The Times

GETTING OUT OF HAND? with others, to see whether your school costs are too high - or too low to meet the need

a lot more dollars for education than is the average over the nation, even in the best-supported school districts. (Incidentally, for the statistical-minded, all per-pupil figures cited in this article refer to what the professionals call "weighted elementary pupil units." This does not mean fat children; on the contrary, "weighting" is done for the higher costs of secondary-school education in comparison with elementary, due to salary differentials, materials costs, and smaller classes—and for higher costs found in small districts, because classes are necessarily smaller.) The fact that suburbanites are shelling out more dollars for their kiddies' tutelage does not necessarily mean that they are hurting themselves doing it, or spending "too much." After all, the average income of the suburbanite is a great deal higher than that of the typical U. S. citizen. Only local statistics will indicate how much higher, but common sense shows that the average in your town has little relationship to the national average per capita personal income of $2220 per year. Surprisingly enough, in the Deep South (Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi), taxpayers spend 12.5% of their per capita income for education, as against only 12.2% in supposedly enlightened New England and 13.1% on the wealthy West Coast. There is, therefore, excellent reason to believe that the average suburban town spends less of its per capita income for education than does the deepest southern state. Another indication that most suburban towns are not facing imminent bankruptcy comes from the wide range of per capita school expenditures that exists among them. For instance, two towns in the suburban sample spent more than $1000 per pupil per year, and the top 25% spent well over the $750 mark. Economy-minded observers will be interested to note, however, that the most parsimonious suburban town spent only a little more than $425. If the big spenders can carry the load they do, it is unlikely that those with median costs are going out of business. Suburban communities are paying considerably more per-pupil to educate their youngsters than even the top ten per cent of school districts in the nation, but they are not paying their teachers anywhere near that much better. The median suburban school system is paying an average teacher's salary of $6,587, as against "What are you beefing about? You have him only six hours a day!" SUBURBIA TODAY an average rate in the top tenth of school districts of $6,674. Seven suburban school systems have reached an average of better than $8,000, and the salaries of classroom teachers in a few of them have surpassed the $11,000 a year mark. (Incidentally, if an "average" teacher who had earned an average salary of $2200 in 1939 had kept pace with the national rise in per capita disposable income—the increased dollars the average American has to spend—she would have to be earning $7.436 in 1960.) One of the magic statistics, beloved of educationists, is the ratio of the students to instructional staff. (Please note that this is not a pupil-to-classroom-teacher ratio, but rather a ratio of pupils to all members of the instructional staff—which is everybody except the clerks, the janitors, and the secretaries.) Pupil-Teacher Ratio Here, our suburban sample gladdens the heart of the enthusiastic PTA'ers. The average suburban school system has a ratio of a thousand pupils to about sixty instructors or, more conventionally, a pupil-instructor ratio of about 17 to 1. This compares with an average ratio in the top tenth of American school districts of 20 to 1, and a national average of about 24 to 1. The charge that the lush school systems are paying an inordinate share of their dollars for pupil housing just doesn't hold water—despite the fact that it has been just these suburban communities that have faced the worst growth problems in recent years. On average, those schools that are paying more than $400 per pupil for current expenses are adding only 10—11% for "housing" —debt service and capital outlay. This figure is far lower than the percentage that is being spent for similar purposes by those with less heavy current costs. All this is very interesting, you say, but how about my town? Am I being overcharged for education? Or are my youngsters getting a short shrift, compared with the money being spent on the kids by other good suburban towns in the United States? Are my town's teacher salaries too low to attract the best (as the PTA zealots insist) or foolishly Continued on page 14

CHECK YOUR REGION FOR COMPARISONS (Here Are the Figures for the "Top Tenth" of U.S. Districts in Each Geographical Region.)

Expenditure Per Pupil | Teacher's Pay (Annual Average) | Pupil-Teacher Ratio Region 1: | Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut. | $392 | $6,001 | 20.1—1 Region 2: | New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania. | $557 | $6,961 | 18.4—1 Region 3: | Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin. | $390 | $6,664 | 20.6—1 Region 4: | Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas. | $368 | $6,238 | 20.5—1 Region 5: | Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida. | $336 | $5,502 | 21.6—1 Region 6: | Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi. | $238 | $4,586 | 21.5—1 Region 7: | Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas. | $305 | $5,345 | 21.6—1 Region 8: | Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada. | $417 | $6,099 | 19.6—1 Region 9: | Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska. | $429 | $7,211 | 21.7—1 National Average ("Top-Tenth Districts") | $431 | $6,674 | 20.1—1 (Source: Cost of Education Index—School Management Magazine)

Suburbia Today, November 1960 13