Sunday, June 7, 2009
School Funding: Ohio
School Funding: Ohio
School funding is a complicated and somewhat confusing issue.
According to the Plain Dealer which cited the Ohio Department of Education there is a variance of per pupil spending of $13,000. Keystone Local School district spends $7,381 and Beachwood spends 21,099 dollars per pupil. Where does this money currently come from? According to Ohio’s Current School Funding System, “Most states, including Ohio, fund schools through a combination of state, local, and federal funds. Federal funds make up only about 8% of the total. While it is a major portion of the state's budget, state spending for schools represents 46%.The remaining 46% of funding for schools come from local taxpayers.” First the state determines how much it should cost to educate a child with no special needs. That amount is currently set at $5,732 in the Ohio. This set amount of money is based on several factors including, average class size, average teacher salaries, average support staff salaries, and building maintenance and overhead. This is referred to as the foundation amount. A portion of this foundation amount is paid by the locality. This local portion is generally equal to how much a district would raise with a 2.3% property tax. In addition the state provides supplemental dollars for educational services which are considered to be beyond basics.
Supplemental funds for special education, vocational education, and transportation costs (requires a local match.)
Poverty Based Assistance to help schools with additional costs they may incur for educating economically disadvantaged students
Parity aid to offset differences in school districts' ability to obtain local dollars from property taxes (beyond the required local share)
Finally, a guarantee provision (known as transitional aid) provides that each school district should receive no less state revenue in the current year than it received in the preceding year. (Ohio’s Current School Funding System)
As we all know this system has been declared unconstitutional four separate times, most recently in 2002. Ohio schools have been operating as Unconstitutional for 15 years. The major flaws in the current system include: heavy reliance on property taxes, inequities amongst school districts, not tied to effective strategies, and routinely leaves districts scrambling for dollars, according to Ohio’s Current School Funding System. There currently does not exist a formula which details how much it costs to provide an education to a regular education student, let alone a student with special needs or one who is deemed disadvantaged. One model that is being considered is the Evidence based model for costing out. This model is being used in Arkansas and Kentucky and is advocated by Governor Strickland. The goal is to bring all students up to state standards using scientific based practices. According to School Funding Matters, “As a relatively newer model, the evidence-based approach (or the expert judgment approach), relies on research into effective educational practices and the judgment of experts who have developed or analyzed these practices to determine appropriate levels of spending. According to Governor Strickland’s proposed budget the state portion of education would rise to 56 percent by 2017. One opponent of Strickland’s plan to revamp the school funding and practices in Ohio is John Hill. He claims: Ohio needs an easy flow of people and money from less to more productive uses. A fair comparison of alternative uses of funds, incentives for innovation, and performance based accountability. The flaws that Hill finds with Strickland plan are: It ties up funds at the school and district levels and mandates spending on programs that have nothing to do with education, no provisions encouraging trade-offs between staffing and other uses of money, no provisions for experimenting with new approaches to instruction and deliberately tilting the playing field against charter schools and on-line schools, and no careful assessment of student achievement results of using money one way versus another.
