A bit of historical context illustrates how the administrator plague arose. Go back a few generations and a school had a principal, a few secretaries, some custodians and cafeteria staff. The focus was on teachers teaching students. But over recent decades fads for more data-driven accountability, zero-tolerance discipline policies, intervention programs, excessive standardized testing regimes, and the ideology of managerialism run amok created a proliferation of administrators. Experts and consultants hopped on the gravy train to sell their professional development services too. Distracted from teaching by all these new mandates, teachers were corralled and micromanaged by an army of administrators.
While this administrator plague grew, student learning outcomes flatlined. The billions flowing into these dubious salaries and programs might as well have been flushed down the toilet. Not that the administrators themselves noticed or cared – they were too busy multiplying, chatting up vendors at conferences, proclaiming their importance, and finding creative ways to further enlarge their fiefdoms. Rarely were their positions ever eliminated, even if a program was discontinued. Administrators just concocted new initiatives and training sessions to keep justifying their roles. The education sector became a case study in bureaucratic bloat.
When we realize these dismal results have come at immense cost, the farcical nature is evident. There are over 1.1 million K-12 administrators in the United States, compared to only around 3.5 million teachers. From 1950 to 2009 student enrollment roughly doubled, the teacher workforce increased 252%, but the administrator count skyrocketed by an outrageous 702%, far outstripping need. Salaries and benefits for these paper-pushers approaches $40 billion annually – equivalent to over $1000 per pupil. Imagine if those billions could go towards student learning instead of fueling this administrator plague.
Why do American schools suffer under this bloated bureaucracy when high-performing systems abroad thrive with minimal administration? Take Finland, lauded for its excellent education outcomes. Finland has only about 100 central administrators for the entire country. In the U.S. the norm is hundreds or even thousands of administrators in a single large district. If U.S. schools had kept administrative staffing at reasonable mid-century ratios, over $16 billion could be saved annually. That works out to over $3000 per teacher to buy supplies, technology, books, and resources that directly benefit student learning.
These excessive bureaucratic costs and distractions impede efforts to improve schools. Rather than empowering teachers, administrators tie them up with meetings, training sessions, and demands for data collection. Teachers are treated as passive pawns to implement top-down initiatives, not autonomous professionals. This culture breeds frustration and burnout among teachers, while administrators remain smugly secure in their patronage positions. Students suffer the consequences.
How did education descend into this administrator-laden quagmire? Some blame it on the wrongheaded ideology of managerialism – the belief that schools should be run like efficient businesses with goals, metrics, initiatives and strategic plans coming from the central office administrators. But schools are not widget factories. Overly bureaucratic management disempowers teachers and homogenizes instruction in counterproductive ways. Individualized and creative teaching gets lost in the shuffle.
Reform efforts over the decades also fueled administrative bloat. Policymakers kept piling on more tests, standards, reporting requirements, discipline policies, technology initiatives, intervention programs and so on. With each fad more administrators were hired to oversee implementation and analyze data. Temporary programs became permanent. New initiatives were rarely traded off for old ones – the administrative machine just kept accumulating more.Too often these reforms went astray or failed, but the administrators remained.
Well-intentioned reforms may have inadvertently worsened the administrator plague. But there are also less altruistic drivers, like administrative lobbying groups, vendors selling training programs, and even graft. Administrators scratch each other’s backs, attend lavish conferences together, hire each other’s friends and allies. They intimidate boards and community members not to challenge the bureaucratic status quo. This administrator-industrial complex guards its privileged status and budgets aggressively.
Here are some thoughts on how an AI/AGI system could be designed to replace bloated central school district administrators, guided by Simon Sinek's principles:- The AI would be designed to "start with why" - having a clear purpose focused on student learning and outcomes. This guiding mission would shape all other decisions.- It would work in a decentralized manner, with individual school AIs tailored to each school's specific needs and challenges. This prevents one-size-fits-all decisions.- Teacher and parent input would be solicited to inform decision-making. Two-way communication channels would be built-in to the system.- The AI would be fully transparent about its reasoning and decisions. This builds trust and accountability.- Data would be extensively utilized to identify areas for improvement, customize supports, and measure progress. But data use would avoid over-testing or distraction from teaching.- Resources would be allocated fairly based on need. The AI has no intrinsic biases or motives for unequal distribution.- The system would be continually learning and improving itself using machine learning techniques applied to educational data sets. It does not stagnate.- Administrative functions would be automated where possible to free up resources for classrooms. Process efficiency is a priority.- Social-emotional learning and child development science would be incorporated to support whole-child education.- Reasonable safeguards against technical problems or errors would be established, with human override capabilities. But the AI would be designed for delegation of most decisions.The end result would be an adaptive, decentralized AI administration focused on empowering teaching and learning in each unique school context. Bloat and inefficiency would be eliminated.
