As measured by student test scores and adjusted for budget ($13,000 per student (source)), Chicago has some of the world’s least effective schools. The teachers earn an average of $76,000 per year, but with health care, retirement, and other benefits, the true cost is probably closer to $150,000 per year (more than $200,000 per year for a teacher working a standard full-year schedule rather than just for nine months). A Teach for America graduate can be hired for as little as $25,500 per year (source) and will do at least as good a job (see this Stanford study). It would appear that Chicago thus has a golden opportunity to shed crushing pension and health care obligations by spinning off and decentralizing its public school system.
Chicago could simply create a non-profit organization for each school, give the administrative jobs within that school to existing administrators (presumably they are not on strike), fund those new non-profit organizations with $13,000 per student, and let the administrators hire whatever teachers they can find (including hiring from among the currently striking teachers) at market-clearing salaries and with a standard defined contribution retirement plan (rather than the defined benefit plan that has led to the Chicago Public School’s billion-dollar deficit). Now that Obamacare is available, give employees higher salaries and let them purchase health insurance from the Obamarkets.
For students in the Chicago schools, obviously the biggest problem is that they aren’t learning much. For childless taxpayers, however, the biggest problem is that an aging workforce is owed health care and pension benefits that could only be affordable in an economy with real per-capita GDP growth of 5 percent annually (instead of the 0-1 percent that we have). It would seem as though there is no better time to declare the experiment of a centralized school system run by the Chicago city government to be a failed one and, in doing so, spare the taxpayers from future ruin. A decentralized system of publicly-funded non-profit schools would provide at least as good an education, in the very same buildings, at a fraction of the current cost. After that it would be possible to try to do something for the kids, i.e., attempt to ensure that they are receiving an actual education.
Only Nixon could go to China. So maybe, on the other side of the aisle, only Rahm Emmanuel can break the CTU. The man does seem to have more spine than I’d previously have given him credit for, when facing down a traditional ally.
But I doubt he’s ready for something so radically responsible as this plan.
Markets work because of feedback, not because of magic. The system you describe still has very little feedback – elected officials still have an incentive to agree to benefits that don’t get accounted for until the next election. Teachers still aren’t paid for successfully causing students to learn. I don’t see why this wouldn’t descend into the same wreck.
I believe administrators are usually not unionized and therefore don’t strike. Let’s check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Federation_of_School_Administrators
Programs like this
http://www.rsed.org
basically do what you suggest, with proven results. Minus the firing existing teachers part. So the scale is currently limited by the addition of new schools.
(rate of addition of new schools, that is)
Looking at the cost side of the equation, and not educational quality, you’d need to make some additions to your plan for maximum gains.
From the source cited, doing a quick calculation of number of students / average class size leads me to believe that fewer than half of school district employees are teachers. Average administrator salary is $120, 659, almost $50k higher than average teacher salary.
In order to reduce costs you’d also want to reduce the amount of administrative overhead, so decentralization and keeping the current school districts isn’t an option. You’d want to reduce the number of districts and redundant principals and other support staff, and concentrate and improving the student to administrator ratio. Given current levels of unemployment, I’m sure you could find willing applicants for administrative jobs at even half the current average salary.
That’s what charter schools and vouchers are supposed to achieve, but of course teachers’ unions oppose them tooth and nail, and in many places. e.g. California state government, the teachers’ Unions are the single largest lobbies (just before the prison guards’ union) in terms of dollars spent.
The details of the policy matter, though, simply offering vouchers is not enough to be effective, it has to be a component of an overall education policy:
http://www.economist.com/node/21560570
Lawrence: I did not mean to imply that this idea would solve all of the problems with the Chicago schools, only that it would get rid of some enormous health care and pension obligations.
Mike: “You’d want to reduce the number of districts”? My proposal reduces the number of school districts to zero. Each school would be its own non-profit organization, just as most private schools are (and those private schools seem to manage to do just fine).
Probably the idea does need some tweaking, e.g., children with special needs would need to come with a larger-than-average fee to the non-profit school, but it still seems a lot better than the current system of incurring costs that exceed $200,000/year per teacher without any evidence that those teachers are more effective than teachers who would cost $50,000/year.
My proposal is meant to address the urgency around the school budget, not as a means of radically improving school quality. Plainly there is no urgency in Chicago about improving the schools. If there were, the poor performance of the schools would have led to changes a long time ago.
How narrow sited and unrealistic can you be Phil? Put away your mechanical
analog computer and stop perpetuating ridiculous lazy, disingenuous, thinking.
There would be a net sum gain of zero if your plan is implemented.
After all how will cutting ANY budget, busting the union, and running numbers without understanding and CHANGING the underlying reality improve education?
No one would argue that the biggest education deficiencies lie in the inner city schools. This problem is rampant even in suburban and rural districts but until teenage (often repeated) pregnancy and gangsta culture is taken out of the mix, classroom discipline restored and parents and community leaders start to give a shit and understand the importance of school and become a partner in working with the teacher NOTHING will change.
BTW, why do school administrators always seem to get the pass while teachers are scapegoated? Do a little homework and you will quickly see the quality of who is in charge of the sinking ships, ESPECIALLY, in the cities across the US.
