Does Higher Tuition Result in Lower Student to Staff Ratios? Not Necessarily, It Turns Out!

By Dr. Harry Bloom, Founder and President, Benchmarking for Good, Inc.

At a time when inflation and perceived value are on everyone’s mind, Benchmarking for Good decided to examine the relationship between student to staff ratios and tuition levels since staff costs tend to drive the majority of school costs and much of a school’s perceived value. This initial article, which will be part of a series on this topic, will focus on the largest private day schools while subsequent articles will examine these issues for schools of different sizes and types.

Why This Is Important

This issue is key because our quantitative and qualitative research among tens of thousands of parents and thousands of students indicates that a key perceived benefit from private education is increased indvidualized attention that brings out the very best in every student. A more beneficial student-to-staff ratio can potentially translate into smaller class sizes, a broader range of programs offered, and more specialist support.

Our Data Sample: Large Private N/K-12 Day Schools with Enrollment of 1,500 or More

Our analysis will focus on the twenty largest NAIS member schools for which enrollment, staffing and tuition data were available in NAIS’ invaluable DASL database. These schools will be segmented into tertiles based on their tuition levels:

Tertile 1 schools had a median tuition level of $26k; Tertile 2 schools, $31k; and Tertile 3 schools, $42k.

Bottom Line: Do Higher Tuitions Result in Predictably Lower Student to Staff Ratios? Answer= “Mostly,” But with Notable Exceptions, Particularly Among Middle Tuition Schools. Let’s examine the data and its implications.

1. Student to Total Full Time Equivalent Staff Ratios did indeed improve by 10% for Middle Tuition level schools relative to Lower Tuition level schools. Notably, however, the improvement in student to staff ratio between Middle and Higher Tuition schools was much more marginal at 3%, relative to a 35% tuition differential between the two groups of schools.

2. Student to “Teaching Duties” Staff Ratio. Once again, there was a ten percent reduction in this critically important student to staff ratio when moving from Lower Tuition to Middle Tuition levels. However, the incremental student to staff reduction from Middle to Higher Tuition levels was extremely modest at 2%.

3. Student to “Instructional Support” Staff Ratio. Instructional Support staff includes teaching assistants, counselors, and coaches and accounts for a major part of the incremental benefits of a private school experience. In this instance we have an unexpected outcome as student to staff ratios actually increased significantly for Middle Tuition schools relative to Lower Tuition schools. Higher Tuition School ratios were the lowest of the three groups as would be expected.

4. Student to “Administrative” Staff Ratio. In the case of students relative to Administrators, once again, Middle Tuition schools’ student to staff ratio actually increased relative to that of Lower Tuition schools. This raises a question about the value of the incremental tuition charged and where the resources were focused if not on creating a more personalized staff to student experience. While certainly some administrators do not play a direct value-added role relative to a student or family’s experience, many do, and having a lower student to staff ratio has the potential for increasing the quality and effectiveness of the school ecosystem for the family. Higher Tuition schools demonstrated a very modest 3% reduction relative to Lower Tuition schools despite a 60% higher tuition level.

Summary and Implications

In summary, relative to our expectation that increased tuition would translate into lower, more intimate student to staffing ratios, we found that this hypothesis held for the Total Staff and Teaching Duties staff ratios but broke down among Middle Tuition schools for the Instructional Support and Administrative ratios. This raises important questions about whether students attending Middle Tuition schools are getting as much value as they should for tuition paid relative to Lower Tuition schools.

The indicated action emerging from the analysis for leaders of Middle Tuition schools should be to carefully assess their goals for the student experience and their success in achieving those goals as well as the magnitude of staff resources realistically required to attain those goals. The risk Middle Tuition schools face, particularly in tougher economic times, is that families will migrate to schools with lower ratios or to schools whose lower tuition plus a “good enough” ratio seems more attractive than theirs.

Additionally, while Higher Tuition schools generally emerged with a relatively favorable story relative to staffing ratios compared to lower tuition schools, the magnitude of their advantage relative to Lower and Middle Tuition schools was quite slim on the key ratio of Students to Teaching Duties staff suggesting that they too should look hard at their desired student experience outcomes, the degree to which they are achieving them, and the quantity of staff resources required to achieve them. This is particularly the case in light of their 35% tuition premium relative to Middle Tuition schools and their 60% tuition premium relative to Lower Tuition schools.

