Ok, fair enough. But only 11%? Retric's numbers suggest only 11% of education funding is for teacher salaries. Does that not sound as crazy and outrageous to you as it does to me?
Especially when the system seems to be so ... dysfunctional. I don't know a single teacher who hasn't had to personally shell out money for school supplies for their students because their school ran out of paper or something else essential.
Update: I misunderstood Retric. Teacher salaries make up 22% of total education spending. I guess that's ... better?
Is there some waste in school systems? Sure. But probably not as much as you think.
The cost of buildings, the maintenance, insurance, water, electricity all add up very quickly. Associated staff costs aren't cheap either - many schools have a nurse on staff to deal with injuries and illness, for example. Counselors/psychologists help troubled students. Learning specialists help deal with certain problems - as an example, when I was in kindergarten I was sent to a speech therapist a couple of times a week. Teaching assistants help care for the more severely disabled - some of them basically have a dedicated assistant based on their disability.
Buses aren't cheap either, and in rural areas, you might need several smaller buses to get everyone to school in a reasonable amount of time.
Schools in more urban areas often have security guards, and most schools have put more money into physical security as well with the perceived rise in school shootings (not trying to start a debate as to whether or not this is happening).
Administrators and secretaries plan and organize everything that isn't directly related to teaching, handle some disciplinary issues, and interface with other government agencies, the school board, and the board of education at the state and sometimes even federal level.
Education is expensive, and you can't start cutting out pieces of this without very quickly impacting the students.
> Is there some waste in school systems? Sure. But probably not as much as you think.
This honestly applies to many areas of government, not just education. However, for right wing propaganda, it serves as a convenient boogy man to ram through tax cuts for the wealthy.
Cops and school nurses may come out of the 'school' budget line item but they are very much health care and policing spending. If another country has that same nurse, but takes it out of their public healthcare budget then their 'education' spending numbers will be significantly lower without lowering their total government spending.
Similarly if free universal healthcare is part of the national budget then the reported costs for every worker in the school system will be several hundred a month lower. Even though government spending is similar.
Not sure if anyone does this. But, another example is school buses could just as easily come out of the public transit expenses as the school budget. The distinction is rather arbitrary as you are moving people even if you are taking them to school.
PS: Net result we might be spending more or less money because your comparing relatively arbitrary budget numbers across different systems. Much like the US taking the prison budget to cover for the lack of a well functioning healthcare system for the mentally ill.
> Buses aren't cheap either, and in rural areas, you might need several smaller buses to get everyone to school in a reasonable amount of time.
So... have them take the regular buses? Seems incredibly wasteful to try to fill one bus with school children when those areas are (or should be!) covered by the regular bus routes.
> Schools in more urban areas often have security guards, and most schools have put more money into physical security as well with the perceived rise in school shootings (not trying to start a debate as to whether or not this is happening).
Most rural areas do not have bus service available, and even in larger areas (think cities with up to 100,000 people), bus services are quite limited. Outside of large cities the US simply does not have the same culture regarding public transportation that you find in much of the world. Also, although sometimes it is wasteful, in areas that support multiple schools (think elementary, middle, and high school), starting times are already staggered so that the same buses might pick up high school students first, then middle school students, and finally elementary school students, and have similar routes for taking them home. So while there's certainly downtime, it's not quite as bad as it might sound. Finally, I believe - though I might be wrong - that school buses have different safety standards than other buses, which could cause problems for districts that were to try and push the students to city/county bus services.
Regarding security, I can use the high school I went to as an example. When I went there, it was a very open campus, and fences were only used around the athletics fields, and were more to stop balls from heading into the street. During expansions and renovations, however, they built additional buildings around the edges of campus to act as barriers, and added more fencing, leaving only about 3 entrances to the grounds that were more easily monitored. This was despite the fact that it was a very safe area with low crime. I personally don't like it, but I suppose it's an easy way for schools to show that they're trying to make it harder for things to happen.
Another third of salaries, i.e. if someone's paying you $100K/year, you're probably costing them more like $133K (before office space, equipment, management overhead, etc.) because of benefits.
I just mean there is a sliding scale where you can include a school nurse as education spending or healthcare spending and countries don't always slice stuff the same way. Is reduced cost lunches welfare or education, how about subsidized school supplies?
