Funding Crunch in Education System

[GGG]

Why does education face a funding crunch. To me looking at real high level numbers it appears that overhead is way to high.

If the average teacher salary is 100k and you have 25 students per class average and the provincial funding level gives roughly $9500 per student that would mean each class would have a revenue of $237,500. In terms of a multiplier that is 2.3 times the cost of Salary. Compartively for business that don't produce an actual product this is a huge mark-up on Salary costs.

The 2.3 times multiplier also doesn't have to cover Capital costs for buildings which is covered by separate grants. So that makes it even lower cost to operate.

Consultancy firms will operate at a 1.5 to 2 multiplier and have to pay for the capital costs of their office space and still manage to make a profit. What costs are their in teaching that make it significanly more costly than other businesses especially considering they don't pay for classroom space. (I think they pay opex but not Capex).

[ah123]

Originally Posted by GGG

Why does education face a funding crunch. To me looking at real high level numbers it appears that overhead is way to high.

If the average teacher salary is 100k and you have 25 students per class average and the provincial funding level gives roughly $9500 per student that would mean each class would have a revenue of $237,500.

Not arguing your question about where the money goes, but where do you get the average of 25 students per class?

Both my wife and cousin are high school math teachers and they both have an average 40 students per class. At the beginning of the year, my cousin had 47 students enrolled in one his classes. From talking to them, it sounds like enrollment in public high schools is skyrocketing

[GGG]

Originally Posted by ah123

Not arguing your question about where the money goes, but where do you get the average of 25 students per class?

Both my wife and cousin are high school math teachers and they both have an average 40 students per class. At the beginning of the year, my cousin had 47 students in enrolled in one his classes. From talking to them, it sounds like enrollment in public high schools is skyrocketing

I just through a number out there. I didn't want to state it too high as that would increase the multiplier and make the system appear even more inefficient then it is.

I do understand that they try to keep classroom sizes smaller in elementary schools at the expense of highschools.

[chid]

Originally Posted by GGG

Why does education face a funding crunch. To me looking at real high level numbers it appears that overhead is way to high.

If the average teacher salary is 100k and you have 25 students per class average and the provincial funding level gives roughly $9500 per student that would mean each class would have a revenue of $237,500. In terms of a multiplier that is 2.3 times the cost of Salary. Compartively for business that don't produce an actual product this is a huge mark-up on Salary costs.

The 2.3 times multiplier also doesn't have to cover Capital costs for buildings which is covered by separate grants. So that makes it even lower cost to operate.

Consultancy firms will operate at a 1.5 to 2 multiplier and have to pay for the capital costs of their office space and still manage to make a profit. What costs are their in teaching that make it significanly more costly than other businesses especially considering they don't pay for classroom space. (I think they pay opex but not Capex).

The average teacher salary is not 100k. That salary is for 10 year experienced teachers..

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by chid

The average teacher salary is not 100k. That salary is for 10 year experienced teachers..

http://local37.teachers.ab.ca/SiteCo...ary%20Grid.pdf

for 2012, but I am sure there is a more uptodate version around.

[GGG]

Doesnt really matter, if teachers make less than 100k then the multiplier is worse and the system is even more inefficent.

The question is why does it cost 2.3 to 2.5 times a teachers Salary to operate a school district (and there are still complaints that there isn't enough money) when they don't have pay for the capital costs of building when other industries which don't manufacture anything operate at 1.5 to 2 multipliers.

[opendoor]

I suppose it's because there are a ton of employees that aren't teachers that are still necessary to run a school. Principals and other administrators, educational assistants, secretaries, building maintenance workers, IT staff, bus drivers, etc. Not to mention the cost of supplies, textbooks, sporting equipment, computers, and a bunch of other things.

All told, the average in Canada is about 70% of education funding going to staff wages.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I suppose it's because there are a ton of employees that aren't teachers that are still necessary to run a school. Principals and other administrators, educational assistants, secretaries, building maintenance workers, IT staff, bus drivers, etc. Not to mention the cost of supplies, textbooks, sporting equipment, computers, and a bunch of other things.

