Various videos of Gov. Chris Christie of NJ have been been making the rounds lately. None are more controversial than those in which he confronts a teacher over her pay and takes on the teachers union. I will post them again below as they are really worth watching.
What I thought that I would do today is add a little context. The following graphic is from the Cato Institute (via AceofSpades). It shows the real education spending in inflation adjusted dollars vs test scores.
This is as damning a chart for our education system as possible and it is teacher’s unions that are responsible for much of the increase in spending.
Cato Institute says…
If you graduated from high school in 1980, your entire k-12 education cost your fellow taxpayers about $75,000, in 2009 dollars. But the graduating class of 2009 had roughly twice that amount lavished on their public school careers. The extra $75,000 we’re now spending has done wonders for public school employee union membership, dues revenue, and political clout. It’s done a whole lotta nothin’ for student learning (see chart).
This proves in my mind that Gov. Christie, no matter how unpopular it may be, is doing exactly the right thing in NJ by taking on the teacher’s unions. As he said, when it comes to taxes, this isn’t A fight to pick it is THE fight to pick.
June 23, 2010 at 1:52 pm
I really have to agree. The NJEA was a ridiculously influential union here in NJ, spending millions upon millions of rank and file teachers' dues on campaign ads for and against various candidates ($9 mil against Christie in 2009) in each election cycle. It had to be done. I would like to see him stand up against other too-powerful lobbying groups as well, though. Maybe next year.
June 23, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Well obviously we're not spending enough yet! :p
June 23, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Graphs such as this are inherently misleading because there is a built-in economic bias towards higher salaries and other expenses associated with education because of inflation in the general economy. However, there is no similar inflationary factor that would cause test scores to have a natural upward trend. It is therefore possible that average test scores could remain very little changed over decades while salaries increase substantially over the same time period, yet no legitimate conclusion about teacher performance may be reached merely on the basis of that data alone. Now, I'm in agreement with the thesis that teachers' unions are self-serving and have generally hurt education but this graph is as misleading as Al Gore's "hockey stick" graph. A consideration of more data, or of a proper context for the data, is called for.
June 23, 2010 at 2:20 pm
The schools need to be privatized. No government involvement at all.
June 23, 2010 at 4:22 pm
According to your graph, the cost of a public education has increased 375% since 1970.
That is hardly surprising, since the cost of everything (consumer price index) has gone up 473.25% over that same time frame.
So, relatively speaking, we are spending less on public education per student than we were in 1970.
No wonder the test scores haven't improved.
June 23, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Craig:
Did you happen to notice that the graph is titled "Inflation-Adjusted Cost of K-12 Public Education." Might want to read a little more closely next-time.
June 23, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Anonymous,
The data IS inflation adjusted. That is what makes it so damning. Likewise, another damning factor is that achievement tests have been dumbed-down over the last 25-30 years which explains the reversal of the downward trend in test scores in the mid-1980s. The current plot suggests that test scores and education cost are not correlated at all. But if we were to factor in the dumbing-down of the tests, there were be an anti-correlation between cost and achievement, meaning that the more you spend, the poorer the education. Whether or not higher spending is a symptom of a poorer education or a cause thereof cannot, however, be asserted from this data.
June 23, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Anonymous and Craig, as Paul said, the chart specifically is dealing with inflation-adjusted dollars.
What it doesn't take into account is the materials/infrastructure changes that have occurred in the past 40 years. Building maintenance, computer labs, "required" extracurricular activities due to parental demand, testing requirements, textbooks and other resources, school security (metal detectors aren't cheap, nor are rent-a-cops), other additional administrative overhead, and more. While I'm willing to bet that teachers salaries have increased over the past 40 years, even after adjusting for inflation, I'm willing to bet that it hasn't doubled. In fact, I'd also be willing to bet that the largest change has been retirement and health benefits costs. More retired teachers living longer, along with cadillac health insurance plans for everyone.
Seamus, good call on the dumbing down of tests.
June 23, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Craig – the numbers are already inflation-adjusted. The cost in real dollars, taking inflation into account, had almost doubled in 40 years. So, no, we're not spending less.
