What should be cut first?

[daughtersrus]

Apparently at least one teacher posting on this thread doesn't think teacher's schedules are very good. That poster seems dissapointed that they can't make up time on Sat. and can only take vacations in summer months and during Spring and Winter breaks.

I do not feel that teachers don't work a whole lot. Where I have a problem is with the teachers that can't fit all the work into their work day that feel they should not have to take work home or stay late or go in early. Teachers need to do whatever it take to get the job done, just like every other professional out there.

As for pay. In my area teachers are compensated fairly, if not well, for their jobs. I have not attempted to speak for any area other than the one I live in.

dsny1mom

I'm guessing that you're talking about my post since you brought up working on Saturdays.

First of all, I'm not a teacher. The point that I was making is that it's apples to oranges when teachers are being compared to salaried employees when they are not . You can't have it both ways.

 

[december]

This is my last post here. But do people here really have no concept of life outside their neighborhoods? Do you really think that all parents are able, or willing, to pay for all these extras? Who will drive their kids to school and pick them up? Pay for them to take electives? There are parents who only have kids for the check every month. They barely feed them, so their only decent meals are at school. They don't get Christmas presents, or birthday presents, or even an I love you. So these kids don't get educated because their parents won't pay? Then what? They turn to crime, because they can't survive any other way. And they have children, which continues the cycle. That affects ALL of us! Teachers get it, because we see it every day. At least in my area we do. Not only do I teach math, but I serve as an example to these kids that there is another way. That with an education, they can do better. And be happy. Not just survive. But by all means, keep on debating how we make too much money and should be happy to take a paycut and work more hours.

 

[dsanner106]

Obviously I would start with administrative cuts, but if pressed, I would add 2 hrs to the school day, making it last until 4:30 and cut out fridays altogether. The school usage is cut 20 percent, one fewer day of lunches, utilities, bussing with it's costs etc. Teachers keep the same pay as they are still teaching the same hours and grading the same number of papers etc. Keep the sports, band etc. That should save a good bit. If further pressed, build up boosters for the sports to raise funds for those outside.

Drew

 

[DizBelle]

I understand how education is funded now but the suggestion was that parents of special needs children should have to pay for the education while the parents of regular education students would not.
Are you suggesting vouchers where parents are allotted a specific amount of money and if it costs more than that to educate their child, they would have to pay the difference?

Like I said, I don't have the answer. But the fact is that education dollars are not infinite. We have to decide where those dollars are best spent. What is the best way to spend those dollars that will be best for society as a whole? If a small percentage of students are getting the majority of the dollars, how does that benefit society as a whole?

I certainly think that it would be best if all students got what they needed to help them become the most productive members of society that they can be. What I'm not sure of is who should pay for it. One of the things that you should consider when deciding to become a parent is what your potential responsibility might be. Your child may have special needs and may need a lot of extra help to become a productive adult. Your child may be way beyond their peers and may benefit from a more challenging education. Your child may be such that they need 24/7 care and need to be changed and fed for their entire lives. What a person cannot do is decide to become a parent and then decide that they will not be responsible for their child. There is no guarantee that your child will only require standard care. If you don't want the responsibility, don't become a parent.

 

[Bella the Ball 360]

Remember AYP is not a great way to judge a school. For example, a school may have 28 sub categories, if the school makes AYP in 27 of the categories, and misses just the 1, then that school is considered a failing school.

correct! I think the money paid to all the top heavy fat cats should be cut first.

 

[angwill]

Like I said, I don't have the answer. But the fact is that education dollars are not infinite. We have to decide where those dollars are best spent. What is the best way to spend those dollars that will be best for society as a whole? If a small percentage of students are getting the majority of the dollars, how does that benefit society as a whole?

I certainly think that it would be best if all students got what they needed to help them become the most productive members of society that they can be. What I'm not sure of is who should pay for it. One of the things that you should consider when deciding to become a parent is what your potential responsibility might be. Your child may have special needs and may need a lot of extra help to become a productive adult. Your child may be way beyond their peers and may benefit from a more challenging education. Your child may be such that they need 24/7 care and need to be changed and fed for their entire lives. What a person cannot do is decide to become a parent and then decide that they will not be responsible for their child. There is no guarantee that your child will be "normal". If you don't want the responsibility, don't become a parent.