All told, the average in Canada is about 70% of education funding going to staff wages.

My questions really is why is that so high.

The administration side of things should be no more onerous then a private company. Computeres most business will average 1 per employee so that is likely higher in schools.

How many computers are schools running these day 1 per 10 students??

Textbooks are quite costly but really if a textbook is used for 10 years at $100 per book and 10 texts per year it really only is about $2500 per classroom or 1% of the cost of education.

If 70% of funding is going to staff wages an teachers make up only about half of that amount I think you have a pretty large problem there.
Overhead should maybe be 10% of staff. Of course you need to factor in the teaching assistants and put them into the teachers numbers and take a look but at a high level it seems the overhead staff is way too high.

[Sliver]

Well, the answer is super obvious and since everybody thinks I'm a jerk on the subject I guess I can say it and spare everyone else the hit to their reputation.

Teachers are paid a full-time salary for a 3/4 time job. On top of that, their benefits package bests most employers on Earth. They work a short career, accelerate to the top of the payscale very quickly (10 years) and we have no mechanism whatsoever to unburden the system of bad teachers.

That's why it's so high. No private company could be competitive giving the same benefits, salary scale, time off and retirement package to their entire workforce.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Well, the answer is super obvious and since everybody thinks I'm a jerk on the subject I guess I can say it and spare everyone else the hit to their reputation.

Teachers are paid a full-time salary for a 3/4 time job. On top of that, their benefits package bests most employers on Earth. They work a short career, accelerate to the top of the payscale very quickly (10 years) and we have no mechanism whatsoever to unburden the system of bad teachers.

That's why it's so high. No private company could be competitive giving the same benefits, salary scale, time off and retirement package to their entire workforce.

The OP posed a question about why teachers' salaries make up a relatively smaller portion of the overall budget compared to private business, and your answer to that is that teachers are paid too much? Did you even read the original post?

[Street Pharmacist]

It's inefficiencies for one I'm sure, as that's par for the course. I wonder though how much land costs and development play into it?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by GGG

My questions really is why is that so high.

The administration side of things should be no more onerous then a private company. Computeres most business will average 1 per employee so that is likely higher in schools.
How many computers are schools running these day 1 per 10 students??

Textbooks are quite costly but really if a textbook is used for 10 years at $100 per book and 10 texts per year it really only is about $2500 per classroom or 1% of the cost of education.

If 70% of funding is going to staff wages an teachers make up only about half of that amount I think you have a pretty large problem there.
Overhead should maybe be 10% of staff. Of course you need to factor in the teaching assistants and put them into the teachers numbers and take a look but at a high level it seems the overhead staff is way too high.

That 70% might only refer to educational staff, so it'd exclude support staff.

Here are some budget numbers from a BC school district I'm familiar with, I assume the proportions are similar in other places:

The total annual budget is $72M. Teachers take in $33M of that in salary and another $4M or so in benefits, so they're just over 50% of the budget. Administration make about $6M in salary and benefits, Educational Assistants $7M, support staff $9M, and other professionals (counselors, nurses, etc.) about $3M.

So all together, staff take in $62M of the $72M budget, or 86%. If you eliminate support staff and professionals and only look at educational staff, it's about 68% of the total budget. As for the rest, it's mostly made up of school supplies, utilities, transportation, insurance, rentals and leases, various fees, and a few other things.

So I guess it depends on how you look at it. Staff makes up a big portion, but education staff only about 70%.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by opendoor

The OP posed a question about why teachers' salaries make up a relatively smaller portion of the overall budget compared to private business, and your answer to that is that teachers are paid too much? Did you even read the original post?

Oops, I apologize. Yes I did read the OP, but I must have misunderstood what he was saying and what his numbers were saying.

I wonder, then, if it's inefficient use of infrastructure that is causing the problem(s). Students only occupy those buildings for about 50% of the year. Perhaps moving to a full-year system that utilizes the buildings for 100% (or close to it) of the year would be better. We'd need about half the schools. Move teachers to a more standard work schedule (start with three weeks off, earn more holiday with tenure) and quit building new schools. Maybe even sell off some of the current schools.

