Charter Schools Spend More On Administration, Less On Instruction Than Traditional Public Schools: Study
"[C]harter schools are touted for successes through their leaner administrative model, allowing for more resources to go directly to classrooms... [R]esearchers found that charter schools actually spent more per-student on administration and less on instruction than non-charter public schools."
Whether dealing with charter or public schools, there are way too many hands in the cookie jar.
"Charters tend to pay lower salaries to teachers with similar credentials and experience as non-charter public school teachers, but also employ a less experienced and less expensive group of educators, thus driving down instructional costs."
Yep, that sounds much better than public schools.
"Lower compensation also contributes to higher teacher turnover rates among charter schools, which consequently requires 'highly scripted instructional practices' and more demanding administrative oversight, thus increasing administrative costs."
It sounds like Utopia... except for the high turnover rates and highly scripted practices.
"In Texas, where the ratio of teachers to non-teachers has grown to nearly 1 to 1 in 2011 from 4 to 1 in the 1970s, the spending difference can also be seen in a large number of administrators who are paid for by federal grants, Michael Griffith, a school finance expert with the Education Commission of the States, told The Texas Tribune last year."
Good gravy! A ratio of 1 to 1! Seriously, Texas teachers, think about that. That's a lot of money going to people who aren't in the classroom, while teachers are let go and class-size grows.