« The Intelligent Design of Legislation | Main | Interview with Pete Ashdown »
Efficiency in Educaton, an Open Letter to the Legislature
by Kim R. Burningham,
Chair, Utah State Board of Education
Dear Legislators,
With the third week of the Legislature upon us, I would like to address the issue of school efficiency vs. waste.
On occasion, I hear folks say something like, “If we could just trim out all the fat, we’d have enough money for education.” These concerned citizens are worried about waste, and indeed we all should be trying to eliminate waste wherever we find it. However, comparative measurements of waste place Utah at the bottom of the heap. In education, our waste index is very low.
Statistics demonstrating low administration costs in Utah
Critics will sometimes say that we have too many administrators in our education system. Although one could always argue we have an extra administrator here or there, the accusation in general seems odd when one examines the reality. Observe these figures:
- Utah spends just $53 per student on general administration of Education, by far the lowest in the nation for states with multiple school districts.
- The difference between Utah’s administrative expenditure and other states is not slight. The Utah figure is less than one third of the national average of $160 per student.
- Utah spends $297 per student for school administration (principals and vice principals), again the lowest in the country.
- In total of both kinds of administration, Utah spends $350 per student on school administration; the national average is $613.
Support for these statistics is found in U.S. Census Bureau’s public education financial publication (Table 8). [pdf]
Last week’s national publication highlights Utah’s success
Perhaps these facts are part of the reason that Utah achieves so much with so little. Just last Thursday, January 26, the national publication Stateline observed that “Schools spend fewer dollars per student in Utah than in any other state, but more fourth-graders there improved reading and math scores over the past decade than in more than half of the States.”Ê The article pounds home the point: “Utah stands out for its success in boosting the number of student to pass the tests since 1992, the first year of state-by-state NAEP testing, despite ranking dead last for spending.”
I believe many reasons contribute to this remarkable record, but at least one reason is that we emphasize the classroom in our State and have relatively low waste. Some national critics are pushing for a 65% solution to education where they would insist that at least 65% of all education money be spent on classroom activities. Computing that percentage is hard. (Do you count counselors, textbooks, and libraries in the figure? What about rural school districts who have a disproportionately high expenditure in transportation?) According to the sponsors of this approach, “First Class Education,” Utah spends 64.1% on classroom instruction. According to USOE figures, we spend 69.21%. Whichever figures ones uses, Utah is one of the top states in focusing expenditure on the classroom. And the earlier figures demonstrate that our expenditure in administration is the lowest. The national campaign misses the mark when we talk about Utah.
My point is this: Sure we want to eliminate waste and be efficient in our educational system. But observers will be quick to realize that we already have an impressive figure when it comes to efficiency, and to assert that we have too much administration in Utah is just not accurate.
Kim R. Burningham
Chair
Utah State Board of Education
Posted by windley on February 1, 2006 10:06 AM
Comments
I note with interest that the statistics cited are state education vs state education, and not public education's administrative costs vs. the administrative costs of other education establishments. I'd be interested to know how the costs for administration in public school compares to the costs for private schools, for instance, including large private school districts (mainly Catholic) in other states.
Posted by: Chris Jones at February 1, 2006 01:29 PM
That's because there are different factors. Community schools have different costs (e.g.teacher salaries may be bigger in a public school--I remember applying at one private school that paid its teachers $11 an hour vs. more for a public school) and regulations to factor in than other kinds of schools. You can't compare apples to oranges.
I'm just glad someone pointed out some things. Often, it's the ed bashers that seem to get more of the attention recently.
I have to say though, that I'm not one that's big on statistics from either side as many are used as poitical fodder.
I think a lot of our attitudes should change and we should work together.
Posted by: starmom at February 1, 2006 04:43 PM
Mr. Burningham's figures agree with work we did at Utah Foundation a few years ago, when we performed analysis for the Employers Education Coalition. They wanted to know how top-heavy our education system was, and the answer was that it was not very heavy at all, whether you look at it in terms of personnel or spending. However, I would also add that this is the very logical result of having large districts. We achieve some economies of scale by having only 40 superintendents (and the corresponding number of assistant supts, CFOs, etc.) instead of having 100 or more districts like another state might have. In some states, every little town has its own district. Of course, some argue that smaller districts serve students better. I don't know if that's true, but I do know that the larger districts are more cost efficient when comparing per-pupil administrative costs, because they can spread those costs among more students.
Posted by: Steve Kroes at February 2, 2006 09:28 AM
Your comments are intruiging Steve, especially in light of HB 77, which mandates a specific size cap for districts. (The cap is low enough, it would require several existing districts to split.) Seems like some in the legislature want it both ways.
The bill is opposed by the State Board of Education and the Utah School Boards Association.
http://www.schools.utah.gov/LAW/leg/PDF/Tracking%20Sheet.pdf
Posted by: Tom at February 2, 2006 11:03 AM
Good comments by all. Some in the legislature want it their way it seems. I'm not opposed to smaller districts, but it would be nice to see less guv bureaucrats determining what happens all the time.
Posted by: dodo at February 2, 2006 08:48 PM