The question I would like to pose is whose plan do you feel would work best the current proposed plan by Governor Strickland or the type of plan proposed by John Hill in Ohio at the Crossroads? What are some of the perceived strengths and weaknesses of each?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like Hill’s plan better, I think it is more sensible. He speaks of putting the money into the only constant in education: the students. I do really like parts of Strickland’s plan however. While I know many people need jobs right now and it sounds great to hire a whole new legion of teachers, Strickland’s plan also talks about hiring nursing assisstants and professionals that will, “help educators, families and community service providers come together to help our children succeed”. (experts from Strickland’s speech, PD 1-28-09). As we spoke about in class the other night, none of our schools even have a full time nurse right now. In Hill’s article he also mentions new instructional aides: two per school in most cases, clerks, building managers, media services staffers, and other personnel. Strickland seems like he wants to flood the schools with new employees but is not willing to spend money on innovative new ways to educate the students. Hill claims of Strickland’s plan a, “deliberate tilting of the playing field against charters and online schools” (Hill, Ohio at the Crossroads article). I also do not think adding school days to the year is an efficient way to bolster student improvement, I think that adding days will not even be feasible when they break down how much extra money it will cost to pay teachers, custodians, bus drivers, lunch ladies, secretaries, administration, feeding the kids, bussing the kids, even just paying extra utility bills, it will all add quickly up. Same thing with all day kindergarten, though I do believe that in many districts all day kindergarten would be a great program to implement. All in all I just think Strickland’s plan is toooo expensive, cuts money in the wrong places and isn’t really going to change the achievement levels in schools. I like Hill’s plan because he talks about trying new things, keeping the money flexible, chasing performance and duplicating what works. Hill says, “To ensure that public monies are allocated fairly, efficiently, and accountably and are targeted at the differing needs of children, Ohio’s current school funding system should be replaced by a weighted funding plan wherein per-pupil amounts are adjusted to the needs of individual youngsters and follow them to the public schools they choose to attend.”
ReplyDeletePaul T. Hill in the article titled "Ohio at the Crossroads" does a good job I think at critiquing Governor Stricklands's Educational reform plan. If I had to choose I would tend to agree with Hill's ideas over Strickland's plan. There are two concepts that I like most about Hill's suggestions, first the focus on students, which he quotes from "Facing the Future" report, " The answer is that states should fund something that is permanent, not changeable in light of evidence". The report goes on to name the students as this element of edcucation that is permanent. Second, I like that Hill is wanting finances to be flexable and allow building administrators to spend funds where they see the need for the benefit of the students (Ohio at a crossroads,p.12). However, I am always cautions of one person having too much control. I think it allows for politics, nepatism and bias. There needs to be some type of checks and balances to this idea. Strickland's plan does cause for an increase in spending, and the article really shows and emphasis on staffing as a big expense, which I agree, in itself, does nothing for student performance. The problem is that money is ear marked for specific things in Strickland's plan, which is what I like the least aobut the governors plan. We have all spent money on items and in retrospect may not have spend the money in quite that fashion if given another opportunity. Hill's ideas allows for this flexibility. On page 11 Hill talks about how schools that work best are not all alike. They use their resources differently. I don't think Strickland's plan will allow for such flexibility. I think, when working with people it is always an asset to have some ability to be flexible.
ReplyDeleteThe funding issue is all really new to me. I do not enjoy reading about it and it's very frustrating to me that we can't figure out a way to make sure all students have an adequate education. After reading all of the articles and a few that I found, the one conclusion that I agree with is we can't figure out what amount is necessary until we have a definition of "adequate education." I know it's different for every child, but since the general pubic agrees that all children deserve equality in the area of education, then we have to define what we think all children deserve. I came to this conclusion after reading this quote from the website below: "Meanwhile, in the words of Stephen Smith, manager of the National Center for Education Finance at the National Conference of State Legislatures: "Adequacy has trumped equity as the biggest issue in education finance." The latest theory is that states must define what an adequate education means — then figure out how much money is needed to achieve the standard." I think Strickland has some great ideas, but I agree with Ali that it will cost too much money and could end up being more unfunded mandates. I love the idea of all-day kindergarten and more staff, but public schools do not need more mandates that aren't funded! I like Hill's ideas of "keeping money flexible," but I would like to see a commitment to public schools.
