|
First of all, teachers don't work only "nine months a year."
Secondly, even if they did, $30K spread over 9 months is only $3.3K before taxes.
I don't where some of you live, but that's a paltry wage to be living on.
BTW, even though teachers work more than 9 months of the year, they only get paid for 9.
Spread over 12 months, the 30K per year would only give a teacher $2500 per month before taxes.
It's certainly a paltry wage to be paying people we consider to be responsible for educating the next generation of US citizens.
Now I don't have the buget numbers in front of me regarding public vs. private budgets. Until someone comes up with some hard numbers for their assertions, I'm calling bullshit on the notion that they do more and produce consistently better results, all on lower per capita budgets than public schools.
That said, I think that most test discrepancies can be directly linked to teacher per student ratios, lack of current texts and/or computers, and malnutrition.
These things can be fixed with more money. It's just ridiculous to think/state that more money won't fix the growing problems plagueing our public schools. We might need to be more selective in how schools can use new money, but scrapping the system that has done a damn fine job of educating our citizenry for over 200 years doesn't make much sense.
Education is a loss-leader. It always has been and no amount of scrimping or splurging will change the fact that results will not be gained 20 years after the initial investment.
Oh, and what is are "world class benefits?"
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann
"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
|