Until an honest person with balls and conviction addresses the REAL problem the US will finally win the Race to the Bottom.
Stop your elitist, arm chair, hypothesizing and spend a few days in any lagging school and write a follow up…..things are much different than your fantasy.
Dr. K: As noted above, my proposal is not intended to do more than provide “at least as good an education” (see original post) as the current system. It would be the same schools, the same administrators within those schools, and many of the same teachers (those who were offered and chose to accept jobs with the new non-profit schools). So obviously as of next week, at least, it would be the same classroom experience for students. The main difference is that Chicago taxpayers would shed billions of dollars in future health care and pension obligations (by switching current teachers from a defined benefit (bankruptcy-inducing) to a defined contribution (standard for private industry) pension system; pensions for already retired teachers would not be affected). This savings would give the schools the breathing room to then implement whatever educational changes are desired by parents and teachers.
As a Chicago resident I agree that the plan outlined above would be vastly preferable to the indefensible train wreck we currently have. That said, it’s hard to realistically quantify the value provided by an education without some adjustment for the quality of the students. I don’t doubt these teachers are overpaid, particularly with respect to their absurd medical and pension benefits, but a lot of them function more as zookeepers than real educators.
Phil wrote: “Each school would be its own non-profit organization, just as most private schools are (and those private schools seem to manage to do just fine).”
I have sent my kids to both private and public schools. My observation is that private schools “do just fine” because private schools can be selective — they don’t have to accept anyone they don’t want. Public schools, by contrast, are required by law to enroll every child who lives in the district — public schools have to handle problems that most private schools never see.
Mannerheim: Even if teachers get paid the same $76,000 for 9 months of work that they currently earn, but arrange their pensions and health care as do workers in private industry, that would be an enormous savings. Also, eliminating the central administration of the school system should save a lot as well. The administrative costs of running a mid-sized enterprise (e.g., one high school) are a lot lower than of running a large-scale enterprise (more than 500 schools in the current system with more than 40,000 employees). Whatever benefits that a central administration might bring to a school system in theory have not, apparently, been delivered in practice if we are to judge by the mediocre results of the Chicago schools. Why pay so much for something that isn’t working well?
Mark: I didn’t say that my proposal would turn all of these formerly public schools into Andover and Exeter, only that the teachers have graciously handed the taxpayers a chance to save billions of dollars while giving students the same (presumably poor/mediocre quality) experience that they currently have in the Chicago public schools. It would be crazy for politicians not to accept this gift on behalf of the taxpayers (well, unless the teachers union will somehow give the politicians something more valuable than whatever gratitude the taxpayers might offer).
@Mark Lin: I sent both of my kids to private schools (4 different schools in 10 years, from K to high school) and I can tell you private schools are struggling too to fill classes with students and meet their cost. In fact their struggle is far more then public schools.
While it may appear that private schools are selective, the reality is they are not. Each September and throughout the school year, private schools have shortage of students in class rooms that they want to fill. What they have in their power is to FIRE teachers (as well as students) which public school are scared to do (due to union fear?)
A key different between public vs. private schools is parents involvement with the school. No, not in the traditional means of attending school meetings, following up on homework, etc., but $$ wise. With public schools, I pay for school indirectly through taxes. For private schools, I pay directly by writing a check. This direct payment puts me on a totally different level of awareness and demands that I require a return on my investment. This is the basic of economics 101 which you lose with government services and is why parents are not revolting.
@George: Speaking only from my personal experience sending my kids to a private elementary followed by a private middle school, both schools had roughly 50% more applicants than seats in each class. They had no problems filling their classes, even after imposing some major tuition hikes. Every so often a student would leave unexpectedly and open up a spot, but the schools had the ability to choose to leave the spot open rather than fill it with someone they felt was below a minimum standard — a choice public schools do not have.
You are absolutely correct about the much higher standard of parental involvement in private schools. The private school parents I met, who were shelling out big after-tax discretionary bucks for private school, were all deeply concerned with how well their kids were doing in school. After we moved and my kids started attending public school (in a system with a very high reputation and very successful history), I was shocked by how many parents I met (or never met because they never showed up for any school function) who basically did not care, and their apathy about education clearly spilled over to their kids.
Frankly, I believe parental attitude and involvement is the real key. The large majority of my kids’ public school teachers are very dedicated, intelligent, hard-working educators who really do want their students to learn. However, if a parent doesn’t care about education, then very likely that parent’s kid won’t care, and there is little even the best teacher can do to get through to a kid who shows up every day with the wrong attitude.
George, Mark: You’re debating parental involvement. What does that have to do with the original posting? My post concerns getting rid of the central corporate shell that is on the hook for a ruinous union contract, unknown health care obligations, and unknown and unknowable pension commitments (unless God works for the Chicago Public Schools and can tell them how long retired teachers will live). The question is what benefit do these schools derive from being part of a 500-school centrally managed organization? If the answer is “not much” then why preserve that centrally managed organization so that it can survive long enough to bankrupt taxpayers with health care and pension obligations?
The problem with your solution is that it leaves no room for the $3-500k/yr union leaders who bribe, I mean lobby, politicians for ever more funding.