Christina – I'm not sure I understand your point. Is it that generally higher salaries in the population as a whole mean that, just by keeping up, teachers salaries will display that upward slope? If that is your point, the facts don't bear it out – the actual curve of real (inflation-adjusted) per capita earnings across the economy as a whole is not nearly so neat or positively sloped. In other words, 'normal' keeping up with the Jones teacher salary increases explain only a small part of that graph. Also, teacher salaries are only a part of the curve – non teacher salaries and other expenses are also included. So, if I understand your argument, the effect of generally increasing salaries accounts for only a small part of the upward slope of the curve.
June 23, 2010 at 5:04 pm
"It shows the real education spending in inflation adjusted dollars vs test scores."
Craig
Reading comprehension has never been your strong suit.
June 23, 2010 at 5:44 pm
I understand that there are some teachers our there who are making big salaries. Too bad my husband doesn't fall into the category. Seems he should get something for being overworked, having no planning time during the school day, having a watchdog on his back all the time, principals who refuse to discipline students… Should I go on?
Not every teacher is making money.
By the way, if we really value education, shouldn't teachers be paid decently????
Cathy D
June 23, 2010 at 6:17 pm
Cathy-
seems to me that most of the extra money is going into "staff" instead of teachers. I know my high school, just a decade ago, had the teachers, four ladies in the lunch room, a janitor (he worked mostly at night) three ladies to run the office, a councilor, a librarian and a principal.
Talking to one of my former teachers, there are now two vice-principals, five or eight ladies in the office, three councilors, three or four janitors (so that they work during the day, disrupting classes with the vacuum), three ladies in the lunch room, fewer teachers than before and no librarian. (teachers are to monitor the library when their class uses it)
During both times we had a little office where the local K9 unit would hang out when he wasn't on a call.
Oh, and there are fewer kids– not by a huge number, but my sister's class was the biggest in ages so that metric is a little bit skewed. There hasn't been a big up-tick in work, for sure, other than that caused by getting rid of a five teachers. Oh, and they eliminated wood-working, welding, auto repair and shop, so the upkeep should have gone way down, and the art teacher died. Boom, four electives eliminated, the equipment gathering dust, and they are asking for more money… to hire more staff.
June 23, 2010 at 6:34 pm
Can we elect Chris Christie for President? Maybe then he could go to work on Detroit's school system…
June 23, 2010 at 7:55 pm
Just want to clarify something here: more education spending does NOT equal higher teacher salaries. What it means is that the money is there, but it is being wasted.
I recommend Peter Brimelow's book "Worm in the Apple: How the Teacher Unions are Destroying American Education". John Stossel's report "Stupid in America" is also very good.
Marie
June 23, 2010 at 9:58 pm
Has anyone considered the increase in mandates for special education?
If someone has a child so damaged that he will never show any evidence of cognition, a child that doesn't even follow bright colored objects with his eyes or show that he hears loud noises, that child has to be taken care of by the public school system. One such child at the Special Children's Center I visited was being massaged with perfumed oils. I thought to my self that the very stiff retired police chief I took care of in my nurses' aide job, who showed more evidence of consciousness although he didn't speak, could use that kind of care, but wouldn't get it. The staff to deal with such a child, to provide for his physical needs, to provide him "therapies" , is very expensive.
That is an extreme example, but the special ed part of public education is enormous. Children get PT, OT, Speech, counseling, one on one classroom aides, all at taxpayers expense. There is also the time spent to evaluate and document all of this.
If you compare the cost of educating children who get no special services, would the difference really be so great?
Before we villify teachers, let's see how much of this increased cost of education is really teacher's salaries. And then let's compare those salaries to those of other professionals with similar levels of educational preparation.
Full disclosure: My parents were elementary school teachers who belonged to the teacher's union and who once led a teacher's strike.
Susan Peterson
June 23, 2010 at 10:15 pm
"Waiting for Superman," a documentary that premiered at the LA film festival this week tackles this same subject (surprisingly produced by the same dude who did "An Inconvenient Truth"). It was an interesting documentary, which presented some surprising facts:
1) Teachers are tenured after just two years of teaching. At that point, they are basically not allowed to be fired (barring crazy extraneous circumstances….but even then…..)
