Article Summary:
- How much of that budget is reaching the classroom
- The Rise of the Curriculum Coordinator
- More Coordinators, More Programs, More Positions
- Look at the Counseling Structure in One High School
- Paying to Avoid Suspension?
- The Superintendent Is Only the Beginning
- How Much Is Too Much?
- “How much more money do our schools need?”
New Hampshire taxpayers are repeatedly told that local school budgets must continue to increase because the cost of educating children keeps rising. But there is another question taxpayers should be asking:
How much of that growing school budget is actually reaching the classroom—and how much is being spent on an expanding layer of administrators, coordinators, specialists, and programs?
One of the most obvious examples is compensation.
Across New Hampshire, superintendent salaries have climbed substantially, and some school systems also employ assistant superintendents and other highly compensated administrators. In some cases, a single school administrative structure includes multiple six-figure positions.
This raises an important question: At what point does administrative growth become a significant driver of the cost of public education? And it isn’t only superintendents.
The Rise of the Curriculum Coordinator
Consider the position of curriculum coordinator.
Years ago, curriculum development was largely a function of teachers, principals, and school boards. Teachers would pilot curriculum materials in their classrooms. Parents could provide feedback. School boards had curriculum committees that participated in reviewing and selecting materials.
Today, many districts have created dedicated curriculum-administration positions carrying six-figure compensation.
SAU 21 provides an interesting example. The SAU has a curriculum coordinator listed among its leadership team. Individual schools within the SAU have also created curriculum coordinator positions.
At North Hampton School, for example, has a curriculum coordinator. Seabrook Elementary School also has a curriculum coordinator. North Hampton spends about $39,000.00/student which could pay tuition at some colleges and universities.
That raises a reasonable taxpayer question: Why does a school administrative unit need a curriculum coordinator at the SAU level and additional curriculum coordinators within individual schools?
When taxpayers are asked to approve increasingly expensive school budgets, they deserve to know what each position does, what it costs, and whether the position has measurably improved student achievement. School Board members in Seabrook have themselves questioned the necessity of a Curriculum Coordinator while questioning low-proficiency scores on the State Standardized Test.
That question becomes particularly important when districts are spending more money on curriculum administration while some schools, like Seabrook, continue to struggle with academic proficiency.
The issue isn’t whether curriculum matters. It obviously does. The issue is whether adding layers of administration is the most effective way to improve it.
More Coordinators, More Programs, More Positions
Curriculum coordinators aren’t the only positions that have become increasingly common.
Extended Learning Opportunities, or ELOs, have also resulted in the creation of ELO coordinator positions in some districts. The question for taxpayers is whether every new program must automatically result in another permanent administrative position.
Over time, seemingly small additions accumulate. One coordinator becomes several. A program requires a coordinator. A new initiative requires a director. A department develops additional supervisory positions. An assistant superintendent is added to oversee an expanding administrative structure.
Each individual position may be defensible when viewed in isolation. But taxpayers don’t pay for positions in isolation. They pay for the entire system.
Look at the Counseling Structure in One High School
Winnacunnet High School provides another example worth examining.
A review of the school’s staff directory shows a substantial counseling and student-support structure, including numerous counselors along with a school psychologist and social worker. The public should be asking what the total cost is, how these positions have grown over time, and what measurable outcomes they produce.
This is particularly relevant when districts are simultaneously telling taxpayers that they need more money to operate their schools.
We should be asking whether staffing increases are primarily addressing academic instruction or whether they reflect an expanding system of services, programs and administrative responsibilities.
Paying to Avoid Suspension?
Winnacunnet also provides an example of another question taxpayers should be willing to ask.
Several years ago, the district increased its budget by approximately $100,000 to support transferring students to Seacoast Youth Services rather than suspending students for serious behavioral problems.
There may be circumstances in which an alternative educational or behavioral program is preferable to suspension. But from the taxpayer’s perspective, the arrangement raises an obvious question:
Are taxpayers now paying an additional $100,000 to provide an alternative placement for students who otherwise would have been suspended from school?
If the goal is to improve student behavior and keep students connected to education, then the district should be able to demonstrate whether the expenditure actually accomplishes that goal. I have asked questions directly to the SAU Joint Board, only to receive no response from them.
The same standard should apply to every new program and position.
The Superintendent Is Only the Beginning
Much of the public discussion about school spending focuses on teacher salaries—and teachers certainly represent a major portion of school budgets. But focusing exclusively on teachers misses another important trend: the growth of the administrative structure surrounding them.
- The superintendent.
- The assistant superintendent.
- Curriculum administrators.
- Coordinators.
- Directors.
- Department administrators.
- Counselors.
- Specialists.
- Social workers.
- Psychologists.
- Program administrators.
Who is asking the questions about whether they are all necessary, and whether New Hampshire has adequately examined the cumulative cost of creating and maintaining an increasingly complex educational bureaucracy?
How Much Is Too Much?
There is also a broader issue involving compensation. When local school administrators are earning more than the people responsible for running the entire state, taxpayers are entitled to ask why.
The Governor, Attorney General, and Commissioner of Education have statewide responsibilities. A superintendent has responsibility for a school district or SAU. Yet some New Hampshire school administrators are compensated at levels that exceed the salaries of some of the state’s highest-ranking public officials.
The issue deserves public scrutiny.
If a community is told it must approve another substantial property-tax increase because its school district needs more money, taxpayers should be able to see exactly where that money is going.
We Need to Follow the Money
The answer isn’t necessarily to eliminate every coordinator, counselor, psychologist or administrator. Nor should taxpayers assume that every increase in a school budget is wasteful. Instead, school boards and voters should begin asking more specific questions:
- How many administrators did this district have 10, 20 and 30 years ago?
- How many six-figure administrative positions exist today?
- How many curriculum coordinators are employed, and why?
- Why does an SAU need a position that is also duplicated at individual schools?
- How many new positions have been created because of new programs?
- What measurable results have those programs produced?
- How much are taxpayers spending on alternative behavioral programs?
- Are administrative salaries increasing faster than classroom salaries?
And perhaps most importantly:
Are these expenditures improving student achievement?
New Hampshire families are already paying some of the highest property taxes in the country. They deserve more than assurances that every increase is necessary. They deserve transparency. They deserve measurable results. And they deserve to know whether the growth in their school budgets is primarily buying better educational outcomes—or building a larger bureaucracy around the classroom.
The debate shouldn’t be about whether schools should have adequate resources. Of course they should. The debate should be about how those resources are being allocated.
Before asking taxpayers for another increase, school districts should be prepared to demonstrate that the money already being collected is being used as effectively as possible.
Because ultimately, the question isn’t simply:
“How much more money do our schools need?”
It is:
“How much are we already spending—and what are taxpayers getting for it?”
