Teacher layoffs are a hot topic nowadays, as are the dire warnings about what will happen if teachers are let go.?? When Cleveland's board voted to lay off 545 teachers to balance that district's budget, the union warned of class sizes topping 45 students per teacher (don't worry, many will get their jobs back if the new contract passes muster).?? Certainly that number was an exaggeration.?? Current state law in Ohio calls for class sizes no bigger than 25 students per teacher (though the governor's education reform plan, passed last summer, will lower the ratio in K-3 to 15:1 over the next several years).?? Average student-teacher ratios don't fall anywhere close to 25:1 ??? just a handful of Ohio districts report a ratio higher than 25:1 and more than half report one below 18:1.??(Cleveland's current student-teacher ratio is just under 22:1.)
But with the state, which invests about 40 percent of its revenue in K-12 education, looking for ways to plug an $8 billion budget hole, we wondered what the financial impact of increasing student-teacher ratios would be ??? especially if ratios were increased by just a few students (not the dozens that proponents of small class sizes try to claim).??How much money could really be saved??? How big would class sizes have to get in order for the state to see a real difference in its bottom line?
Here's a quick rundown of what we found:
- If every district in the Buckeye State raised its average student-teacher ratio by one student (e.g., from 16:1 to 17:1), there is?? a????potential statewide savings of $276 million in teacher salaries alone.
- If the districts with ratios lower than 20:1 raised theirs to that level, the state could save $458 million in teacher salaries.
-??If the districts with ratios lower than 22:1 raised theirs to that level, the state could save $848 million in teacher salaries.
-??If every district in the state operated at an average 25:1 student-teacher ratio, the state could save $1.38 billion in teacher salaries alone.
Just making a small increase in the number of students per teacher would give the state, and local districts, real fiscal relief.?? When you consider the benefits, professional development, and retirement costs that go along with each teacher, the potential savings would be even greater.
Just making a small increase in the number of students per teacher would give the state, and local districts, real fiscal relief.
At the district level, the savings become even starker.?? Take Bexley, an affluent suburban district near Columbus which is asking voters for an additional $3 million per year on November 2 ??? a rarity for the district, which hasn't been had a levy on the ballot in six years.?? Bexley's reported student-teacher ratio is a hair over 16:1 (for the most recent year data are available).?? Increasing it to 20:1 would realize up to $1.8 million per year in savings in teacher salaries alone.?? Boosting it to 22:1 would save $2.4 million ??? just $600,000 shy of what voters are being asked to pony up.
There are surely similar examples across the state ??? districts that are essentially sitting (unknowingly) on a pot of money that could ameliorate their pain with little to no actual impact on student learning. ??It's worth stating the obvious that there are clear losers in this scenario (increasing class sizes means lost jobs), and there are staunch defenders of existing small class sizes. But when the state is facing an unprecedented budget deficit and is trimming off tiny shavings at every corner, isn't it worth considering larger potential savings?
-Emmy Partin
