Join the conversation

As an organization, the Learning First Alliance is concerned with issues that relate specifically to k-12 public education in America. But as individuals, we are interested in most issues relating to education. So when I saw the recent New York Times article Share of College Spending for Recreation is Rising, I gave it a read. Times are tough—no one will deny that. And really? Colleges spending on recreation? Is that the best use of their funds, especially in times of fiscal crisis?

But my reaction to the article was likely not what the author hoped. Rather than a sense of outrage at the spending habits of higher education institutions, I came away concerned with how spending categories were portrayed and hoping a similar tone would not be used in discussions of k-12 budgets.

To quote from the article:

The trend toward increased spending on nonacademic areas prevailed across the higher education spectrum, with public and private, elite and community colleges increasing expenditures more for student services than for instruction, the report says.

Now, to me, “student services” does not equal “recreation.” And the very next paragraph explains: “The student services category can include spending on career counseling and financial aid offices, but also on intramural athletics and student centers.” To me, student services would also likely include things like mental health services, student health clinics, academic advising and tutoring. So I went to the report on which this article was based. It clarified that student services are “noninstructional, student-related activities such as admissions, registrar services, career counseling, financial aid administration, student organizations, and intramural athletics.” It was not entirely clear where mental health services, student health clinics, academic advising and tutoring would actually fall in the spending classification scheme. But it did seem that the emphasis on “recreation” was misplaced.

The takeaway from the NYT article was that schools (higher education institutions in this case) need to be careful with how they spend money. And I completely agree. But sometimes spending on “student services” may be a better idea than spending on instruction. Consider how few students graduate from college compared to those who start. Is it more likely graduation rates would increase after spending more money on instruction, or on “services” like academic advising and financial aid offices?

I think this relates to k-12 schools as well. As districts face budget cuts, we must not immediately conclude that any money not spent on instruction is a waste. Certainly instruction is important. But so are “student services” such as guidance counselors, school social workers, school-based health clinics and after-school programming. The tradeoffs must not be made lightly.