Edumacating and Stuff
CNN has a good article today about reforms proposed for the US education system. I'm not sure that I agree with all of the proposals, but they are interesting to think about. Here are some of the highlights:
Beginning teachers should earn more (averaging $45,000) and the money should come by switching from traditional pension plans to 401(k)s, etc.
This is kind of a no-brainer. Clearly, teachers should make more. Nearly everyone should make more money (with the possible exception of corporate lawyers). However, the issue is what programs would be cut. Here, we would be robbing teachers' benefits to pay teachers' salary. Until there is a mind shift in the general population and people recognize that it is ridiculous to pay Jim Carry $15MM to make crappy movies when a starting teacher makes $25K a year, this will continue to be a problem.
High school ends at 10th grade. After their sophomore year, students take exams and then go straight to community college/tech school or stay in school for a couple more years and then go to college.
Interesting. This is how many other countries, especially in Eastern Asia, do it. I like the idea of not wasting money on people who are not going to some post-high school education.**(see comments)** However, making this decision when someone is 15 or 16 years old makes me nervous. I see this as potentially widening the existing socioeconomic gap and further narrowing the middle class.
Independent contractors would be in charge of running schools, even though the schools stay public. The state would control the funding.
Brilliant. This should have been done a long time ago. Run schools like a business. Bring in corporate sponsors. Tiger Woods signed a contract with Nike worth about $100MM a year. Corporations have money to burn when it comes to getting their name out, and there are a lot of them that are targeting kids between 5 and 18.
Anyway, just thought it was interesting. One of the most interesting areas of the law (besides the excitement of Section 16 SEC filings) is education law. The restrictions placed on financing, districting and inclusion seriously limit the options available for change. At the same time, each of those restrictions were put in place to address abuses of the system. It makes for a very complex problem.
Beginning teachers should earn more (averaging $45,000) and the money should come by switching from traditional pension plans to 401(k)s, etc.
This is kind of a no-brainer. Clearly, teachers should make more. Nearly everyone should make more money (with the possible exception of corporate lawyers). However, the issue is what programs would be cut. Here, we would be robbing teachers' benefits to pay teachers' salary. Until there is a mind shift in the general population and people recognize that it is ridiculous to pay Jim Carry $15MM to make crappy movies when a starting teacher makes $25K a year, this will continue to be a problem.
High school ends at 10th grade. After their sophomore year, students take exams and then go straight to community college/tech school or stay in school for a couple more years and then go to college.
Interesting. This is how many other countries, especially in Eastern Asia, do it. I like the idea of not wasting money on people who are not going to some post-high school education.**(see comments)** However, making this decision when someone is 15 or 16 years old makes me nervous. I see this as potentially widening the existing socioeconomic gap and further narrowing the middle class.
Independent contractors would be in charge of running schools, even though the schools stay public. The state would control the funding.
Brilliant. This should have been done a long time ago. Run schools like a business. Bring in corporate sponsors. Tiger Woods signed a contract with Nike worth about $100MM a year. Corporations have money to burn when it comes to getting their name out, and there are a lot of them that are targeting kids between 5 and 18.
Anyway, just thought it was interesting. One of the most interesting areas of the law (besides the excitement of Section 16 SEC filings) is education law. The restrictions placed on financing, districting and inclusion seriously limit the options available for change. At the same time, each of those restrictions were put in place to address abuses of the system. It makes for a very complex problem.
posted by White Hat Black Hat at 7:14 AM
2 Comments:
Seems slightly wrong to use the phrase "wasting money" on students who will not go on to college, etc. However, how much career earning power, etc. is gained for those individuals in the last two years of high school? Is it better to get out into the workforce? Interesting question
I kind of like Jim Carrey.
Otherwise, I'm with you, I think.
Although I see some problems with corporate sponsors being mixed in with education. Seems like that would raise some fairness issues (sponsors only wanting to go to certain "markets") and also some ethical issues about kids being exposed to marketing while they are in school, etc.
You know what I think we should do? We should benchmark the level of taxation on the various industries and items that are harming our nation's children.
Then, we should raise taxes on those industries' products and the increment between the new level and the old level should go to public education and parenting programs.
So, we could tax the daylights out of the fastfood industry, the tobacco industry, violent video games, and the like.
I don't see how those industries have any redemable value. I don't see how anyone could argue that raising taxes on those industries caused harm to anyone who needed those items to survive. Heck, it wouldn't bother me if you threw in the alcohol and firmarms industries. (I know -it's amazing that we are related.)
Was that one of the options in the CNN story? Shoulda been.
Post a Comment
<< Home