I have started a new discussion because the one below is going off on a tangent. A Pickerington Parent took off on President Bush and his policies. That is a normal tangent when someone starts to lose an argument and they want to blame the situation onto someone else and divert the argument.
For years now we have heard the problem with our school funding is with the State. The problem with our school funding rests right here in Pickerington and our local school district on how we have generated and built our tax base.
The discussion below started out about the teacher?’s contract and how we spend our money at the school. The first myth is that the more we pay these teachers the better the education will be. The fact is that these teachers are protected from any kind of individual appraisal and hiring a teacher with less experience will never happen with the current state laws protecting teachers and their tenure.
The fact is that the 85% of the school?’s operating budget goes to fund salaries.
Trying to say that the teachers are exempt from the affects of a recession is a very poor argument when it comes to those in the community that are struggling. It seems that these teachers enjoy many more protections that the general working population yet they still want pay increases considerable higher than their increases in living expenses and the improvements in their work skills. When corporations has short falls in revenue the very first place they turn to is their staff to cut expenses because that is one of the largest expenses within any organization.
If we must cut staff and make class sizes larger then that should be the responsible action to take. The fact that this may affect the ability of the students to learn is where the debate then goes. If we look at college class sizes we see 100s in any one classes and these classes are taught it large noisy halls. Even with that the colleges still raise tuition about every year and wonder why their enrollment is dropping.
The second point is do we need to fund a teacher with a masters degree that is teaching a subject that could be taught by a teacher with a bachelors degree? Yet teachers are required to get a higher education like a master?’s degree and once they return to school with that degree they are automatically given a raise based on their education regardless of whether the system needs that additional educational experience or not. The real question here is does these higher degrees result in a higher quality of education for our students? The second question then would be how can they prove that? If I went to my boss and demanded a raise just because I received a degree and I still wanted to work my same job then he would be justified in not granting me any additional pay.
How and why did we start these programs for advanced degrees in our school system? Once a teacher has that advance degree then they are stuck in the school district because no other district will hire them. So that should give us a hint about the value of an advanced degree. Maybe these degree programs should be required for just certain positions not say first grade teachers.
By Father Time
For years now we have heard the problem with our school funding is with the State. The problem with our school funding rests right here in Pickerington and our local school district on how we have generated and built our tax base.
The discussion below started out about the teacher?’s contract and how we spend our money at the school. The first myth is that the more we pay these teachers the better the education will be. The fact is that these teachers are protected from any kind of individual appraisal and hiring a teacher with less experience will never happen with the current state laws protecting teachers and their tenure.
The fact is that the 85% of the school?’s operating budget goes to fund salaries.
Trying to say that the teachers are exempt from the affects of a recession is a very poor argument when it comes to those in the community that are struggling. It seems that these teachers enjoy many more protections that the general working population yet they still want pay increases considerable higher than their increases in living expenses and the improvements in their work skills. When corporations has short falls in revenue the very first place they turn to is their staff to cut expenses because that is one of the largest expenses within any organization.
If we must cut staff and make class sizes larger then that should be the responsible action to take. The fact that this may affect the ability of the students to learn is where the debate then goes. If we look at college class sizes we see 100s in any one classes and these classes are taught it large noisy halls. Even with that the colleges still raise tuition about every year and wonder why their enrollment is dropping.
The second point is do we need to fund a teacher with a masters degree that is teaching a subject that could be taught by a teacher with a bachelors degree? Yet teachers are required to get a higher education like a master?’s degree and once they return to school with that degree they are automatically given a raise based on their education regardless of whether the system needs that additional educational experience or not. The real question here is does these higher degrees result in a higher quality of education for our students? The second question then would be how can they prove that? If I went to my boss and demanded a raise just because I received a degree and I still wanted to work my same job then he would be justified in not granting me any additional pay.
How and why did we start these programs for advanced degrees in our school system? Once a teacher has that advance degree then they are stuck in the school district because no other district will hire them. So that should give us a hint about the value of an advanced degree. Maybe these degree programs should be required for just certain positions not say first grade teachers.
By Father Time