Wow, it sounds like you are saying only rich peopl,e who can afford to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in case they have a child with disabilities, and people born with a responsible nature when it comes to raising and having children should be entitled to have children. Now I wonder how that law can be put into place? Sorry, but that just makes no sense.

 

[luvsJack]

Around here if you look at the budget the most money goes towards teacher salary and benefits. Teachers have the Cadillac of health insurance. Several years ago they were complaining when their Rx copay went from $2 to $5. They were actually going to vote down the contract because of it. I don't know anyone in the real world who has $5 Rx copay let alone $2. Teachers need to get a grip on reality and what's going on with the real world and adjust like the rest of us. School districts could safe tons of money by offering less expensive health insurance.

Sorry, but the bolded comment made me laugh. Our teachers have the same insurance I do and I can assure you its more like the 1972 Chevette of health insurance, not the Cadillac. There is no co-pay for anything and a large deductible. Most of the people I know never even meet the deductible unless they have a baby or a serious illness or injury. We do have pharmacy card of sorts, the deduction of prescriptions is so small for most things, we don't even notice it. Its there if we ever need it for major hospital stays but other than, pretty much useless.

 

[luvsJack]

Well, 4 year olds aren't so bad-it's their parents that have the problems .

Ain't it the truth!!

 

[daughtersrus]

What I'm not sure of is who should pay for it. One of the things that you should consider when deciding to become a parent is what your potential responsibility might be. Your child may have special needs and may need a lot of extra help to become a productive adult. Your child may be way beyond their peers and may benefit from a more challenging education. Your child may be such that they need 24/7 care and need to be changed and fed for their entire lives. What a person cannot do is decide to become a parent and then decide that they will not be responsible for their child. There is no guarantee that your child will be "normal". If you don't want the responsibility, don't become a parent.

I agree that parents should be responsible but what I don't agree with is the idea that if you have a normal child, society is responsible to pay for their education but if you have a child with special needs, the parents are responsible.

What will happen to the special needs children if their parents can't afford the education that they need to be productive members of society? When they turn 18yo, parents no longer are responsible for them and their care falls into the hands of the taxpayers. Wouldn't it be a better use of money to educate them instead of paying for life-long care?

What about the normal children that choose to waste the education that they are being given by not doing the work, not coming to school, goofing off in class...should their parents be responsible to find a school for them and pay for it?

I just don't see how someone will determine which children deserve a public education and which ones do not.

 

[DizBelle]

I agree that parents should be responsible but what I don't agree with is the idea that if you have a normal child, society is responsible to pay for their education but if you have a child with special needs, the parents are responsible.

What will happen to the special needs children if their parents can't afford the education that they need to be productive members of society? When they turn 18yo, parents no longer are responsible for them and their care falls into the hands of the taxpayers. Wouldn't it be a better use of money to educate them instead of paying for life-long care?

What about the normal children that choose to waste the education that they are being given by not doing the work, not coming to school, goofing off in class...should their parents be responsible to find a school for them and pay for it?

I just don't see how someone will determine which children deserve a public education and which ones do not.

Again, I don't have the answer. But the fact remains that education dollars are not infinite and somebody (many somebodies) are not going to get 100% of what they need. We have to decide who that is going to be.

 

[daughtersrus]

Again, I don't have the answer. But the fact remains that education dollars are not infinite and somebody (many somebodies) are not going to get 100% of what they need. We have to decide who that is going to be.

If we cut special education, we (taxpayers) will be paying much more for many years to come to care for them once they reach 18yo.

 

[DizBelle]

If we cut special education, we (taxpayers) will be paying much more for many years to come to care for them once they reach 18yo.

This is true too. How much more are you willing to pay in taxes now so that every student can get 100% of what they need? Twice as much? Three times as much?