[DataDoxy]

I agree on the longer school year; it is actually better for kids as it promotes optimal learning. I disagree with notion of not building new schools; the schools we have are antiquated and overfilled. Learning should happen in an environment that is conducive to fostering curiosity and excitement, and has new innovative technologies as opposed to one that looks like an institution (and runs like one for that matter). My preference is to rethink the notion of school altogether. Many 21st Century Schools are looking at partnering with industry, universities, and experts in the field. Interesting to think about...

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I wonder, then, if it's inefficient use of infrastructure that is causing the problem(s). Students only occupy those buildings for about 50% of the year. Perhaps moving to a full-year system that utilizes the buildings for 100% (or close to it) of the year would be better. We'd need about half the schools. Move teachers to a more standard work schedule (start with three weeks off, earn more holiday with tenure) and quit building new schools. Maybe even sell off some of the current schools.

I don't see how that's viable or even possible. Schools are in use about 38-39 weeks a year, so you'd need to have kids going to school on weekends and through holidays, as well as have longer days to get their instructional hours in only 50% of the year. That'd be a nightmare from a child care perspective. And I don't know how you'd begin to create a functional student/teacher setup with that kind of scheduling.

Normally school districts will do the opposite to save money. A 4 day week with more hours per day cuts the support staff and utility costs down considerably. But again, you're essentially offloading education costs onto parents who'd need to pay increased child care costs, so it's sort of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

There are year round school systems but they simply have more breaks that are shorter in length. So something like three 13 week terms with three month long breaks. There are advantages that come from that, but they're in the form of improved academics rather than cost savings.

[loudi94]

This is probably overkill, but here is an example of an audited financial statement. When I have these discussions with my employer, facilities management is severely underfunded by the government.

http://www.lethsd.ab.ca/documents/ge...20No.%2051.pdf

One thing that has boggled me is how can a company like Costco have one payroll from Victoria to St. John's yet we have to have 62 different payrolls.

[loudi94]

Originally Posted by DataDoxy

I agree on the longer school year; it is actually better for kids as it promotes optimal learning. I disagree with notion of not building new schools; the schools we have are antiquated and overfilled. Learning should happen in an environment that is conducive to fostering curiosity and excitement, and has new innovative technologies as opposed to one that looks like an institution (and runs like one for that matter). My preference is to rethink the notion of school altogether. Many 21st Century Schools are looking at partnering with industry, universities, and experts in the field. Interesting to think about...

There would be costs associated with running in the summer. Air conditioning would have to be installed in most schools. Opening a window wouldn't cut it.
I wouldn't be opposed to year round schooling, but there is no data to show an increase in the amount of actual days a child is in school promotes optimal learning. Looking at a school as the only place where learning takes place is antiquated, however baby steps will have to occur.

[malcolmk14]

I've always wondered if budgets could be decentralized a bit to cut down on the overhead costs of education, and give some more power to teachers to decide how to spend the per-student money.

But it's just not a reality in the big school boards.

Charter schools are interesting because they have a similar per-student budget but don't have a lot of the same overhead costs.

[DataDoxy]

[QUOTE=loudi94;5154464]There would be costs associated with running in the summer. Air conditioning would have to be installed in most schools. Opening a window wouldn't cut it.
I wouldn't be opposed to year round schooling, but there is no data to show an increase in the amount of actual days a child is in school promotes optimal learning. QUOTE]

Not sure I agree. A lot of studies have been done on this, many are in favor and some say no real difference.

One study says:
Experts cite "summer learning loss" as a major problem for North American students, compared with their peers in countries with year-round schooling.
Recent studies suggest that, when fall comes around, teachers waste weeks reviewing last year's work because our kids forgot what they learned in the spring.

Summer learning loss also widens the gap between rich and poor children because disadvantaged kids are less likely to have books at home to help maintain skills and knowledge.


