The $8,000 student

The average public school spent $7,920 per student in 2002-03, says a National Education Association study. Spending was projected to increase by 3.6 percent. Average teacher pay was expected to reach $46,726 for 2003-04, an increase of 2 percent.

The union says more spending is needed.

About Joanne

Comments

  1. We are spending quite a bit of money, but we aren’t spending it in the right places. The problem as I see it is that teachers and site administrators are often hamstrung by layer upon layer of redundant,unnecessary, and immensely expensive bureaucracies. This is especially true here in California. *Too many desk-riding generals, not enough privates.*

  2. Mike in Texas says:

    Where would I have to live to make 46K a year? Here in Texas the payscale tops out at 42K.

    I wonder if this figure includes professionals like administrators?

  3. Mike in Texas wrote:

    Where would I have to live to make 46K a year?

    California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Michigan, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, District of Columbia, Alaska, Maryland, Delaware, Oregon all have average salaries of over 46K. You’re welcome.

    Here in Texas the payscale tops out at 42K.

    According to the NEA, Texas’ average teacher’s salary is $40,494 up 1.2% from the 2003 average of $39,974. If the top salary is 42K then there must be a mighty tight spread between top and bottom rates.

    Oh yeah, Texas is also in the middle of the pack with regard to class size. Utah is at the top with 22.5 student-teacher ratio and Vermont is at the bottom with 10.9.

    Hey Mike, you think it’d be interesting to match those student-teacher ratios up against any measure of education attainment and see if there’s a correlation? After all, class size reduction is the one! method! proven! to! work!!!

  4. Hunter McDaniel says:

    Mike – just a theory, but maybe the figures in the study are for compensation (which includes employer contributions to health care, retirement, etc.) rather than raw salary.

  5. The title of the table is:

    Average Salaries ($) of Public School Teachers, 2003-04 and 2002-03 (Revised).

    In the Glossary, that’s defined as:

    The arithmetic mean of the salaries of the group described. That figure is the average gross salary before deductions for Social Security, retirement, health insurance, and so on.

  6. Mike in Texas says:

    Now Allen, are you sure you can rely on that data? After all it is from a teacher’s union website.

  7. Oh sure. I just assume that all the numbers are 20% too high or too low, depending on what best serves the interests of the union hierarchy.

    Isn’t that what you do?

  8. Mike in Texas says:

    Isn’t that what you do?

    Not me Allen, I always assume they are 20% lower so my all powerful union can get me that much of a raise;)

  9. Mike in Texas wrote:

    I always assume they are 20% lower so my all powerful union can get me that much of a raise;)

    Well, at least we’re in agreement that union figures can’t be trusted. I assume you won’t be offering up union web sites as credible from now on? Or union presidents as credible researchers?

  10. Mike in Texas says:

    . I assume you won’t be offering up union web sites as credible from now on? Or union presidents as credible researchers?

    What does it matter if they’re correct? As my father-in-law likes to say, “The truth is the truth”

  11. Mike in Texas says:

    you think it’d be interesting to match those student-teacher ratios up against any measure of education attainment

    To be accurate Allen you’d have to match up the student per classroom ratio to education attainment. Student-teacher ratios are easily manipulated numbers. W

  12. Mike in Texas wrote:

    What does it matter if they’re correct? As my father-in-law likes to say, “The truth is the truth”

    Oh, did they suddenly become correct? You’ll be sure to provide some reason why anyone would think so, won’t you? As it stands, all we have is the unsupported word of someone, or some organization, with an axe to grind.

    To be accurate Allen you’d have to match up the student per classroom ratio to education attainment. Student-teacher ratios are easily manipulated numbers.

    You’re interested in accuracy now? That didn’t seem to be the case when you offered up that one, union web site that tried to intimate that there was all sorts of non-compliance with the NCLB when there was, in fact, none.

  13. Bureaucracy is very expensive and very ineffective. “Layers of rules and layers of management do not guarantee high performance, nor does a rule-laden environment bring out the best performance in people.” –Gary Aldrich

  14. Mike in Texas says:

    That didn’t seem to be the case when you offered up that one, union web site that tried to intimate that there was all sorts of non-compliance with the NCLB when there was, in fact, none.

    I see, I should stick to quoting the works of researchers like Chester Finn and Jay Mathews who invent new assessment instruments that just happen to, “Holy Skewed Data!!”, prove their point of view.

    BTW, Project STAR has been studied and duplicated many times over. The problems with class reductions are it isn’t instituted to the point it becomes meaningful (the 15 student per classroom ratio). Lowering the ratio to 22 as some states like Texas have done accomplishes little. Of course, politicians and so called reformers (who remember are really out to reform their checking accounts) aren’t interested in the 15 to 1 ratio b/c a) is expensive and shows they are not right, and b) it doesn’t make them any money.

  15. Andy Freeman says:

    > Lowering the ratio to 22 as some states like Texas have done accomplishes little.

    Then you won’t object if Texas increases it to 30, right?

  16. Mike in Texas says:

    Then you won’t object if Texas increases it to 30, right?

    And the purpose for doing this would be right? OH wait, I know!! To actually ensure schools and students fail so rich Republicans can get their hands on the billions of dollars spent each year on education and direct it to companies owned by their rich friends.

    Never mind the effect it would have on students.

  17. Here in our S.W. California school district, we have a “maximum” class size of 35 students in each room. Guess how many we have? That’s right, 34-35 in grades 4-8! (All this and NO pay raise for the last 3 years; even though more work is expected of teachers. Meanwhile, more and more “rear echelon” administrators continue to be hired.”)

  18. Mike in Texas wrote:

    To actually ensure schools and students fail so rich Republicans can get their hands on the billions of dollars spent each year on education and direct it to companies owned by their rich friends.

    If the wealth of Republicans was related to the failure of the public education system then Republican party would long since have become the sole political party in America. As it is, it required the public’s dawning realization that the Democratic party had sold itself to, among other fat cats, the teacher’s unions.

    Proving that there is justice in the world, both sides of that deal are starting to question its wisdom.

    EdWonk wrote:

    All this and NO pay raise for the last 3 years; even though more work is expected of teachers. Meanwhile, more and more “rear echelon” administrators continue to be hired.

    What would you expect? No increases in productivity or quality ought to mean no increases in pay. As to the number of administrators hired, that’s just how the system works. If you don’t like it the only way you’re going to change it is to change the system.