argument can be made for yeshivas.  I don't think the education level was any worse 40 years ago when there were much fewer assistant teachers.  


Let's discuss but please leave out the politics mentioned in the article.  Plenty of other blogs for righties & lefties to duke it out over who should be running the various branches of government.




America Has Too Many Teachers

Public-school employees have doubled in 40 years while student enrollment has increased by only 8.5%—and academic results have stagnated.

By ANDREW J. COULSON

President Obama said last month that America can educate its way to prosperity if Congress sends money to states to prevent public school layoffs and "rehire even more teachers." Mitt Romney was having none of it, invoking "the message of Wisconsin" and arguing that the solution to our economic woes is to cut the size of government and shift resources to the private sector. Mr. Romney later stated that he wasn't calling for a reduction in the teacher force—but perhaps there would be some wisdom in doing just that.
Since 1970, the public school workforce has roughly doubled—to 6.4 million from 3.3 million—and two-thirds of those new hires are teachers or teachers' aides. Over the same period, enrollment rose by a tepid 8.5%. Employment has thus grown 11 times faster than enrollment. If we returned to the student-to-staff ratio of 1970, American taxpayers would save about $210 billion annually in personnel costs.
Or would they? Stanford economist Eric Hanushek has shown that better-educated students contribute substantially to economic growth. If U.S. students could catch up to the mathematics performance of their Canadian counterparts, he has found, it would add roughly $70 trillion to the U.S. economy over the next 80 years. So if the additional three million public-school employees we've hired have helped students learn, the nation may be better off economically.
To find out if that's true, we can look at the "long-term trends" of 17-year-olds on the federal National Assessment of Educational Progress. These tests, first administered four decades ago, show stagnation in reading and math and a decline in science. Scores for black and Hispanic students have improved somewhat, but the scores of white students (still the majority) are flat overall, and large demographic gaps persist. Graduation rates have also stagnated or fallen. So a doubling in staff size and more than a doubling in cost have done little to improve academic outcomes.
Nor can the explosive growth in public-school hiring be attributed to federal spending on special education. According to the latest Census Bureau data, special ed teachers make up barely 5% of the K-12 work force.
The implication of these facts is clear: America's public schools have warehoused three million people in jobs that do little to improve student achievement—people who would be working productively in the private sector if that extra $210 billion were not taxed out of the economy each year.
We have already tried President Obama's education solution over a time period and on a scale that he could not hope to replicate today. And it has proven an expensive and tragic failure.
To avoid Greece's fate we must create new, productive private-sector jobs to replace our unproductive government ones. Even as a tiny, mostly nonprofit niche, American private education is substantially more efficient than its public sector, producing higher graduation rates and similar or better student achievement at roughly a third lower cost than public schools (even after controlling for differences in student and family characteristics).
image
image
Associated Press
St. Joseph's Catholic School in Kennewick, Wash.
By making it easier for families to access independent schools, we can do what the president's policies cannot: drive prosperity through educational improvement. More than 20 private-school choice programs already exist around the nation. Last month, New Hampshire legislators voted to override their governor's veto and enact tax credits for businesses that donate to K-12 scholarship organizations. Mr. Romney has supported such state programs. President Obama opposes them.
While America may have too many teachers, the greater problem is that our state schools have squandered their talents on a mass scale. The good news is that a solution is taking root in many states.
Mr. Coulson directs the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom and is author of "Market Education: The Unknown History" (Transaction, 1999).
A version of this article appeared July 9, 2012, on page A13 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: America Has Too Many Teachers.

Comments (10)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
JS (hello)'s avatar

JS (hello) · 663 weeks ago

When I was in yeshiva on 3 grades had assistant teachers: Pre-K, K, and 1st. Every other grade had just a single teacher. I don't remember class size precisely, but I'd estimate it was around 20.
speaking from a high school teacher perspective, I have taught classes sized from 5 to 35 students. I can teach either one but the truth is, I do a better job when there are fewer kids. I can focus more on individual needs, I can get through papers with more depth and speed. The classroom control isn't a problem but with fewer students, I can differentiate more effectively.
Henry Frisch's avatar

Henry Frisch · 663 weeks ago

I found the 30-34 students I taught in my high school classes at Bronx Science over three decades plus received a more than satisfactory education. I did have small classes in various yeshiva situations over the years but these classes ranged from being too small--yes-- to being no better than the large Bronx Science classes. Certain subjects (I taught English) might lend themselves to smalller sections than others, e.g. science laboratories.
Fun Fun, YNJ just hired an ASSISTANT pre school director. Talk about cost cutting. Wondering if she will be getting a car and driver with the position.
1 reply · active 663 weeks ago
CJ Srullowitz's avatar

CJ Srullowitz · 663 weeks ago

YNJ HAD an assistant preschool director prior to this one. She left and they filled the position. It's not a new position.
Slightly a different topic, but as it's summer time, have you considered the cost of day camps? Sticking with the popular day camps for Bergen county kids - Regesh, Matov, and Moshava Ba-Ir.
If you calculate a cost per day for sending 1 or 2 kids you will find that the cost is almost at the same level per day as Yeshiva tuition. And yet, the biggest expense of yeshivas (Teacher salaries and benefits) doesn't even exist in the day camps because the counselors are not paid. In fact at some camps I understand the counselors have to pay for the privilege of being a counselor. The only people who get paid at the day camps are the administrators, lifeguards, and nurse, and the maintenance crew. I am deliberately not including sleepaway camps here in this calculatino because it is not as clear of a comparison to yeshivas because at sleepaway camps the kids are being provided room and board for 3 1/2 weeks per session.

So why is day camp as expensive as it is? The answer is that the camps are For-Profit businesses, and the owners of the camps are making a living off of the two-month a year business operation.
1 reply · active 663 weeks ago
The camp using the former Matov site is a nonprofit.
Nombody,

Not sure where you are getting your information. Of course counselors are paid. It would be illegal for them not to be paid. Matov closed. Moshava Ba'ir is owned by Bnei Akiva which is not for profit.
Carlton Terrace's avatar

Carlton Terrace · 663 weeks ago

"So why is day camp as expensive as it is? The answer is that the camps are For-Profit businesses, and the owners of the camps are making a living off of the two-month a year business operation."

Aside from the fact that your assumptions about costs and expenses are incorrect, just what is your point? You are sort of insuating that camp owners are doing something wrong by engaging in a for profit business. Are you are a flaming Obama liberal that hates profits? No one forces you to send your kids there. The purpose of a business is to earn a profit.
JS (hello)'s avatar

JS (hello) · 663 weeks ago

The camps are expensive because there are loads of parents willing to pay to send their little kiddies there. The camps also offer scholarships to those less able to pay (how's that for a euphemism?) so there's a baked in subsidy as well.

The camps spend a lot of money on activities, insurance, staff, trips, etc. I'm sure the owners make a decent profit, but what did you expect?

Post a new comment

Comments by