I would rather that we fund schools to the maximum of our ability, since after national defense, it's the most important job the Federal government has, but lets put the money is teacher's hands, and then hold them accountable.
You can't have it both ways. Either you can get the maximum out of the kids who come prepared to learn, or you can ensure that all children get educated to a minimum standard.
Which would you prefer?
I would rather that we fund schools to the maximum of our ability, since after national defense, it's the most important job the Federal government has, but lets put the money is teacher's hands, and then hold them accountable.
Assuming that we fund the schools as you say, do you want to fund the schools to get help the ones who are prepared to learn to maximize their potential, or do you want to fund the schools to make sure every child gets at least a minimum education?
Simply throwing money at education does not resolve this dilemma.
Government by its very nature removes personal ambition and incentive - the two things that make our economy and, more generally our country, work. Giving teachers raises don't fix in the long run the inherent problem with our education system: the lack of incentive for teachers, schools and districts to provide a real education to our children. It's nearly impossible to fire a teacher, it's even harder for a school to lose it's funding, and you what possible incentive does a school district have to improve?
Like it or not, human nature is all about responding to incentives - not some campfire fairytale of altruistic acts. Compe ion is the only thing that can save our schools.
"all about responding to incentives"
$75/year for K-12 teachers would be an incentive, n'est-ce-pas?
Expensive? No.
What is expensive, to society, is kids not graduating from HS, kids without jobs getting into crime, kids not earning enough to pay taxes, college entrants needing to burn a year in college learing how to ing read and write and spell and add/subtract, employers having to waste their time remediating dumb HS grads.
There dozens of public school districts, mostly frequently with huge budgets, nationwide that provide excellent education because of quality teachers and quality curricula and programs.
boutons, does the parents play a role in kids learning to read and write,
dropping out of school? Learning to add/subtract? Teachers do play a
big roll, but parents must be held responsible also. Kids who do well
in school also have parents who insist that they do learn and work with
them. There are exceptions to this rule, but generally speaking without
good parents, along with decent teachers a kid has a hard time succeeding.
Money is not always the answer to every problem. Yes, we must have
a decent salary for teachers and must have the physical facilities to
teach in. But we don't need so much support staff and superindents making the salary they do along with large car allowances and expense
accounts. And numerous assistants.
You've bought into the myth. Even America's "best" public schools fall below international standards.There dozens of public school districts, mostly frequently with huge budgets, nationwide that provide excellent education because of quality teachers and quality curricula and programs.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)