Last week, the National Education Association released its latest update to
Rankings & Estimates, a report that provides us with information on average teacher salaries, per-pupil spending, and other relevant education statistics. From the union's standpoint, of course, the big story was that the average teacher salary rose 2.3 percent in the last year, which was less than the national 3.1 percent inflation rate.
"It's unsettling that when the rate of inflation is considered, on average, our teachers are actually earning less this year than they did the previous year," said NEA President Reg Weaver.
But NEA's own figures show that per-pupil spending rose by 3.7 percent, and that total expenditures rose by 4.7 percent. Why is there such a wide discrepancy?
A few discerning observers have taken a whack at the question, but NEA's own report provides the answer.
Public education funding in the United States is largely a factor of enrollment. The more students there are in the public schools, the more money they receive from the taxpayers. Spending that money, however, is largely a factor of the size of the education labor force. About 82 cents of every dollar spent on K-12 public education goes toward the salaries and benefits of school employees, the majority of whom are teachers.
How those two factors mesh determines whether a school system runs on, over, or under budget. NEA's tables clearly indicate that the reason so many states are having education funding problems -- and why the average teacher salary is not higher -- is not because of NCLB, cheapskate taxpayers, stingy administrators, or any of the other usual targets. It's because as a percentage of the whole, we're hiring more teachers -- many more teachers -- than we're enrolling students to support them.
In 2004-05, America enrolled 297,101 more students than in 2003-04. But it employed 49,732 more teachers. That's 1 teacher for every additional 6 students.
EIA has created a table, based on the NEA data, that shows the percentage increase in the number of teachers, the percentage increase in the number of students, and the difference between the two, for all 50 states. The table is easy to understand, but let me illustrate with a few examples:
* Colorado had a growth in enrollment of 1.2 percent, but it only increased its teacher force by 0.5 percent, leaving the state with 0.7 percent fewer teachers than it needed to keep up with enrollment.
* South Dakota had 1.2 percent fewer teachers, but it also had 2.3 percent fewer students, leaving it with 1.1 percent more teachers than it needed for the students it had.
* Maine had 1.5 percent fewer students, but 6.4 percent more teachers, leaving the teacher force 7.9 percent ahead of enrollment.
By EIA's estimate, if teacher hiring had not exceeded enrollment growth last year, there would have been an additional $1.02 billion available for the remaining teachers. Depending on the salary used, the amount would have at least boosted the national average teacher salary increase from 2.3 percent to 3.0 percent, and perhaps even more.
A very Merry Christmas and a joyous New Year to all Intercepts readers and EIA enthusiasts.
