Public education: It's all about the MONEY

Yes, it's true.

Despite what the teachers' unions and political liberals will tell you, public education in 21st century America is all about money.

Sure, students are being taught (okay, some of them are being taught) to read and write and do math. And, yes, some of them are getting to try their hand at the performing arts (in schools where these programs haven't been cut to make way for more standardized testing tutorials). And I'll grudgingly admit that some of them are even being steered into so-called gifted and talented programs -- the types of activities that just a few generations ago the majority of kids would have been expected to tackle as part of their regular coursework.

But don't look to the students to tell you the truth about what public education has evolved into. Look to the adults, the ones who run the show, the ones who negotiate salaries, benefits, and other perks that only grownups are privvy to.

Case in point: Houston ISD Superintendent Abe Saavedra recently got a bonus along with a slew of principals and teachers. The bonuses were supposedly based on "student performance," a euphemism for test scores.

Without taking time to research how bonuses were calculated -- the info is out there, I just haven't bothered to look it up -- I did note that Saavedra, who makes more than $350 K per year, also received a bonus of $77,500.

The next highest bonus went to a principal who got $29K.

Times may be tough, but only for those not in the upper echelons of public ed.

The average teacher bonus looked to be about $7K from my cursory reading of the list published in the Houston Chronicle.

So, it begs the question: Are there still teachers out there who teach because they have a passion for knowledge and want to share it with inquiring minds or have those folks left the building, leaving behind those who teach to the test (and, yes, they DO this) in the hopes of extra cash at the end?

What IS the motivator and is it really turning out better educated citizens?

On a related note, our nation's new secretary of education is speaking out about part of the proposed stimulus package that would inject about $150 billion into public schools, college grant programs, and other education-related projects.

It's worth noting that while Arne Duncan is enthusiastic about how this massive increase will save public ed. from itself (at least for awhile), the AP story I read also noted that Duncan plans to put his two children not in a Washington D.C. public school -- the D.C. schools are possibly the worst in the country, according to several news sources -- but in public school somewhere in northern Virginia.

What does it mean when the schools in the nation's capital are so bad that the president puts his daughters in the swanky Sidwell Friends private school and the secretary of education looks to another district to educate his children?

And don't get me started on the millions and millions of dollars thrown at the problem over the course of my lifetime!

But here we go again. And this time Secretary Duncan argues that throwing billions at public education is somehow going to save the economy. He doesn't really say how, but it sounds good.

From AP reporter Libby Quaid, read on:

"If we want to stimulate the economy, we need a better-educated workforce," Duncan said Thursday in an interview with The Associated Press.

"That's the only way, long-term, we're going to get out of this economic crisis," he said.

And this:

College affordability is critical, Duncan said. The stimulus plan would double spending on Pell Grants, which help low-income students pay for college, raising the maximum award by $500, to $5,350.
"In our economy, never has it been more important to go to college," Duncan said. "Well, college has never been more unaffordable. And so increasing access is hugely important. Long-term, if we want a better economy, we need more people going to college.

My guess is that two years from now when the stimulus money runs out, our public schools will be no better off than they are right now because some fundamental things will probably remain unchanged. Standardized testing will likely continue to drive the curriculum, administrators will continue to get theirs even at the expense of retaining good teachers, and cultural decay in the form of dumbed down music, literature and morals will continue to bombard our kids from all sides rendering too many of them slaves to the status quo.

Like the sharks on Wall Street and in corporate America who can't seem to account for the federal bailout monies already received, educational bureaucrats will just shrug their shoulders, say they have no other way to fix their problems, and then hold their hands out for more.

The government will probably give it to them because it's easier to throw dollars at public education than it is to really dig in and fix it right.

They like to tell us "it's for the children," but that's a big fat lie.


Be clear, dear readers. The prevailing attitude about education is that it is the means to a prosperous economy. The economy is what matters.
Nevermind how many brilliant, beautiful children are sacrificed along the way.