Students and teachers suffer the effects of this wasteful administrator plague, but they are powerless to stop it. Teachers who speak out risk retaliation from vindictive administrators. Parents and community members who complain at school board meetings get ignored; the administrators have rooted themselves in too deep already. Elected officials yield to the pressure too.
Is there any hope of escaping this bureaucratic quicksand? Bureaucratic bloat tends to feed on itself until collapse ensues. History provides little optimism that administrator numbers could be voluntarily reduced short of fiscal calamity forcing it. But perhaps there is a new hope on the horizon – artificial intelligence and automation.
Much recent progress in AI has come through machine learning algorithms getting better at various prediction and pattern recognition tasks. This ability could be adapted to take over many administrative functions currently performed by humans. AI systems powered by machine learning can already analyze data, find efficiencies, personalized instruction, handle logistics, improve processes and productivity, and offer recommendations. They perform monotonous clerical tasks tirelessly. And they are much cheaper than human bureaucrats.
As the capabilities of AI continue to accelerate in coming years, especially with advances in general AI, more and more administrative roles could be handled by algorithms. Most of the data collection, reporting, compliance monitoring, budgeting, procurement, scheduling, and other bureaucratic work could be fully automated. Meetings could be replaced by efficient AI coordination. Even higher order roles involving strategy, planning, personalized learning, productivity optimizations, and analysis of learning outcomes could be taken over by AI systems drawing insights from big data.
By leveraging the power of AI, we could eliminate bloat, freeing up resources to be redirected where they matter most – classrooms. Teachers could be empowered to personalize instruction and nurture students. Creativity and human judgement could thrive again, unencumbered by bureaucratic constraints. Students would benefit from more individualized teaching. The building called the central office could even be sold for additional funds. AI could streamline and improve education administration far beyond what human bureaucrats are capable of.
Of course some will resist this AI administrator takeover, much like managers resisted workplace automation in the past. But their objections are ultimately selfish and short-sighted. AI can usher in an age of vastly superior administration and educational productivity. Yes, many administrative jobs would become obsolete – necessary collateral damage on the path to better education. To make an omelette, you have to crack some eggs. The administrator-industrial complex will not go quietly, but it must be swept aside by progress. Students and teachers have suffered long enough under this plague.
AI will not be a magic bullet. Technical challenges exist in developing sufficiently sophisticated AI systems for education administration. It may take years to realize the full potential. But the enormous long-run benefits make it imperative that we embark down this path now. The alternative is the continued metastization of bureaucracy wasting billions of dollars as student outcomes languish. We cannot let administrators’ self-interest delay progress. The education sector must get on board with developing administrative AI.
Here is a draft abstract with questions to ponder for the article:
This opinion article advocates for replacing school administrators with artificial intelligence (AI) and automation. It argues the past decades have seen administrative bloat explode while student outcomes remain stagnant, wasting billions of dollars annually. Contrasting this with efficient systems like Finland's, the author lambasts excessive bureaucracy and managerialism as detrimental to education. He traces the accumulation of administrators through reforms and special interests. With human bureaucracy entrenched, AI is presented as a disruptive solution to eliminate bloat by taking over administrative tasks. Concerns over job losses are dismissed as necessary for progress. Challenges around developing sufficiently advanced AI are acknowledged but framed as imperatives to embark on now, before bureaucratic obstruction can stall progress. Questions are raised about equity in automation and how to transition to an AI-administered education system benefitting students.
Questions to Ponder:
- Would replacing administrators with AI improve student outcomes and creativity? Why?
- How could the transition to an AI administrative system happen equitably?
- What challenges around developing and implementing education-focused AI would need to be overcome?
- Would AI be prone to perpetuating embedded biases or create new unintended biases?
- Could AI enhance education administration or would it over-automate in detrimental ways?
- What policies and regulations would be needed for AI to reform rather than replace human administrators?
In other sectors of the economy, automation is rapidly transforming work. It would be foolish to think education administration is somehow immune. AI and automation will inevitably come to schools. But will it happen equitably and for the benefit of students? Or will administrators obstruct it to preserve their legacy bureaucracies? This will be the big test for education leaders in the years ahead. I know which side I favor. The administrator plague must end so learning can thrive.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you!