ReplyDeletehttp://social.jrank.org/pages/969/Trends-in-Educational-Funding-Litigating-School-Funding-Equity.html
http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/2f/fc/cb.pdf
ReplyDeleteThis is a big document and from 1982, but very interesting and helpful. Gives all of the different perspectives of adequacy and funding. It's from a study the U.S. Department of Education did called the School Finance Project. The paper is called "Adequate Education: Issues in its Definition and Implementation." Within this large document are papers written by education experts at the time. I thought this quote from one of the papers called "The Concept of Educational Adequacy in Historical Perspective" by W. Norton Grubb and Marvin Lazerson was very interesting: "The concept of adequacy in education cannot be a technical notion defined in terms of absolute dollar amounts, teacher preparation levels, years of schooling, or achievement test scores. Rather, the concept of adequacy has always been and continues to be deeply political, bound up with the deepest divisions over the purposes of schooling." It is very interesting to read the history of schools and how "adequate education" changes depending on the values and priorities of each society and generation. And then it changes with many different groups of people within society, as well. Wealthy people, middle class, and low income groups all have a different priorities and issues. Minorities have different priorities and issues. The special education population have different priorities and issues...
I liked what Hill had to say as well, and the part I liked the most, was giving flexibility to the districts to spend money. Stricklands plan earmarks money for specific things and add a lot of personnel. In our district we have so much grant money they passed out laptop computers to all 6th and 9th graders in the districts but we have no money to buy toner for our printers. Giving districts the liberty to spend dollars to meet student needs would be beneficial.
ReplyDeleteIn the benefit of the students of Ohio schools, I feel that neither of these plans fix the issues in our current school issues. Now as we have found in numerous articles “the way we fund Ohio schools has been declared unconstitutional four times” in my opinion that is four times too many. In neither plan do they address how public schools in Ohio are funded. In Governor Strickland’s plan he address in a nutshell “what we teach and how we teach will prepare Ohioans to thrive in the 21st Century, we will expand learning opportunities (by adding 20 more days to the school year), we will improve educator quality, we will measure ourselves against the world, we will establish an unprecedented level of school district accountability and transparency, the state will no longer ask school districts to pay their bills with phantom dollars, first state with a comprehensive residency program for new teachers, Ohio among the first states to require universal all day kindergarten (09Ju)”. Now in any sense this does not address the issue for public funds and how they are used. The issues that were given by Paul T. Hill in “Ohio at the Crossroads” he addresses the issues that would strengthen Governor Strickland’s Plan are “Driving funds to schools based on student numbers and student needs, Encouraging innovation and experimentation with the uses of funds and imaginative new instructional programs, Holding schools and districts to account for student performance and continuous improvement, Gathering and using inter-connected data on the uses of funds and the results produced (Hill, 2009).” Hill’s plan describes how to use funds, but it doesn’t exactly give a new way generating those funds. Yes, both plans have student interest in mind in different ways, smaller classroom sizes, teacher education, educational choice, but I still feel that if they can’t make a fair way in generating funds there won’t be enough funds to make these ‘wants’ which are “needs” to be in our future.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, I had had to choose, I would choose Governor Strickland’s plan, I feel that his heart is in the right place, he’s trying to do what’s best for Ohio and its educators. Some of the issues that Hill provides I don’t necessarily want to see in my school like “It should also encourage
innovative instruction and new mixes of teacher-led instruction and on-line learning. It can’t do those things by tying up all the money in salaries and paying on-line schools a fraction of what brick-and-mortar schools get for teaching the same subjects (Hill, 2009).” I do not want a more virtual approach to my child’s future in education, I now have to think about my children in education in the future and I am not liking what Hill as to say about educational policies.
Bibliography
(n.d.). Retrieved June 9, 2009, from http://www.governor.ohio.gov/GovernorsOffice/StateoftheState/StateoftheState2009/tabid/984/Default.aspx
Hill. (2009). Ohio at the Crossroads. Washington DC: Thomas Fordham Institute.
What I like best about Strickland's program is the four-year residency program. While I do not know how it would be funded or executed, I like that it would have the potential to weed out undesirable teachers early on. It would provide that accountability factor and hopefully have strict standards as to what is expected of teachers. I hate that there are teachers that are already burned out 5 years in. Why are they teaching????