2) I don't remember the EXACT numbers, but rough estimates: Teachers are held less accountable than most other working professionals. Doctors have a 1 in 90 chance (or something similar) to lose their medical license. Lawyers lose their right to practice at a similar rate. Teachers have a 1 in 2,500 chance of losing their job.
If we take the education of our youth so seriously, then why aren't our teachers held accountable?
3) Teachers unions don't only protect teachers by guaranteeing them all a base pay, their guidelines actually PREVENT teachers from being rewarded with higher salaries based on performance.
So teachers like Cathy's husband, who are working hard for their students are making the same pay as a tenured teacher who reads the newspaper during class.
Look, my facts aren't all spot on, since I saw the documentary two nights ago and don't remember the exact stats from the film. Also, I haven't had time to fact check what I learned in the documentary. But if these are all true…..then it seems to me unions are hurting rather than helping not just students but those fantastic teachers out there who really DO deserve to be rewarded for their efforts.
June 23, 2010 at 10:16 pm
*** as an add on to my previous comment, I would like to mention that point number 1 about teachers being tenured does not include college professors, who on the contrary have to work much longer and establish themselves before getting tenure.
June 24, 2010 at 12:24 am
Yes, the tenure aspects are quite different between college professors and high school teachers. Likewise, there is a whopping difference in cost per student as well. Average public high school costs $12018 per year per student (http://www.edreform.com/Fast_Facts/K12_Facts/). Average in-state college tuition costs $7020 per student per year (http://www.collegeboard.com/student/pay/add-it-up/4494.html). Given that college professors get paid a great deal better than high school teachers, one has to wonder where that extra $5000 dollars per year per student goes…
Perhaps all public high school students are considered out-of-state students by their school districts, but even then, college is still cheaper at $11528 per student per year.
June 24, 2010 at 12:53 am
Seamus, I believe the second link is out-of-pocket– it ignores gov't money put in. By that comparison, K-12 schools would be cheaper because it's possible to go without paying tuition at all.
June 24, 2010 at 12:55 am
I've never heard of a teacher getting tenure after two years of teaching…what school system is THAT? I'm a tenured teacher, having taught 26 years in public education, and I don't think that my tenure would help me save my job at all.
Furthermore, teachers are certainly held accountable with the NCLB state-mandated tests. These tests make for bad education, and are not made by "test professionals" like the Stanford tests are. I could go on forever about the fallacies and subjectivity in these tests. I not only administer them, but have graded them for other states.
And as for accoutability: If you REALLY want to know who the good teachers are, ask a teacher. They know the people who are dedicated, smart, compassionate with students and so on, NOT administrators or parents necessarily. I'm not the least bit intimidated about being accountable to anyone. You can come in with a laptop and watch me all day long. I KNOW how much time, creativity, patience and dedication go into my job (to say nothing of the hundred of dollars I spend out of pocket).
BUT is there a politician on the planet who is willing to let a teacher off the hook just a bit if the parents do NOTHING to help their child? I've groveled to get parents to help their child, and often to no avail. So let's not dump on teachers. I KNOW there are bad ones (not necessarily who you might think)and they need to go, but there are a lot of us who do work year round to run our classrooms smoothly and to the best of our ability, often sacrificing other aspects of our lives.
So what's the "elephant in the room"? The breakdown of the family. Sure, there's a lot of "best practice" policies that come and go, multi-cultural preaching, and silly, trendy pedagogical experimentation. But, at the end of the day, the breakdown of the family is the single biggest contributor to the breakdown of education, in my opinion.
Finally, I despise the NEA, and was "forced" to join this year. It is very common for what is called "fair share" to be in the teachers' contract. They are a powerful lobbying group whose values are the antithesis of mine.
I love the people I work with, but we'd all agree that the stress of this job: difficult students, parents, test scores, and meaningless initiatives are draining and impossible to fulfill while also just plain TEACHING!
I love teaching, but I'd love to retire and just teach in a nice Catholic school.