 

[DizBelle]

I agree that parents should be responsible but what I don't agree with is the idea that if you have a normal child, society is responsible to pay for their education but if you have a child with special needs, the parents are responsible.

What will happen to the special needs children if their parents can't afford the education that they need to be productive members of society? When they turn 18yo, parents no longer are responsible for them and their care falls into the hands of the taxpayers. Wouldn't it be a better use of money to educate them instead of paying for life-long care?

What about the normal children that choose to waste the education that they are being given by not doing the work, not coming to school, goofing off in class...should their parents be responsible to find a school for them and pay for it?

I just don't see how someone will determine which children deserve a public education and which ones do not.

Every child deserves what the public education system can provide with the funds it has. The problem is that it may not be suitable for all of them. What then? That's the tricky part.

 

[luvsJack]

I don't think any of us really have all the answers in this.

I imagine that each school district will just have to have many long budget meetings (just as the college I am working for is doing). Cuts should be made first in the places that affect the students the least.

Our school has office personnel in the individual school office and in the district office that can be eliminated, your school may have other personnel that are not absolutely required for the school to operate. The first pay cut should come from the very top and may have to trickle down to the teachers (but please, do not act as though they can take the cut because they don't work hard or work enough hours or whatever--they work just as hard and just as long as anyone in any other career choice). I think cutting teacher's pay should be the last consideration made. If we start losing teachers, we lose our schools; one cannot operate without the other.

Cutting art, music, sports will seriously hurt students later. If one school cuts these things, their students will not have the same background and experiences when they get to high school or to college and that can seriously handicap them.

Cutting special ed. should be completely out of the question; if at all possible. Too many low income families cannot provide the education their disabled child will require. I know that parents of gifted children will disagree with me whole heartedly, but if any cuts were to be made in special ed., imho it should come from the gifted programs. In my district, the gifted program is not an enrichment of the classroom studies but more like an extra class to be taken. Many of the kids feel like they are being punished for being gifted anyway and resent being a part of the program.

I just don't know if there are any "easy" cuts in education. My personal opinion is that each state should make cuts every where possible before they make any in education. Too often, education is cut first.

 

[DizBelle]

I don't think any of us really have all the answers in this.

I imagine that each school district will just have to have many long budget meetings (just as the college I am working for is doing). Cuts should be made first in the places that affect the students the least.

Our school has office personnel in the individual school office and in the district office that can be eliminated, your school may have other personnel that are not absolutely required for the school to operate. The first pay cut should come from the very top and may have to trickle down to the teachers (but please, do not act as though they can take the cut because they don't work hard or work enough hours or whatever--they work just as hard and just as long as anyone in any other career choice). I think cutting teacher's pay should be the last consideration made. If we start losing teachers, we lose our schools; one cannot operate without the other.

Cutting art, music, sports will seriously hurt students later. If one school cuts these things, their students will not have the same background and experiences when they get to high school or to college and that can seriously handicap them.

Cutting special ed. should be completely out of the question; if at all possible. Too many low income families cannot provide the education their disabled child will require. I know that parents of gifted children will disagree with me whole heartedly, but if any cuts were to be made in special ed., imho it should come from the gifted programs. In my district, the gifted program is not an enrichment of the classroom studies but more like an extra class to be taken. Many of the kids feel like they are being punished for being gifted anyway and resent being a part of the program.

I just don't know if there are any "easy" cuts in education. My personal opinion is that each state should make cuts every where possible before they make any in education. Too often, education is cut first.

I think one thing can be garnered from this whole thread. This is not easy.

We all have to keep in mind that education is not free. That "free and appropriate education" is a misnomer. It costs money and that money has to come from somewhere. But there is only so much available. You have to decide where that money is best spent. In making that decision, someone is going to have to sacrifice something. Not everyone can be served 100%.

I would LOVE if every child could get the exact education that they need. But that is just not possible.

 

[Robinrs]

I don't think any of us really have all the answers in this.

I imagine that each school district will just have to have many long budget meetings (just as the college I am working for is doing). Cuts should be made first in the places that affect the students the least.