ReplyDeleteI will admit that I liked (at first) Strickland's plan after hearing about it through the press. After reading Ohio at the Crossroads by Paul Hill, however, it gave me a whole new perspective on the plan set forth to improve education. Hill critiqued many different aspects of Strickland's plan, but the one that stuck out to me the most was when he said that there was "no careful assessment of the student achievement results of using money one way versus another". Isn't that what the whole plan is about? Student achievement? if you are going to think up this grand plan and try to put in into action, shouldn't you be keeping track of how the money spent is actually affecting the education of the students? It seems to me like there are a lot of loose ends that need to be tied up in Strickland's plan before it should be put into action. I think that Hill's plan to "fund children, not programs" is exactly what we need to be doing at this point in time. We could fun 10,000 different programs to help the children, but all of the money would be going towards keeping those programs going, and paying those salaries, and not very much towards the students. I think that Hill has the right idea, and just needs to begin to implement it and hopefully improve the education in america.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ali that I'm interested in knowing more about the four-year residency program. I've heard many things about it, but aren't too sure what's clear or not. Does this just wipe out the Praxis III? And what about the teachers that have graduated but still are not able to find a full-time job 2,3, or 4 years later? Are they still under the Praxis rule or do they now have to invest their time into this 4 year residency program? I feel like it could weed out the less enthusiastic teachers that have issues teaching to the state standards and such. I know somebody that quit teaching after 2 years because she said it was too stressful and there were too many rules. She couldn't teach the way "she wanted to". Which is true sometimes... but what did you think? You were going to jump into the room and just teach whatever you wanted?? This also frustrates me, and seems like a huge waste of an education to get a degree you aren't even going to use.
ReplyDeleteIt really surprised me when I started to read Jessica's post. She stated that "According to the Plain Dealer which cited the Ohio Department of Education there is a variance of per pupil spending of $13,000. Keystone Local School district spends $7,381 and Beachwood spends 21,099 dollars per pupil." I think this is absolutely ridiculous!! I can see possibly a variance of 1 to 2 thousand, depending on the area in which the school is located, but a $13,000 difference? Something has to be done to correct that, and I don't think it really matters who it is (Strickland, Hill, or somebody we haven't even heard of yet!!) I just think it is in the best interest of the children when they go to college (and hopefully all of them will) that they come from the same educational background with the same advantages. I know it's a long stretch... but I can still hope....
ReplyDeleteI like the four year residency program as well, there's lots of teachers that get out there and realize this isn't for me and all that time and money is lost---plus effort. I just think that resident teachers should be compensated,as engineers or doctors.
ReplyDeleteThe variance of per pupil funding is unreal---I feel that the students should get the same fair deal in education. I've been to Beachwood Schools and their schools are amazing, and I've also been to Keystone and it makes Beachwood not even look like a school building. I was shocked when I read the per pupil price difference.
ReplyDeletePrivatize the whole educational system and keep the politicians away from the checkbook and our children, and place the unions in Al Gore's lockbox. I like that idea from that short film that we watched in class that reviewed three or four students in the U.S., India, China, etc, whereas the India school was a for-profit school and operated by a family.
ReplyDeleteWhat would happen if we operated our American public school system like a business? I know, I know, I am not very popular right now! Don't worry it will never happen, but then again, who would ever have thought that GM would file bankruptcy!
Wow, this funding issue is complicated. I thought Paul Hill gave a very good critique of Governor Strickland’s plan for American school funding. I found myself in agreement with Hill through most of his commentary. Hill brought up that the Governor’s plan has “spending increases geared toward helping schools and districts employ more administrators, teachers, and support staff” (Hill, 7). I agree with Hill and those of you who commented before saying that this does not necessarily focus on the students. Hill quotes from the “Facing the Future” report that the current school funding system “is focused on maintaining programs and paying adults, not on searching for the most effective way to educate our children” (Hill, 9). Hill made two comments that I liked about the Governor’s “rigid funding”, and they where that his plan “sustains institutions whether they work or not” and “spends with little regard to results” (Hill, 8). I really liked Hill’s idea of keeping the funding “flexible” and gearing it toward individual “student needs” (Hill, 8). David referred to Hill comment about the schools that work best not being alike, and I think that this relates a lot to last week’s issue of school choice. If all schools were allowed to use resources differently, it would create different schools; and families could use the vouchers to find the best fit for their children.
