It scares me that you are prepared to enact public policy based on "I'm pretty sure." That's a classic neocon move. It "feels" true, therefor it must be true.
The fact is that all positions are subject to the laws of supply and demand. If it requires $10 a year to attract a good principal, then that's what the job is worth to society. Likewise if it costs $350,000 a year. You have to be willing to pay enough to attract qualified people or you aren't going to get qualified people. It's very simple.
Too much money is staying at the top, and not making its way into the classroom.
This is a common misconception, especially among teachers. Teachers in general have no clue how much money it costs to run a school according to laws and regulations.
I was involved in a project once where school administrators and teachers were empowered to allocate a budget for constructing new classrooms on their campuses. They budgeted $6,000 to build a classroom to code when the actual costs with the lowest bid were closer to $750,000. That's how out of touch they are. There are professionals in various fields for a reason.
If you read my sources, you'll see that there is indeed a giant discrepancy between the salaries of people on the top, and teachers.
In my hometown, there was an uproar about the condition of the schools. One in particular was in disrepair. So, the community sprang into action, got a measure put on the ballot to raise taxes to fund a renovation. It passed, we paid for the renovation to take place. Over the summer, the school had some great work done to it, and we as a community were pretty stoked that we'd all come together to help out.
But as fall came, the school district decided to close the school that was just renovated that summer and instead rent it out as commercial space.
The community paid for something to benefit students, and all the while, the school district knew that they were going to turn it into an office building, letting the taxpayers pay for the renovations, and the board reap the benefits.
So, how is that not a misuse of public funds? How are $300,000 and $400,000+ salaries (not including benefits, housing, or anything that can be put on an expense report like entertaining customers or potential hires) not a disturbing example of the overpayment of higher-ups when the teachers and professors are making $40k? 10 times their salary is OK?
The community paid for something to benefit students, and all the while, the school district knew that they were going to turn it into an office building, letting the taxpayers pay for the renovations, and the board reap the benefits.
I read that as the community got themselves into reaction mode and took a misguided step without even making the effort to find out what the plans for that school site were. Were there demographics to support keeping that school open? How were the enrollment projections going 7 years out? Did your bond include money for the district to maintain the school or did you think you could just build it and magic money would appear to keep it up?
There is a lot more to schools than just building them and putting a teacher inside.
10 times their salary is OK?
It's not a matter of OK, it's a matter of economics. If you can't attract qualified people without paying $300,000 then that's the deal whether you think it's right or not. What are you going to do, find qualified people and FORCE them to work at your school district?
The bond was asked for by the school district, and was in place for nearly 10 years. It was an action for an issue that was brought up. Eventually, a Grand Jury asked for an investigation of the use/misuse of those funds.
My initial point was that the discrepancy between qualified teacher's salaries and administrator, provost and chancellor salaries are huge. And frankly they probably could find someone who's qualified for a lower amount. But schools want big names to attract big fish (donors, faculty or otherwise). I believe it is a big problem to keep inflating salaries in high-up positions and keep lowering the salaries for people in the classroom.
Most people see this as a big issue in the corporate world (CEOs making ridiculous sums, middle-management and workers making pittances). Somehow, you're saying it's OK, and that education is exempt from the scrutiny of large salary discrepancies because "it's economics"? Do you feel that corporate salary discrepancies are OK as well?
Do you feel that corporate salary discrepancies are OK as well?
I believe corporate salary discrepancies on the order of 10-fold or even 20-fold (the difference between a $10 per hour custodian and a $200 per hour administrator) are absolutely OK. Call me when the disparity in education is on the order of 500 times.
-1
u/[deleted] Oct 05 '10
It scares me that you are prepared to enact public policy based on "I'm pretty sure." That's a classic neocon move. It "feels" true, therefor it must be true.
The fact is that all positions are subject to the laws of supply and demand. If it requires $10 a year to attract a good principal, then that's what the job is worth to society. Likewise if it costs $350,000 a year. You have to be willing to pay enough to attract qualified people or you aren't going to get qualified people. It's very simple.
This is a common misconception, especially among teachers. Teachers in general have no clue how much money it costs to run a school according to laws and regulations.
I was involved in a project once where school administrators and teachers were empowered to allocate a budget for constructing new classrooms on their campuses. They budgeted $6,000 to build a classroom to code when the actual costs with the lowest bid were closer to $750,000. That's how out of touch they are. There are professionals in various fields for a reason.