Fool’s Gold: G.I.’s 1-to-1 teacher to [whoever] ratio

by David Safier

It's not a lie to leave out relevant information. It's just a distortion of the truth.

Or, to put it another way, it's all in a day's work for Matthew Ladner, Vice President of Research for the Goldwater Institute.

For the moment, let's put aside the question of whether bus drivers are bureaucrats, which is essential to Ladner's assertion that there is "an almost 1-to-1 teacher to bureaucrat ratio" in our school districts. Let's just look at the 1-to-1 teacher to non-teacher ratio, regardless of who those non-teachers are.

It's true, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, Arizona has a 1-to-1 teacher to non-teacher ratio. Ladner's numbers are straight from their tables.

But if that sounds like Arizona is way out of line in its spending on non-teaching staff — the impression Ladner wants to leave — look at these numbers from the same tables.

The U.S. average ratio of teachers to non-teachers is — get ready — 1-to-1.

And what about Florida, that bastion of educational reform? The same: a 1-to-1 teacher to non-teacher ratio.

In other words, that's about the ratio it takes to run public schools which supply a variety of services beyond the classroom, including school bus service and school food service.

Did Ladner lie? No. Did he purposely leave out information showing Arizona is not exceptional in its teacher to non-teacher ratio? Absolutely.

Ladner purposely left out the U.S. average statistic because it weakened his argument. I know, I know, it's not fair for me to claim to know someone else's thought process. But in this case, I'm saying, I know. Because the tables Ladner and I both used include the U.S. averages right next to the states' numbers. Ladner saw the national numbers, he didn't like them, so he left them out.

However, I don't want to limit the spotlight only to Ladner, as if his distortions are the exception at the Goldwater Institute. Far from it.

When Darcy Olsen, President and CEO of G.I., cited the 1-to-1 statistic on Arizona Illustrated, she went even farther than Ladner, nearly stating Arizona is way out of the mainstream:

". . . that's the wrong ratio. And that's one of the reasons our students are struggling so much to keep up with students in other states."

Did Olsen lie? No. But she purposely left the impression that Arizona has far more non-teachers than other states. She pushed that line because she's trying to say we can cut back on education funding — already dead last in per student spending in the nation — by cutting back on wasteful bureaucracy.

Media outlets will continue to be played by G.I. on a regular basis if they don't realize — or don't care — they're being played.

How should media outlets respond to the fact that G.I. regularly presents information that purposely distorts the truth to promote its conservative/libertarian agenda? I have 3 suggestions:

1. Don't call G.I. hoping to get genuine clarification on an issue. The Institute's sole reason for existence is to promote its agenda, and distorting the truth is one of its primary tactics.
2. If you call G.I., also call someone who is an expert in the field to fact check G.I.'s assertions. Members of the media lack the time and expertise to deconstruct these clever misrepresentations without some help.
3. If G.I. calls you with a story or sends you a fact sheet, ask yourself, "Why should I allow these people to use me by writing a story centered around their distortions?"