Learn About: 21st Century | Charter Schools | Homework
Home / Edifier


The EDifier

November 23, 2011

A fun way to balance budgets?

Filed under: Data,funding — Tags: , — Patte Barth @ 11:43 am

So maybe “fun” is a bit of an overstatement, but those smarty pants at Education Resource Strategies have certainly put together an engaging tool for gauging the relative costs and savings to districts when looking at effective ways to align school resources.  The web-based tool, School Budget Hold’em, uses the conceit of a card game to highlight research-based strategies for getting the most out of precious – and in most districts shrinking — school dollars along with the projected impact those strategies will have on the total budget.

The timing couldn’t be better. As Jim Hull’s aptly titled report Cutting to the bone makes clear, school districts across the country are in financial dire straits and the situation is not likely to change soon. This is forcing school boards to make very difficult choices about where to invest their resources and where they may need to cut.  

School Budget Hold’em works like this. You select how much you want to increase or decrease your budget (eg., -2%, -5%, +2%, etc). A series of “cards” are then displayed for varous strategies. For example, you select increasing your pre-k enrollments by 50% under “investments.” You find that this will increase your budget by +1.0%. You then look at the “savings” side and see a range of choices, like increasing class size by 2 (- 1.6% savings) or furloughing teachers for 3 days (- 0.7%). The tool keeps a running tab on your investments/savings, and your cards can be played and unplayed until you hit your target.

What I like most about this tool is the “why” button. In addition to the projected costs/savings, each strategy has an explanation of its potential benefits to students based on research.  This enables players to explore return on investment in terms of outcomes as opposed to budget implications alone. Some strategies, like “eliminate summer school,” come with a big alert, basically telling players, “you don’t really want to go there.”

The ERS tool isn’t going to replace the hard work school leaders face in re-allocating scarce resources.  But it’s a good starting point for thinking about the trade offs and might even be helpful when defending these decisions to the community.

You can get started here: http://www.erstrategies.org/resources/details/school_budget_holdem/ – Patte Barth 





November 9, 2011

Response: Are Teachers Overpaid?

Filed under: funding,Public education,teachers — Tags: , — Mandy @ 10:31 am

Last week, The Heritage Foundation’s Jason Richwine and Andrew Biggs addressed why they feel that teachers are overpaid. Since teachers are more likely to hold another job to pay the bills than any other profession in America (according to a study conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS study), I disagree.  

Below you’ll find some of my responses to Richwine and Biggs:

 “A teacher who receives a given salary for nine months of work is clearly better compensated than someone who earns the same salary for a full year’s work.”

  • Response: The Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development (OECD) found that American teachers spend more hours per year working than do teachers in any other country (Education at a Glance 2011 - OECD).  On paper, teachers work about 7.5 hour days with 30 minute lunch breaks, teach for 180 days, and work for 195 days. However, the reality is that teachers have homework. According to the BLS study, 79 % of American public school teachers begin their workday at 7am and 51% conduct another full day’s worth of work over the weekend. Teachers get 10 weeks off in the summer, in addition to holiday breaks, but this time is often used for professional development workshops, setting up classrooms, adjusting to a change in assignment or grade level, and once again, planning.

“After full accounting, benefits for teachers are shown to be significantly more generous than those paid to employees of large private-sector establishments.”

  • Response: Comparing benefits is complex since each state handles (each district as a matter of fact) perks very differently. However, the report did not take these differences into consideration when comparing private and teacher benefits.

“Public school teachers earn less in wages…than non-teachers with the same level of education….The wage gap disappears when both groups are matched on cognitive ability rather than on years of education.”

  • Response: Just as in business, where the ability to communicate and network is as valuable as academic ability, effective teachers have abilities that go beyond the SAT scores used by this report. However, testing out this theory would require increasing, not decreasing, teacher salaries. Research into shortages of STEM teachers, for instance, shows that students with higher SAT scores and GPAs head into the higher-paying, private sector jobs available.

“Reducing teacher compensation…could be put toward classroom materials…”

  • Response: According to last year’s study by the National School Supply and Equipment Association (NSSEA), “public school teachers in the United States spend more than $1.33 billion on school supplies and instructional materials” (NSSEA – Publications: Industry Reports). On average, teachers spend $552 on supplies per year (currently less with the suffering economy), assuming that the average PTA is spending $936 per class. Teacher spending can actually triple in cases where the PTA does not spend as much.  As someone who worked at a school (that didn’t have paper for a period of time) and at a teacher resource store, I have witnessed teachers not even think twice about paying out of pocket to compensate for a lack of resources. Reducing teacher salaries would decrease classroom supplies, since teachers are often the ones that pay for them.

