G.I.’s “Busdrivers are bureaucrats”: an update

by David Safier

The Goldwater Institute hasn't changed its answer to my "Are you really saying bus drivers are bureaucrats?" question. So G.I. is still holding to Ladner's laughable statement that there is "an almost 1-to-1 teacher to bureaucrat ratio" in our school districts. That can only be true if bus drivers, maintenance workers and food service workers are included as bureaucrats.

Since I last posted on the topic, I've been poking around, gathering more information. Commenter Todd gave me the link Arizona's DOE's 2007-8 Annual Report and pointed me toward some terrific information.

So let's look at some official DOE numbers.

Arizona's teacher make up 48% of school district's staff. Teachers' aides make up another 13%. So 62% 61% of the staff is right there in the classroom.

Administrators (3%) and managers (3%) combine for another 6% of staff.

The remaining 32% are classified as "Others." Of those, 4% are certified, meaning they're probably teachers in non teaching positions like counselors, curriculum specialists, etc. The rest, 28%, are classified (non certified), most of whom are probably bus drivers, maintenance workers, food service workers and secretaries.

Here' s the breakdown:

• Teachers and teacher aides: 62% 61%
• Administrators and mananagers: 6%
• Others: 32% (4% certified, 28% classified)

That doesn't sound like a 1-to-1 teacher to bureaucrat ratio to me, with 62% in the classroom and 28% in non-education related positions. Based on the DOE numbers, including secretaries and assorted other administrative support people as bureaucrats, I'll generously put the bureaucrat percentage at 15-20%. And that's very generous.

The report also breaks down school districts' personnel by dollars spent, using somewhat different classifications.

School districts spend about 54% of their money on Classroom Instruction and another 3% on Class Supplies. Student support, which includes "services such as social work, guidance, health, psychological, speech, audiology and other therapies" amounts to 7%. Other Support and Operations, which includes "expenditures for instructional staff support, media services, and non-instructional services such as food services, plant and maintenance support, transportation and community services operations" comes to about 26%. Administration weighs in at 9%.

Here's the dollar-by-dollar breakdown:

• Classroom instruction and supplies: 57%
• Student support: 7%
• Other support and operations: 26%
• Administration: 9%

Looking at either the number of employees or dollars spent, the percentages indicate that school districts have something close to a 5-to-1 teacher to bureaucrat ratio — maybe less.

Based on trial balloons G.I. has sent up, its next "Public schools suck" number will say that private schools have a 3-to-1 teacher to non-teacher ratio. That's supposed to show how inefficient the public sector is.

If G.I. puts out that number, it needs to answer two questions.

First, where does the 3-to-1 number come from? Private schools tend to keep employment information pretty close to the vest, so it's hard to believe those numbers come from a representative sampling of schools. 

Second, what is the breakdown of the non-teaching staff? Private schools usually don't have their own bus services or food services, and since they pick and choose their students, they don't need some of the support services public schools provide. A comparison of the overall public-and-private school ratios mean little without an item-by-item comparison.

It would be nice to have all the information supplied by G.I. in one tidy package instead of getting the facts cherry-picked for maximum effect. That would be . . . what are the words I'm looking for? Oh yeah, honest and responsible.