ReplyDeleteTom, your idea of privatizing education will probably never happen, although it is intriguing. It would create tremendous competition between schools for more “customers”, and doesn’t competition usually make companies/people work harder to get better results...I don’t know.
I also would like to know more about how this residency program would be set in place and run. Not only would it weed out the people that find out teaching is not for them earlier, it would also provide much more oversight on the training of teachers. Right now it is really luck of the draw for student teaching, depending on the mentor teacher you get. My mentor teacher had a student teacher the four semesters leading to retirement, and he left me alone a ton during my student teaching semester. I learned a lot on the spot and from the students, but there was not much “mentoring” in my case. It did make me more comfortable for being on my own in the classroom when I got my first teaching job. Anyway, I think the residency would be good, and hopefully new teachers would get the chance to work with multiple teachers, kind of like future doctors go through residency working with various doctors. After student teaching is over and you start teaching on your own, it is hard to find time to observe your colleagues for ideas and methods. I was only able to observe a couple times on my planning periods my first year.
ReplyDeleteI like Tom's idea about privitizing education.... I wonder if that will ever happen again? One problem that stuck out to me in our readings comes from the article titled "Equity & Adequacy". This article talks about how Ohio's "appropriations for public K-12 education has been established on a political basis independent of student needs". If this is true, education is not receiving the money it should in order to effectively educate our students. Money is a key factor in all of this. In January 1991, the state's major flaws in it's approach to detemining the level of school funding were reported by a committee to study Ohio's foundation and distribution programs. They concluded "that there was no relationship between per pupil funding level and the cost of an adequate education in Ohio"(p.1). This article also mentions Dr. John Augenlick's use of "successful schools" method to determine an accurate analysis of the expenditures of schools that are truly successful. The way he he went about determining the cost per pupil is skewed and makes the figure come out more toward a lower per pupil base rate. This is an issue, I think, and it needs to be seriously reconsidered when we look at educational reform. According to this article, "the school funding problem in Ohio will not be solved until the state accurately determines the cost of adequacy and then appropriates sufficient revenue to cover the cost". I agree......
ReplyDeleteAfter reading “Ohio at the crossroads” by Paul Hill, I like his proposal for what the fundings should be rather than Strickland’s plan. Hill made some valuable points and I could see our state fundings for school run a lot smoother and more efficiently. Hill took Strickland’s plan and made it work such as the chart on his page explaining how it “works in practice”. Key points that I liked from the chart were: “Easy flow of people and money from less to more productive uses instead of having the money tied in staffing at the school and district levels and mandates spending on programs (e.g., transportation) that have no link to student achievement; incentives for innovations instead No provision for experimentation
ReplyDeletewith new approaches to instruction. Deliberate tilting of the playing field against charters and online schools.” (Hill, Ohio at the crossroads article) The money should be used wisely where it is needed the most instead of it specifically for one purpose because education fluctuates and we need to be able to provide to meet those needs right away instead of waiting for a new plan.
Molly brought up a good point about funding students not programs as Hill stated in "Ohio at the Crossroads article". How are students performing student achievement when programs are implemented for a mass majority of students but not for all students? How are the programs being used effectively? Before implementing new programs the school districts hear about, go back to the basics and assess the children to find out what they really need in order to help them succeed. About the four year residency, I think overall it would be a great plan to for newly educators to be a part of; however, are we compensated like doctors who have residency? Or is this extension of our student teaching after we graduate? I was fortunate where I was placed for student teaching, I had a wonderful mentor in Avon Lake and my student teaching was a valuable experience. Who's to say if the educator next to me had the same experience? I never doubted if I really wanted to be a teacher or not, but this definitely reassured myself that I made the right choice from when I was a little girl and wanted to be a teacher. As Molly brought up, what about those who graduated under the "Praxis III" policy but have not taken it yet? Are those educators granted in or now are they have to partake in the residency? I think the education plan overall has a lot of gray areas to be worked out because too many educators (rightfully so) have too many questions.
