Educational Economics
Teachers often find themselves the objects of praise. Millionaires and movie stars are often quoted saying that their jobs and roles in life, pale in comparison to that of a teacher. Children are the future, according to the clique. Teachers represent the shepherds of that future toward the goal of preparing the next generation for the challenges to come. Films are made in remembrance of great teachers. All of us can look back to our childhood and remember at least one educator that had a profound impact on the clarity by which we see the world. Lessons learned in classrooms have direct impacts on who we are and how much money we make.
Does a teacher really have the impact and importance of a celebrity or business leader? Who shapes the world more: fifth grade teachers, or Paris Hilton? Does Warren Buffet owe his wealth to his lessons while in primary school? When Paris Hilton succeeded with her TV show Simple Life, she was rewarded with cash. When Mr. Buffet closes a factory and sells a stock, he is rewarded with cash. When a teacher is successful they are given a plaque thanking them for their dedication. A pat on the back is given to the teacher that reaches the unreachable student. A movie star goes back to his home town to shake the hand of a teacher that inspired him. Meanwhile that same teacher is spending money out of their own pockets for student activities. The teacher is paid to give assignments, but is rarely compensated for the late night grading done at home.
Teachers are paid too little for the service they perform in our society. This is a long standing truism that haunts anyone trying to address and illustrate social inequity. So what. Lots of people get paid less than what they are worth. Wal-Mart consistently pays their employees below a living wage and we don't seem to be bothered much. The savings, after all, are passed directly on to the customer or at the very least the shareholder. The amount we save by paying teachers so little is also quite substantial. Part of our reluctance in offering school systems more money comes from a disconnection between investment and the payoff. Property owners often feel singled out as sole supporters of the education of the populous. Some of these property owners don't even have children they argue. Furthermore, it is rare that anyone can relate the finger painting they did in first grade or the algebra they did in high school to the assets they possess today. These unhappy land owners continue to resist increased funding for education, not because they are against it, but because they don't feel a direct responsibility for it. Unfortunately, every way in which we have tried to structure the economic support of education has been less than successful. There is just too much time between the investment in education and the payoff to society.
With this in mind I suggest a new paradigm for school funding. Why not tie the future success of a school to the future success of the student. If a movie star credits a school or teacher with contributing to their success; isn't that school entitled to part of that economic achievement? If a retail clerk is able to run a cash register because of elementary math lessons from years ago; shouldn't part of that economic success be recouped by the school that generated that skill? The education system has been quietly generating the skills and inspiration to action that has driven our ever expanding economy. In all fairness to the industry of education, it is time we start paying for services rendered.
Because we don't let five year olds work in mines or sweat shops anymore we offer them education on credit. Once they are old enough to use the skills a school gives them to earn a living that credit needs to be repaid. Authors, singers, and movie makers all demand that their intellectual property be properly paid for. Why should the educator that created the infrastructure for their successes be any less compensated? Each of us owes a great deal of the money we make to the schools that taught us how to live in the world. Until we acknowledge public universal school systems as being part of free market economic success, we will never reach our full potential as an educated population.
Does a teacher really have the impact and importance of a celebrity or business leader? Who shapes the world more: fifth grade teachers, or Paris Hilton? Does Warren Buffet owe his wealth to his lessons while in primary school? When Paris Hilton succeeded with her TV show Simple Life, she was rewarded with cash. When Mr. Buffet closes a factory and sells a stock, he is rewarded with cash. When a teacher is successful they are given a plaque thanking them for their dedication. A pat on the back is given to the teacher that reaches the unreachable student. A movie star goes back to his home town to shake the hand of a teacher that inspired him. Meanwhile that same teacher is spending money out of their own pockets for student activities. The teacher is paid to give assignments, but is rarely compensated for the late night grading done at home.
Teachers are paid too little for the service they perform in our society. This is a long standing truism that haunts anyone trying to address and illustrate social inequity. So what. Lots of people get paid less than what they are worth. Wal-Mart consistently pays their employees below a living wage and we don't seem to be bothered much. The savings, after all, are passed directly on to the customer or at the very least the shareholder. The amount we save by paying teachers so little is also quite substantial. Part of our reluctance in offering school systems more money comes from a disconnection between investment and the payoff. Property owners often feel singled out as sole supporters of the education of the populous. Some of these property owners don't even have children they argue. Furthermore, it is rare that anyone can relate the finger painting they did in first grade or the algebra they did in high school to the assets they possess today. These unhappy land owners continue to resist increased funding for education, not because they are against it, but because they don't feel a direct responsibility for it. Unfortunately, every way in which we have tried to structure the economic support of education has been less than successful. There is just too much time between the investment in education and the payoff to society.
With this in mind I suggest a new paradigm for school funding. Why not tie the future success of a school to the future success of the student. If a movie star credits a school or teacher with contributing to their success; isn't that school entitled to part of that economic achievement? If a retail clerk is able to run a cash register because of elementary math lessons from years ago; shouldn't part of that economic success be recouped by the school that generated that skill? The education system has been quietly generating the skills and inspiration to action that has driven our ever expanding economy. In all fairness to the industry of education, it is time we start paying for services rendered.
Because we don't let five year olds work in mines or sweat shops anymore we offer them education on credit. Once they are old enough to use the skills a school gives them to earn a living that credit needs to be repaid. Authors, singers, and movie makers all demand that their intellectual property be properly paid for. Why should the educator that created the infrastructure for their successes be any less compensated? Each of us owes a great deal of the money we make to the schools that taught us how to live in the world. Until we acknowledge public universal school systems as being part of free market economic success, we will never reach our full potential as an educated population.
posted by kamuizot at 5:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home