Oh man, all these debt talks are sure boring. Why don't we just print a bunch more money pay for everything?
...It's like when a board of directors authorizes a stock dividend: you're not really getting anything and each share you own is now worth less! Hooray!
(hopefully any readers caught the sarcasm in my initial question)
Monday, July 25, 2011
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Education Reform (part 1 of several)
I have been giving thought to how I would approach education reform for a long time. It was, however, the recent budget battles here in Wisconsin and elsewhere across the country that have really brought this issue to the foreground of my mind again. To reduce the arguments to the bare essentials on both sides it always seems to come down to the money (no matter how much you dress it up with 'For the Children' slogans). Speaking generally, those on the Right think we're spending too much on public education and those on the Left think we are spending too little.
I would argue that we're spending too much because we're not spending the money we have efficiently. National mandates remove almost all, real local control and failing districts are sinkholes for cash and have no way to usher in reform. The issue of teacher salaries is another big factor in this argument on spending, but I'm going to avoid making any blanket statements about teachers being paid too much or too little. To say that really trivializes the issue because there are definitely cases that could be found to go either way. To be completely honest, however, I just don't really know what a teacher would be worth. There is essentially no market evaluation for a teacher's salary. By that I mean that the government holds an effective monopoly on education. Teacher pay and benefits are closely tied to what various legislative bodies decide should be the norms. A freer system based more on the merits of teachers, rather than seniority or other mandated factors, would do a better job separating the teachers worth their salaries from those returning less value for the money spent.
I would argue that we're spending too much because we're not spending the money we have efficiently. National mandates remove almost all, real local control and failing districts are sinkholes for cash and have no way to usher in reform. The issue of teacher salaries is another big factor in this argument on spending, but I'm going to avoid making any blanket statements about teachers being paid too much or too little. To say that really trivializes the issue because there are definitely cases that could be found to go either way. To be completely honest, however, I just don't really know what a teacher would be worth. There is essentially no market evaluation for a teacher's salary. By that I mean that the government holds an effective monopoly on education. Teacher pay and benefits are closely tied to what various legislative bodies decide should be the norms. A freer system based more on the merits of teachers, rather than seniority or other mandated factors, would do a better job separating the teachers worth their salaries from those returning less value for the money spent.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
