You know if extra money wasn't USEFUL why would people bother to invest? If money is so gosh darn unnecessary why should we worry about throwing a little of it at the school system- I'll tell you why - because money IS useful and in our culture it just happens to be the prime motivator. Just because we all know SOME people (people a lot better than a lot of people on these threads who have jobs of more "status" and income) who will teach for peanuts does NOT mean it is a good idea to throw peanuts at educators. Talent goes where the money is. There are no amazing brain trusts teaching my kids. I am sorry to say I know more than any teacher who has taught my kids and I have the equivalent of a PhD which none of them have. Now some of the SPOUSES of the women who teach my children are probably brilliant (and they are the primary income earners) but the spouses aren't teaching my children.
We could argue that you don't want the best educated and brightest folks teaching kids, although I'm not sure WHY we would want to argue this. But I can tell you for damn sure in my district the best educated and brightest are NOT the people in the schools. When companies want to recruit the best folks as software programmers, do they say "Hey, you know we don't NEED to throw money at these guys- why there are people out there who LOVE to do this, let's offer a crappy salary and hope we get a guy who'll jump at the chance to get this job". Are you going to want that guy working on critical systems? Um...maybe you would, but I wouldn't.
So no one else in the world is expected to take a crappy job for low pay and love it (well, maybe nuns and such, but then they got religion) but teachers are. Yeah, we ARE going to have world class schools.
There is one male teacher at my kids school. I wonder why that is. Do you suppose it's because really bright MEN have been socialized to realize that our culture values the big bucks? While some women still haven't got a clue?
Cummings was willing to shell out some bucks to get his kids into Montessori. They charge more per kid than the school system- they cherry pick the kids that can go there, (disabled kids have a tough time getting in - in this area)- but I don't think I ever heard Michael complaining about the money they needed. Is it OK that Montessori requires more money to teach than the public school system- a system which has to take every kid, not matter how seriously retarded? And let me tell you the special ed kids are eating the districts alive. I have a special ed kid as you know- and DAMN I don't see how they can do what they do for him. It is all mandated by the government (and I'm grateful) but special ed kids now are getting SO much more it HAS to be straining the system for everyone else. Now do you cut the special ed kids? I don't know- if you can get them up to speed when they are young they won't be a drain on society as adults. And that is cheaper in the long run if one is capable of taking a long range view (something Americans are not good at). BUt you are not factoring into your little equation all the stuff the schools are mandated to do now- and if you want to eliminate those mandates WHAT are you going to do about the special programs that are doing so much good?
My one little kid has a special ed teacher and an aide in a class of 8 children. He gets occupational therapy, speech therapy, and adaptive PE- his Occupational therapy is with two adults for 40 minutes one a week- they don't come cheap, I looked into hiring them for extra work at home. They are damn expensive. Speech therapy is also one on one. If he were disturbed he could also have a psychologist meet with him. Some children have aides with them all day long- some even have personal aides in special ed.
This was simply not taking place when I was in elementary school. But then there weren't any special needs kids in my elementary school- they must have kept them locked up somewhere. |
