Two weeks ago, I mentioned the effect that the dropping birthrate is having on the Moscow School District (MSD). Emsi’s eBook, “The Demographic Drought” (https://bit.ly/3b7teIE) discussed the effect of fewer children enrolled in schools and universities. As a result of the demographic drought, the US has 6 million fewer students today.
We see that effect manifestly demonstrated in Moscow. MSD reached its highest enrollment thirty years ago in 1991 with 2,737 students and has had a steady decline ever since. 2020-21 enrollment was 2,160 students. So, while Moscow has grown by 29% since 1991, MSD enrollment has shrunk by 21%. A collapsing birthrate will do that to government schools.
I also asked: why do we need more MSD teachers, staff, and administrators when there are fewer children?
In 2005 there were 2,434 students and 179 teachers: 13.6 students per teacher.
In 2020 there were 2,160 students and 224 teachers: 9.6 students per teacher.
So while the student population decreased 11% in 15 years, the number of teachers increased by 25%, and that does not include the bloat in administrators and staff. While teachers’ unions dislike homeschoolers because of their tendency to divert funding and outperform publicly schooled students, they are targeting the same staff-to-student ratios found in homeschools.
Predictably, two articles appeared in the Moscow-Pullman Daily News immediately following my previous Op-ed, neither addressing my points but instead pleading for more money. The first was an editorial by Layne McInelly, president of the Idaho Education Association teachers union (Rising private sector pay creates a conundrum for public schools). He summarizes the post-Covid dilemmas for teachers and, like a good union boss, demands more teachers and higher teacher pay. But he fails to address the lopsided student-to-teacher ratio. Today, there should be 159 teachers instead of 224 at MSD. That would provide a 40% increase in pay to our teachers without raising taxes.
Similar to the military-industrial complex’s employee unions, the education-industrial complex’s teachers unions have an unquenchable desire for money and growth. Since union income is based on the number of union members and their salaries, you will never see a public sector union boss advocate for measures that either reduce union salaries or the number of union members, even for the public’s good.
Cabeza reports that Moscow Superintendent Greg Bailey said that MSD needs more money for facilities support. Yet as I noted two weeks ago, reducing the number of school buildings would be a highly effective method to lower costs, especially with elementary enrollment at MSD down 490 students from its peak and with ever fewer students coming in. The smallest schools (West Park with 156 students and Russell with 154 students) could easily be assimilated into the remaining elementary schools. Think of the facilities money available for the rest of the schools if one or two were closed.
Idaho already allocates 28% of its appropriations to K12 education. Additionally, 48% of Latah property taxes go directly to MSD. Moscow School Board Chairman Ken Faunce played the “we have the best interest of the children at heart” card. Rather, the Moscow School Board has the best interests of teachers’ unions at heart, not the children and definitely not the taxpayers.
Just as the solution to the problems with the military-industrial complex are straightforward and odious to right-wing conservatives, so too the solution to MSD’s problems is straightforward but odious to progressives: downsize. MSD doesn’t need 25% more employees to support 11% fewer students and with ominously fewer children in the pipeline (the birthrate fell another 4% in 2020). Plan ahead. Consolidate the elementary schools and reduce the workforce by attrition and retirement, then you could achieve your stated desire of increasing teacher pay and having more money for facilities.