Friday, August 12, 2005
An "investment" in education
"Half of the world's population has below average intelligence."
The school district where I live is putting a mill levy override (tax increase) on the November ballot. The increase is equivalent to $625 per pupil, to give you an idea of how much money is involved. The voters rejected a smaller increase last year.
The major change to last year's ballot is that a much larger portion of this year's increased revenue is slated to go to teacher's salaries. This change was the result of some politicking between the school district and the union - no salary bump, no support. Smoke-filled rooms are gone but the deals remain.
This leaves me in a quandary. I know a few hardworking, dedicated teachers whom I would like to give a raise to. But I don't have that option; teachers' salaries in this district (like almost all school districts) follow a dreary formula - enter your years' experience in the district on the rows, enter your education level on the columns, presto -- out pops your paycheck, to the penny.
So by voting for this increase, you are voting to give all teachers -- good, great and terrible -- the same raise.
The argument I expect to hear soon is that our teachers deserve a raise. Maybe, but do you know anyone who doesn't think they should get more money? People that get up on rooftops to nail down shingles in the summer sun - there is a collection of people who deserve a raise. How about nurses who work 12-hour shifts? "Deserve" becomes meaningless when everyone deserves a larger salary.
Will teachers from nearby districts flock to mine under the stimulus of higher pay? No, because the contract in place only rewards experience in the district. It is a system best described as medieval.
Will engineers and scientists start a new career as a teacher, motivated by a higher salary? No, the teacher certification process will prevent that.
So what exactly do taxpayers get for their investment in the school district? We will see what arguments are presented.
The school district where I live is putting a mill levy override (tax increase) on the November ballot. The increase is equivalent to $625 per pupil, to give you an idea of how much money is involved. The voters rejected a smaller increase last year.
The major change to last year's ballot is that a much larger portion of this year's increased revenue is slated to go to teacher's salaries. This change was the result of some politicking between the school district and the union - no salary bump, no support. Smoke-filled rooms are gone but the deals remain.
This leaves me in a quandary. I know a few hardworking, dedicated teachers whom I would like to give a raise to. But I don't have that option; teachers' salaries in this district (like almost all school districts) follow a dreary formula - enter your years' experience in the district on the rows, enter your education level on the columns, presto -- out pops your paycheck, to the penny.
So by voting for this increase, you are voting to give all teachers -- good, great and terrible -- the same raise.
The argument I expect to hear soon is that our teachers deserve a raise. Maybe, but do you know anyone who doesn't think they should get more money? People that get up on rooftops to nail down shingles in the summer sun - there is a collection of people who deserve a raise. How about nurses who work 12-hour shifts? "Deserve" becomes meaningless when everyone deserves a larger salary.
Will teachers from nearby districts flock to mine under the stimulus of higher pay? No, because the contract in place only rewards experience in the district. It is a system best described as medieval.
Will engineers and scientists start a new career as a teacher, motivated by a higher salary? No, the teacher certification process will prevent that.
So what exactly do taxpayers get for their investment in the school district? We will see what arguments are presented.
// posted by Old Math @ 10:18 AM 