We welcome your comments on this article and Dr. Harry Bloom invites you to set up a time to speak with him about this key topic via this link. Benchmarking that focuses on enhancing relative value is critically important and Benchmarking for Good welcomes an opportunity to help your school and associations to which it belongs use benchmarking’ s capabilities to their greatest effect.

# independent school #staffing ratio #student to teacher ratio #administrative structure

Key Conundrum: What is the Right Student to Faculty Ratio?

By Dr. Harry Bloom, Founder and President of Benchmarking for Good, Inc.

At Benchmarking for Good we help nonprofit associations utilize peer-to-peer comparative benchmarking and research to optimize their utilization of resources in support of Mission achievement and sustainability. In a nutshell, we are big advocates of using comparative data to spur reflection and improvement.

A recent analysis of staffing ratios for 75 NAIS member day schools with enrollment of 300-500 students that (a)experienced post Covid enrollment growth and (b)have student retention ratios above the median level, has us scratching our heads in puzzlement. The findings motivate us to want to help these and similar schools dig into the why’s and wherefores of educational staffing patterns and develop best practice norms.

Here is the crux of the potential opportunity: The ratio between students relative to educational (Teaching plus Instructional Support) Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Staff among these schools ranges from a low of 3 students to 1 staff member to a high of 14 students to 1 staff member, with a median ratio of 7 to 1.

Moreover, the lower student to staff ratios do not appear to correlate with observable benefits such as enrollment growth or lower student attrition, which one might anticipate if students were receiving superior educational experiences.

Assuming a salary plus benefits package of $75,000 for a full time staff member, that difference in ratios could amount to millions of dollars in payroll costs for the schools in question. That is a serious difference and warrants a rigorous effort to understand the value of those additional educationally focused staff and, more fundamentally, what an “optimal” student to staff ratio might be for a mid sized dual curriculum, faith based day school– assuming best practice workloads and staff qualifications. .

A PRIME OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH

Benchmarking for Good is eager to tackle this issue during its upcoming Spring grant cycle and welcomes regional school associations, federations, and foundations whose members/grantees would benefit from participating to contact Dr. Harry Bloom at harrybloom@benchmarkingforgood.org to discuss potential project parameters and attractive grant opportunities. We eagerly look forward to hearing from you!

#benchmarking #private schools #Jewish day schools #faculty

Which Schools are the Gold Standard for Teacher Recruitment and Retention Practices?

by Dr. Harry Bloom, Founder and President, Benchmarking for Good

The pandemic represented a hugely challenging time for teachers, and they rose magnificently to meet that challenge. But for many, doing so was exhausting. And one consequence of that is a worrisome trend of faculty members retiring or shifting to less demanding, potentially more rewarding professions.

In this environment, it is fair to ask: what segments of the private school market are responding most positively to attract and retain qualified teachers? Which school segments represent the Gold Standard for how to actively support faculty members?

Based on our analysis of NAIS’ DASL information, the resounding champion supporters of faculty are Quaker schools! Relative to the entire universe of private day schools and their key faith based subsegments, Quaker schools are standouts on the dimensions of salaries, benefits, student to teacher ratios, teaching load, and professional development funding.

Implications

Now is the time for school leaders to recognize that there is no higher priority than the recruitment and retention of qualified faculty, and that at the current moment, this is an area of significant pressure. School leaders should emulate the kinds of investments Quaker schools have made in order to meet this challenge and reap the benefits of a happier staff and an enhanced value proposition.

Benchmarking for Good, Inc.

Benchmarking for Good is a 501c3 nonprofit corporation whose mission is to help non-profit organizations of all types to better fulfill their missions by using comparative benchmarking and research to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of their operational processes, reduce unnecessary costs, increase the productivity of assets, personnel, expenditures and investments, and maximize revenues.

Benchmarking for Good invites associations of nonprofits that have a desire to put benchmarking to work for their members to submit a grant proposal outlining their goals and ability to support a Benchmarking for Good project. We offer a range of benchmarking related services including analysis, opportunity definition, implementation planning consultation, and staff training.

Please contact Dr. Harry Bloom at harrybloom@benchmarkingforgood.org to arrange an introductory discussion.