What sort of public education can we really afford?
My mother, a very well meaning but impractical woman, believed strongly in the NEA theory of teacher compensation. All teachers works equally hard and all subjects are important. Therefore all teachers of equal experience and education should be paid the same, regardless of the age of the students or the complexity of the subject.
Back when teachers were cheap, this was an acceptable mechanism to ensure that teachers of the lowest grades were not exploited, but we've gone a long way past cheap teachers. The realization that we need more qualified teachers to provide high school students with instruction in science, mathematics, and computer technology is the prime motivation behind raising education standards and pay scales for teachers. But due to the one-size-fits-all nature of union bargaining, anything we do for the most crucial sectors, we do for all. And we can't afford it.
We regularly decry the decline of the important peripheral parts of education. Besides the Three R's, we want art, music, and physical education. Except for the occasional unfunded mandate from the legislature, nothing is done to retard their slide into oblivion because the foremost question is never asked. Why do we need teachers with masters degrees to teach 7th grade band? Or teach watercolor in high school?
Why, for that matter, do we need college graduates to teach second graders to add whole numbers? The subject matter in first, second, and third grades can't really be a challenge. I'm not suggesting for an instant that teaching primary grades is not demanding, only that it does not require much formal education. It strikes me that a community college associates degree would be enough to start. If it focused on practical experience, it might be better than a masters degree earned by sitting in classrooms, listening to someone talk about how to teach.
At the other end of the spectrum, by the time some students get to high school, some of them have moved ahead of the pack. They need calculus, physics, and advanced placement liberal arts classes and the instructors for those classes definitely need more education. The competition for their services is also going to be more brisk, but districts are not allowed to put any extra cash on the table to attract the best people into the teaching profession.
So here's a thought. Let's reduce the standards and compensation in the areas of least difficulty so we can afford to pay enough in the competitive sectors. How's that for radical?
Back when teachers were cheap, this was an acceptable mechanism to ensure that teachers of the lowest grades were not exploited, but we've gone a long way past cheap teachers. The realization that we need more qualified teachers to provide high school students with instruction in science, mathematics, and computer technology is the prime motivation behind raising education standards and pay scales for teachers. But due to the one-size-fits-all nature of union bargaining, anything we do for the most crucial sectors, we do for all. And we can't afford it.
We regularly decry the decline of the important peripheral parts of education. Besides the Three R's, we want art, music, and physical education. Except for the occasional unfunded mandate from the legislature, nothing is done to retard their slide into oblivion because the foremost question is never asked. Why do we need teachers with masters degrees to teach 7th grade band? Or teach watercolor in high school?
Why, for that matter, do we need college graduates to teach second graders to add whole numbers? The subject matter in first, second, and third grades can't really be a challenge. I'm not suggesting for an instant that teaching primary grades is not demanding, only that it does not require much formal education. It strikes me that a community college associates degree would be enough to start. If it focused on practical experience, it might be better than a masters degree earned by sitting in classrooms, listening to someone talk about how to teach.
At the other end of the spectrum, by the time some students get to high school, some of them have moved ahead of the pack. They need calculus, physics, and advanced placement liberal arts classes and the instructors for those classes definitely need more education. The competition for their services is also going to be more brisk, but districts are not allowed to put any extra cash on the table to attract the best people into the teaching profession.
So here's a thought. Let's reduce the standards and compensation in the areas of least difficulty so we can afford to pay enough in the competitive sectors. How's that for radical?
posted by Rob Spooner at 6:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home