In conclusion, America has grown more and more focused on international tests that compare our students to those of other industrialized countries. We are inspired by these countries’ high math scores, work ethic, and use of technology.  This inspiration has spurred reforms such as holding our teachers more accountable, but we have yet to be inspired by their treatment of teachers. According to the OECD’s study, teachers in other industrialized countries make an average of 117% more than American public school teachers and, in Korea, teachers make a whopping 221% more.

If we even have to address whether our teachers are being overpaid, we have failed (at the perception of what the job is and should be) and are far from where we need to be. –Mandy Newport





October 21, 2011

The local crunch

Filed under: funding,Public education,School boards — Tags: , — rstandrie @ 4:40 pm

I came across an interesting report the other day entitled “The Local Crunch.” Written by the Pew Center on the States,  it argues that states are both cutting funding to, and passing more responsibilities on to, local districts.

In light of the Center’s “Cutting to the Bone” report on funding, it made me wonder what the recession will mean for the balance of money and power between state, local, and federal governments — especially with programs such as “Race to the Top” spurring specific reforms (in some cases, with or without the money).

What kind of changes have you seen in local funding and reponsibility? How has your district handled any changes? And how do you think this affects participation in federal programs such as Race to the Top? –Rebecca St. Andrie





July 8, 2011

What courses do your schools offer?

Filed under: 21st century education,Course taking,funding,High school,Middle school,Report Summary — Jim Hull @ 12:47 pm

More and more research shows that all students, no matter if they intend on going to college or straight into the workforce after high school, benefit from taking higher level math courses. It is therefore disheartening to see that 3,000 U.S. high schools don’t even offer Algebra 2, according to data released last week from Office of Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education. 

An analysis of the data by the on-line newspaper ProPublica found that, although there was a link between race and advanced math course offerings, the link was strongest by income levels, meaning our poorest students had the least access to the advanced math courses. The analysis covers up the fact that our high schools have made tremendous strides in offering more rigorous courses, especially college level Advanced Placement courses, to our most disadvantaged students. But the data shows there is still more work to be done.

But  just offering more rigorous courses is not that easy. It takes resources to hire quality teachers to effectively teach those higher level courses. And during this economic downturn many districts are having to lay off teachers, not hire more. Furthermore, getting students to take and succeed in higher level math courses starts before high school. Our schools enrolling our most disadvantaged students particularly need to be able to identify students in the middle grades who are not on-track to take Algebra 1 in the 9th grade and provide the supports to help them be ready. Again doing so takes additional resources which our schools simply do not currently have.

In order to fill this “opportunity gap” of course offerings, our districts  need enough  counselors to ensure students enter high school on-track to succeed in high-level courses. They also need resources to higher quality teachers to teach those subjects effectively. Yes, schools can just offer advanced math courses without additional resources. But doing so wouldn’t assure students’ success, while doing it right with the needed resources can have a tremendous positive impact on student outcomes. – Jim Hull

To find out what courses your school offers check out ProPublic’s search tool here.





April 29, 2011

Budget shortfalls squeezing out pre-k

Filed under: funding,Pre-k,preschool — Tags: , , — Patte Barth @ 4:49 pm

The National Institute for Early Education Research released its annual report on the state of preschool this week and the picture isn’t pretty. Across the country, total state funds for pre-k in 2010 were $30 million less than the previous year. According to NIEER, the funding hole would have been close to $50 million deeper were it not for dollars from the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — dollars that school leaders and policymakers are painfully aware are going to dry up very soon.  

Up until this year, a lot of states were able to preserve their pre-k investments even if the recession prevented them from increasing pre-k dollars. As we wrote last year, “flat is the new up” had become the mantra for early ed advocates, and they were largely successful at maintaining the status quo. But as the NIEER report shows, their work is getting tougher all the time. Nationally, per-child spending for pre-k children fell by an average $114 last year. Nine states cut per-child funds by 10% or more. Children in Arizona, Nebraska and Ohio felt the pinch the most.

Ironically, while states are cutting pre-k funds, ongoing studies of state-funded pre-k continue to show the value of the investment. Across 10 state pre-k programs cited, participating children were more likely to have higher language, literacy and math skills than their peers who did not attend the programs. In Michigan, the positive effects were still apparent through fourth and eighth grade follow ups. Studies also show that pre-k students were likewise less likely to be retained in grade. Clearly, the dollar invested now will save school dollars later.

 NIEER also had some good news to report, however. Two states — Alaska and Rhode Island — launched new pre-k programs, and more states increased pre-k enrollments than decreased them. Nonetheless, the cold reality of shrinking education dollars is setting in to the detriment of our littlest students.

The NIEER yearbook reports on pre-k funding and quality by state. You can find your state info on the NIEER website.  – Patte Barth





Older Posts »
RSS Feed