3 ms·
To pick a nit here, when most people say "Give teachers more money," they mean exactly and precisely that, giving a higher salary to the boots on the ground in
by zach_garwood 4y ago
To pick a nit here, when most people say "Give teachers more money," they mean exactly and precisely that, giving a higher salary to the boots on the ground in the classroom. What ends up happening though is that more money goes to the school system, and some paltry amount may trickle down to the teacher, but most if it get's eaten up by principals, superintendents, and an army of other administrators, who do not actually improve outcomes.
It's my firm belief that most of the issues with our educational system would be rectified overnight if every school district halved their administration.
- lapcat 4y agoOne of the points of the article is that the schools are not just trying to deliver an education, they're also trying to deliver social services to kids. Why is that? Well, as a society we've decided that adults are generally unworthy of a social safety net, yet we still consider kids to be "innocent", and so instead of helping the parents of the kids, we insist on providing social services directly to the kids in school, bypassing the parents. This adds a lot of cost and layers of administration. And of course poorer kids are more in need of social services, so the poorer schools are often more expensive to run, even factoring in teacher salaries. You can say the schools are "failing", but they're also being asked to do too much.