evolution

Josh has the goods here, and there’s a story here.

Can’t say it was a surprise. You know, as a former teacher, I’m really torn on this.

On the one hand, I believe that the solution to every problem does not necessarily begin and end with “spend more money”. That is a losing proposition for everyone. You can’t keep throwing more and more money down the rabbit hole, and educators are famous for saying “If I only had that extra $316M…”

On the other, young teachers, fresh from college, make barely enough. I had no teaching license, but I had a master’s degree in my field (mathematics) and credits toward a Ph.D. I didn’t go to the University of Chicago as Rosenau did, but K-State and Purdue are good schools, and I’m not ashamed of either one.

When I started at Junction City High School (previously known here as Undisclosed Locationsburg High School, or ULHS), I was offered just north of $30,000. Had I not had that graduate degree, I’d have started at around $27,000. It’s true that Junction City is relatively economically depressed — which is in itself, in an Army town, a sad reality of public service — compared to the rest of Kansas. I was 27 and single then, and I was doing okay. Many of my peers were not. Several were starting families, and others didn’t have graduate degrees. I don’t see how it’s possible that any teachers in that situation could support a family — certainly not by themselves.

There’s no doubt in my mind that education dollars could be spent in a smarter way. After all, we pay a good deal of federal tax dollars in loans and grants to train teachers; a good use of public money if there ever was one. We also pay a good deal of money toward bureaucracies to oversee those teachers, who often have very limited control over content; and we pay for “fad curricula” which are adopted and abandoned at great public expense every five years or so.

Understand that good education is expensive. It’s always going to be the biggest budget item in your state; and while throwing money down the rabbit hole is not always the answer, neither is chopping out the education budget so you can crow about how much of a “small-government conservative” you are. Remember, you get what you pay for.

To my mind, the following changes could be made to the educational system that would both enhance education for students and save some money: teacher salary increases, “flex accounts” for classrooms, and more teacher control over curriculum.

The first of these is an obvious change: If you want to pay teachers badly (”they only work six hours a day, they only work nine months out of the year”), you’re going to get bad teachers. I can count on one hand the number of days I was at school less than six hours, and those were usually half-days mandated by the district. It was usually closer to ten. On days when I met with or called parents, it was closer to twelve. Many other teachers, in exchange for a pittance on top of their salaries, are also coaches for your kids’ only sports teams. It’s simply not possible to attract educated people to teaching with that variety of skills — public speaking, presentations, planning, leadership, and a specialty in a field of your choice — on what most teachers are paid, especially when the system has to compete with the private sector.

The average fully-credentialed actuary — a field I am studying to enter — makes $100,000 per year, or two-and-a-half times what I’d have made at Junction City if I’d stayed for a similar period of time. Never mind that all of my professional development will be paid for by the company I’d be working for. Teachers, in general, are also required to engage in professional development activities, but do not enjoy a similar perk. If you had a master’s degree in mathematics and ready to start a family, which would you do?

Second, full control of curriculum must be given to teachers. These are the people who have the “boots-on-the-ground” experience to make adjustments for the specific group of kids in their classrooms and developments in their subjects. Teachers are the “gunnery sergeants” of the system; they need wide latitude in making curriculum decisions, rather than being informed of them in required full-day in-services. And, our math curriculum officer was an experienced teacher — in middle-school science. That is plainly unacceptable. Our principal was a good man and a good principal with a difficult job — standing in the middle of this dynamic. This is also unacceptable.

Finally, teachers should have direct control over a certain fixed amount of money for their own respective classrooms. This can be used in whatever fashion the teacher deems fit (and can justify to the school board, if need be) for the classroom. Again, they are the “boots on the ground”, and can be the most adaptable parts of the system. My attitude toward teachers is much the same way as it is toward judges and “mandatory minimums” — we pay to educate and train them, we pay their salaries and benefits; although some oversight is clearly necessary, why don’t we let them use the judgement they’ve acquired as a result of all that training and education?

These things, I think, can lead to a leaner, meaner educational system; one which can meet the needs of anyone who walks through the school doors. Mouthing politically-correct platitudes and NEA-esque paranoia, throwing money at the problem, and political posturing have gotten us where we are now — in a real mess. It’s time to fix it.

This entry was posted on Monday, January 9th, 2006 at 21:02 and is filed under education, kansas. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.