Shockingly though, even for the average child, the whole first month of school is wasted relearning last year's material. Researchers at the Canadian Council on Learning last month released the findings of a review of 39 studies, including Canadian reports, on summer learning loss. They found the drop in standardized test scores achieved in the fall compared to those in the spring equated to the loss of a month's instruction.

When experts look particularly at math, the picture is even worse. Researchers at the John Hopkins University School of Education studied the drop-off in students' mathematical computation skills. The results show a mean loss of approximately 2.6 months of grade-level equivalency. That means students performed, in September, as if they had missed a quarter of the previous school year.


Found at http://www.thestar.com/opinion/2008/...schooling.html

Another one:
Research indicates that summer learning loss is a real problem for students—especially for economically disadvantaged students. In one study, Alexander, Entwisle, and Olson (2007) found that low-income students made similar achievement gains to other students during the school year; the widening of the achievement gap between the two groups occurred over the summer. Another study found that summer learning loss is more pronounced for math facts, spelling, and other academic material that is concrete rather than conceptual (Cooper, Nye, Charlton, Lindsay & Greathouse, 1996).

Found at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...article570683/

The other side...
There are a substantial number of studies which are conducted by researchers (with no vested interest in either supporting or opposing year-round schooling) which conclude that there appears to be no significant difference in achievement between students in year-round and students in traditional calendar schools. Such studies include Zykowski (1991),
Carriedo (1989), Harp (1993) and Kreitzer/Glass (1990).

Found at https://www.bctf.ca/publications/Res...s.aspx?id=5608

Would be interesting!

[loudi94]

[QUOTE=DataDoxy;5154653]

Originally Posted by loudi94

There would be costs associated with running in the summer. Air conditioning would have to be installed in most schools. Opening a window wouldn't cut it.
I wouldn't be opposed to year round schooling, but there is no data to show an increase in the amount of actual days a child is in school promotes optimal learning. QUOTE]

Not sure I agree. A lot of studies have been done on this, many are in favor and some say no real difference.

One study says:
Experts cite "summer learning loss" as a major problem for North American students, compared with their peers in countries with year-round schooling.
Recent studies suggest that, when fall comes around, teachers waste weeks reviewing last year's work because our kids forgot what they learned in the spring.

Summer learning loss also widens the gap between rich and poor children because disadvantaged kids are less likely to have books at home to help maintain skills and knowledge.


Shockingly though, even for the average child, the whole first month of school is wasted relearning last year's material. Researchers at the Canadian Council on Learning last month released the findings of a review of 39 studies, including Canadian reports, on summer learning loss. They found the drop in standardized test scores achieved in the fall compared to those in the spring equated to the loss of a month's instruction.

When experts look particularly at math, the picture is even worse. Researchers at the John Hopkins University School of Education studied the drop-off in students' mathematical computation skills. The results show a mean loss of approximately 2.6 months of grade-level equivalency. That means students performed, in September, as if they had missed a quarter of the previous school year.


Found at http://www.thestar.com/opinion/2008/...schooling.html

Another one:
Research indicates that summer learning loss is a real problem for students—especially for economically disadvantaged students. In one study, Alexander, Entwisle, and Olson (2007) found that low-income students made similar achievement gains to other students during the school year; the widening of the achievement gap between the two groups occurred over the summer. Another study found that summer learning loss is more pronounced for math facts, spelling, and other academic material that is concrete rather than conceptual (Cooper, Nye, Charlton, Lindsay & Greathouse, 1996).

Found at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...article570683/

The other side...
There are a substantial number of studies which are conducted by researchers (with no vested interest in either supporting or opposing year-round schooling) which conclude that there appears to be no significant difference in achievement between students in year-round and students in traditional calendar schools. Such studies include Zykowski (1991),
Carriedo (1989), Harp (1993) and Kreitzer/Glass (1990).

Found at https://www.bctf.ca/publications/Res...s.aspx?id=5608

Would be interesting!

Sorry, I meant that going more than 200 days has no positive impact data wise. Most year round schooling still only go approx 200 days for kids. Kids do still have to be kids.