Our school has office personnel in the individual school office and in the district office that can be eliminated, your school may have other personnel that are not absolutely required for the school to operate. The first pay cut should come from the very top and may have to trickle down to the teachers (but please, do not act as though they can take the cut because they don't work hard or work enough hours or whatever--they work just as hard and just as long as anyone in any other career choice). I think cutting teacher's pay should be the last consideration made. If we start losing teachers, we lose our schools; one cannot operate without the other.

Cutting art, music, sports will seriously hurt students later. If one school cuts these things, their students will not have the same background and experiences when they get to high school or to college and that can seriously handicap them.

Cutting special ed. should be completely out of the question; if at all possible. Too many low income families cannot provide the education their disabled child will require. I know that parents of gifted children will disagree with me whole heartedly, but if any cuts were to be made in special ed., imho it should come from the gifted programs. In my district, the gifted program is not an enrichment of the classroom studies but more like an extra class to be taken. Many of the kids feel like they are being punished for being gifted anyway and resent being a part of the program.

I just don't know if there are any "easy" cuts in education. My personal opinion is that each state should make cuts every where possible before they make any in education. Too often, education is cut first.

Best answer EVER!!

 

[Disneyrsh]

.

 

[luvsJack]

I see, so we take the best and the brightest our country has to offer and say, screw you kid, Johnny average here's going to be the one that gets the money.

We are so going down the socialist toilet.

Sorry, but if choices need to be made in special ed. then yes the gifted children can take the cuts better than a child who is disabled. That is the way I see it. Our best and brightest are still going to shine. Just because they don't get the gifted class in second grade isn't going to stop that.

Do you really think that its better for the funds to be cut for the program that helps the child with learning disabilities than it is for the gifted program?

Please, keep in mind, my personal preference would be for NO funds to be cut. But, if a choice must be made that is the choice I think would best serve the children.

 

[DizBelle]

Sorry, but if choices need to be made in special ed. then yes the gifted children can take the cuts better than a child who is disabled. That is the way I see it. Our best and brightest are still going to shine. Just because they don't get the gifted class in second grade isn't going to stop that.

Do you really think that its better for the funds to be cut for the program that helps the child with learning disabilities than it is for the gifted program?

Please, keep in mind, my personal preference would be for NO funds to be cut. But, if a choice must be made that is the choice I think would best serve the children.

Of course no one prefers for cuts to be made but the fact is there is a limited amount of money and something has to give.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I see, so we take the best and the brightest our country has to offer and say, screw you kid, Johnny average here's going to be the one that gets the money.

We are so going down the socialist toilet.

B/c saying no to a dyslexic or an autistic or a mentally challenged disabled child is VERY democratic.


Gifted children can be tought in a regular classroom setting utilizing less funds than perhaps at present.

I ENJOYED my gifted studies--very fascinating and it kept my interest in school. But they weren't critical.

A dyslexic student has a critical need to read....
An autistic child has a critical need to be educated...
As do the mentally challenged...
as do the blind...
as do the deaf....

A gifted child doesn't have a critical need to do a unit study on butterflies b/c it is just cooler to learn that way. It helps expand their horizens, but they do not suffer academically if the program were absent.

I only had "gifted" for 2 years as an exclusive class and 1 year as my social studies class. I *survived*.

A dyslexic student will not if accomodations are never made to faciliate their disability so that they can actually learn to read and then read to learn.

HUGE DIFFERENCE.

Oh--and my 4th grader is gifted---but homeschooled.

I bought her a Reading workbook for the gifted so she can learn about "cooler" things while working on her reading comprehension. Otherwise, her curriculum is a standard education curriculum.
The book was $10-$15.

Contrast that with the various tools needed to help people with actual deficiencies.....

Yeah--the gifted kid can "suffer" through a regular curriculum instead of a disabled child who cannot actually do a regular curriculum.

To suggest otherwise--is WRONG.

IF supply is limited--you help those who cannot possibliy help themselves first before given "extras" to the kids who are brainiacs.

People who can't tell teh difference between the two aren't doing the gifted any favors by neglecting those in society who require services just to FUNCTION.