ReplyDeleteTaking a look at the article, "Where school districts get their money" I was a little shocked to see such large differences between the amounts that the school districts are getting per pupil even though it's the city right next to us. I live in Amherst and the state is receiving $7,639. I also subbed in Avon Lake. As a student of Amherst a few years back and subbing in Avon Lake the past two years, I thought the schools were very compatible and for the most part equal since we were considered to be in the same "division" Apparently that just relies on sports and not funds for education because Avon Lake is receiving $10,551. Why such a large gap between two high achieving districts? I'm still new at figuring out the funding debates and how everything is decided upon, but I think that would represent what the average tax payer who is not an educator is thinking. Shouldn't all of Ohio, especially if we are in the same county, be receiving roughly the same amount in order for Ohio to succeed as a whole on education instead of individual districts succeeding? I understand and take in account for schools needing extra funds for special education, but then again, are the large differences because an area is over populated with special education students to have such a high fund or are some districts that are lower are going without identifying special education students and those districts should be receiving more funds than they are?
ReplyDeleteFunding is such a complicated issue and finding the right answer to the problem is tough especially because all people think they have the right idea. All I know is that something needs to be changed instead of having districts try and get more funding through levies. In the article "Ohio's Current School Funding System," it says that "levies place an unfair burden on local school districts and creates levy fatigue for voters and educators, a distraction from other education issues." I completely agree with this assessment and obviously something needs to be changed if they way that Ohio's funding for schools has been declared unconstitutional four times. With Hill, I also like his idea of money going to students instead of programs. When money goes to programs though, I think people are more apt to support this because they think they can see tangible results from these programs as to just knowing that the money would be going with students. Also, as others have mentioned, there needs to be an assessment of how the money will be spent, as Hill states so that we can make sure the money is going where it belongs and that students are actually benefiting from it.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with what Jen had to say about not being able to figure out how much money equals an "adequate education". What exactly are the requirements for this and how/who determines this? Who is to say that one districts deserves more money than another and for what reasons?
ReplyDeleteI was also surprised when I looked at "Where school districts get their money" because I can't fathom how some areas have so much money when there is a huge gap betweeen them and the city that sits right next to them. How is this fair to the student who goes to the school with less funding simply because of a district boundary line? This goes back to my previous quote about the levies and how something needs to be changed to remedy this. In "Ohio's Current School Funding System", they give statistics about the success of a levy passing and the numbers seem to be falling. If this is the way we fund our schools and the number of levies passing are declining, what are we to do when none pass anymore?
As Ali stated, I find the four-year residency program that Strickland proposes an interesting concept. I think that just the thought of having to go through a residency program would deter people from pursuing this avenue in the first place. I'm not sure how well this idea would work out though. I think people who would be in this residency program would have to be paid for this and then that brings up a whole new set of issues with funding and how we would pay for this program.
ReplyDeleteApparently it has never truly been determined how much it costs to adequately educate a child. I also think that it may be impossible to determine, since kids begin school all over the board knowledge wise. Some begin not knowing how to hold a pencil and others begin knowing how to read. I probably should have pointed out that the unconstitutionality of the current funding was because of the over-reliance of districts on property taxes. It did not say that using property taxes was unconstitutional. The issue is extremely complicated and very hard to figure out. Strickland's plan is going to cost so much money and the economy is in a recession, I don't understand how boosting the state contribution up nearly ten percent is feasible. I know that I am simplistic but it would seem to me, if all of the money was put into one pot, and then distributed equally per pupil, (extra if they are deemed special education or if they are performing below grade level,) to the school of their choice. If the school districts were held accountable along the lines of Hill's ideas (scientific methods, innovative teaching, and measuring what works.) Maybe this could provide an equitable education for all.... Lol... look I solved the problem...
