CATO study: Public school employment growth greatly exceeds actual student enrollment

It looks like although student enrollment in public schools has only increased by nine percent in the past forty years, the number of public school employees has increased by one hundred percent, according to a CATO Institute study (via Big Government).

The study finds that the result has been a rapidly growing cost burden, but without any real gains in student performance (click above link for charts).

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.

The Big Government blogger blames teachers' unions for the outrageous growth. I suspect that it has more to do with real needs. I assume that Title IX would have resulted in thousands of coaches being hired for newly created girls athletic teams. It also probably reflects the hiring of teachers who are specially trained to teach special education (an ever-growing need), and ESL teachers due to the influx of non-English speaking students. Add guidance counselors, and in-school psychologists into the mix, and you're looking at some serious staffing needs.

Also keep in mind that a growing percentage of public school students come from impoverished backgrounds. During the 2007-2008 school year, 42.9 percent of public school children were eligible for free/reduced lunch. It's an unfortunate truth that these children need more care and attention due to behavioral problems, malnutrition, and lack of parental involvement. That logically creates a need to hire aides for teachers.

So I don't agree with this blogger's supposition that there is some cabal among teachers' unions to bloat the public school payroll. Public education is vastly different today versus 1970. The challenges faced by teachers today are far greater and they need resources comparable to those challenges.

Sanford (Gov - SC) reverses course, decides to support Race to the Top funds for his state

Sanford, you're a political-posturing asshat:

Gov. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) is requesting his state's share of an education grant authorized as part of last year's stimulus -- a $787-billion pot of money Sanford in part once declined.

The Republican governor spent much of Thursday meeting with Education Secretary Arne Duncan in Washington, according to media reports, pitching his state's application for "Race to the Top" — a billion-dollar, highly competitive grant program designed to encourage schools to innovate.

{mosads}State officials believe South Carolina is a prime competitor for those education dollars, the first awards of which will be announced in March.

But Sanford's trip this week to lobby on his state's behalf is chiefly noteworthy because of the governor's stalwart opposition to other stimulus programs in the past.

Remember, folks: he was against it before he was for it.

Showdown in Texas over textbooks

The outcome of this could have profound implications:

The State Board of Education begins hearing testimony, before a tentative vote this week on new social studies curriculum standards that will serve as the framework in Texas classrooms. But, as usual in votes before the conservative-led board, the wide-reaching guidelines are full of potential ideological flashpoints.

Early quibbles over how much prominence to give civil rights leaders such as Cesar Chavez and Thurgood Marshall, and the inclusion of Christmas seem to have been smoothed over in the draft now being considered. But board members are crafting dozens of amendments to be raised for consideration before the tentative vote, expected Thursday. The 15-member board won't adopt final standards until March.

The curriculum it chooses will be the guideposts for teaching history and social studies to some 4.8 million K-12 students for 10 years. The standards will be used to develop state tests and by textbook publishers who develop material for the nation based on Texas, one of the largest markets.

Texas, being one of the largest textbook printing states, sets the trends for the nationwide textbook market. A textbook that caters to the whims of fundies in Texas will probably be forced on the rest of our children at some point. I mean, hey, we could end up with a textbook like this.

Also, Undernews had a great write-up that goes into greater detail about the effect that educational decisions in Texas have on the rest of the nation.

OH NOEZ!!! OBAMA WANTS TO INDOCTRINATE OUR CHILDREN!!!

Usually I'm able to laugh off the antics of the right. I laughed at the town hall protesters. I laughed at the "death panels." I laughed at the "secret muslim" e-mails. However, I just can't laugh about this.

HOUSTON — President Obama's plan to deliver a speech to public school students on Tuesday has set off a revolt among conservative parents, who have accused the president of trying to indoctrinate their children with socialist ideas and are asking school officials to excuse the children from listening.

The uproar over the speech, in which Mr. Obama intends to urge students to work hard and stay in school, has been particularly acute in Texas, where several major school districts, under pressure from parents, have laid plans to let children opt out of lending the president an ear.

Some parents said they were concerned because the speech had not been screened for political content. Nor, they said, had it been reviewed by the State Board of Education and local school boards, which, under state law, must approve the curriculum.

“The thing that concerned me most about it was it seemed like a direct channel from the president of the United States into the classroom, to my child,” said Brett Curtiss, an engineer from Pearland, Tex., who said he would keep his three children home.

“I don’t want our schools turned over to some socialist movement.”

Not only can I not laugh about this, but it makes me downright angry. It just proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no way you can reason with people like this. These NUTJOBS actually thinks that Obama wants to INDOCTRINATE our children. What. the. hell. Why do conservatives have to read evil intentions into everything our president does? I bet that they would even object if Obama tried to cut taxes for the rich ("Oh he's just so calculating, he's trying to get on our good side so that we all fall in line with his march towards socialism later on.")

During the Bush administration, Democrats gave Bush the benefit of the doubt A LOT. We stood with him on immigration reform, No Child Left Behind (well, mostly), going after the Taliban in Afghanistan, blah blah blah. When we opposed him, we opposed him on LEGITIMATE grounds. We opposed the Iraq war - not because we could, but because we had real concerns about a lack of evidence. We opposed his attempt to reform Social Security - not just because we could, but because we didn't want American seniors to be left without a stable income during their most vulnerable years. So here's my question to wingers: On what grounds do you justify your belief that Obama is trying to indoctrinate your children?

This situation is dripping with irony. The only reason that conservatives are worried about Obama's supposed efforts to indoctrinate kids is because conservatives themselves have been indoctrinated to believe whatever a few blabbering idiots says on talk radio.

One more thing. George H.W. Bush held a nationwide, televised address to students in 1991, so stop pretending like Obama's speech has no precedent. Was Bush trying to indoctrinate children? No. Did Democrats even try to suggest that? No.

Hey, conservatives. Your double-standard is showing.

Of course, I'm sure that Obama could bring conservatives on board if he would be willing to incorporate "My Pet Goat" into his address.

UPDATE: So the hysteria comes to middle Tennessee. Sumner County, no less.