ReplyDeleteI tend to think Hill has the better plan if we really want to make things better for ALL students. I think NCLB has already tried to make improvements by acting like every district/school/child is the same and it just doesn’t work. There needs to flexibility, creativity, and ideas that can be tailored to meet the needs of each individual district/school/child. I agree with Hill when he says “To ensure that public monies are allocated fairly, efficiently, and accountably and are targeted at the differing needs of children, Ohio’s current school-funding system should be replaced by a weighted-funding plan wherein per-pupil amounts are adjusted to the needs of individual youngsters and follow them to the public schools they choose to attend.”
ReplyDeleteI agree that the residency idea would bring a whole new set of issues and problems. It could work well, but it could also cause lots more problems. I think it depends on how well it is funded and managed. Seems these great ideas start off in the right direction and then there isn't a lot of follow-through to make them work.
Jessica your "simplistic" plan is just what we need. I think as we have discussed in class, if we are really going to find any workable methods the educators need to be involved in the process. Was it Tom or David that suggested that we get involved in politics? While it might be a short time loss to lose some effective teachers from the classroom, perhaps the long term benefits would outweigh. Can/should teachers change careers and get into politics the way people in other fields change careers to get into teaching?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Ali’s question, I think teachers could change careers to get into politics. The way the system works and how heavily politics is involved in funding and many other issues plaguing education, this is the only way a teacher could make a difference in the system. I think if a teacher had great ideas to help the system that were also feasible it would be a definite possibility for them. They would get the chance to possibly make a big difference in the education system. I just don’t know if a great teacher with great ideas would want to leave the environment of making a big difference in individual kids’ lives on a daily basis, to enter the crazy world of politics.
ReplyDeleteThe only problem when teachers become politicians, they will forget their roots and will have to answer to more people other then the teacher unions, the teachers themselves, students, and parents of educational issues and concerns.
ReplyDeleteStrickland's plan sounds like a politician's plan for any problem facing America, throw more money at it and figure out later how and who will pay for his plan. I like the residency program, but how much will it cost and how much will the "resident teacher" make to sustain themselves in the real world. If they complete a "resident teacher" program, will the newly minted teacher receive the same pay as a physician. If that is the case where is that money coming from to pay the highly qualified teacher? How will the other teachers react if the new teacher comes into a school at a higher salary than other teachers that are within the system under old mandates of the past without a "residency teacher program?
ReplyDeleteHill really does challenge Strickland based on money for program and not money that is invested in the children for their education. Once again Hill talks about using the funds, but provides no details in how he is going to get the funding.
The subject of funding is just "messed up" and our children are caught in the middle, while we has homeowners foot the bill through increasing property taxes.
There is a lesson here with the issue of funding in education and how government is going to give us healthcare. Education is coming full circle and Americans are looking to invest their money into a program/school that fits their needs. Americans have a choice with the use of vouchers outside of the public sector to explore options of other schools. Today, we have the choices in our healthcare, tommorrow Government is going to provide you with one choice of insurance for all Americans. We will have overcrowded hospitals, doctors receiving paychecks from the government with no incentive to work beyond forty hours a week, thereby reducing access (rationing of care) and choice in our healthcare. The two subjects are parallel in set-up and execution, but are on two different trajectories in our time.
It is I who think that educators should get invovled in politics. It seems like politicians are usually voting for what ever side can make the biggest contribution......( I could be mistaken) If educators got into politics like business men tend to, maybe we will see a shift toward american education as we see american business receive assistance from the federal government. Education is big business in our country... you see people opening up schools all across the country especially with charter schools... If that is not business than what is?
ReplyDeleteSchool funding is one of the current education issues. I think Ohio is also having some issues regarding this. As a matter of fact, every government school experience this.
ReplyDelete