<p>
</p>
<p>If the teachers are already employed by the school district, why would it cost more?
Moot point here anyway, most of the HS teachers in our district have masters degrees anyway.</p>
<p>In private schools, we pay for EVERYTHING (plus property tax for public schools, I might add). I don’t see why public schools would pay for ANYTHING but the bare minimum. That’s what parents (and kids) are for.</p>
<p>“I don’t see why public schools would pay for ANYTHING but the bare minimum.”</p>
<p>Because the stability of our democracy and our economic security depend on an educated population, maybe?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t disagree with the concept of public school- far from it. I just don’t see how democracy and economic security are helped by lacrosse, drama and band. Those are wonderful activities that should be funded by parents and students.</p>
<p>I guess it depends on what you view the bare minimum is. Should only kids who have money be given the opportunity to participate in sports, band, or the school newspaper? What about counselors? A school nurse? Access to the library after school? Custodians? Unfortunately, all those things are disappearing from our schools.</p>
<p>Re: Eliminating APs and “College-in-the-High School” courses…</p>
<p>The rationale that has been floated in some school districts in our area is that money can be saved by eliminating these courses because teaching positions can be cut if fewer electives are offered. Instead of 5 social studies positions, for example, a high school could get by with 4 positions if the AP US History, AP World History, Modern European History (a community college course) and Asian History (community college course) electives were eliminated.</p>
<p>If your district is considering eliminating a program or an EC (ie, Freshmen Football), and they state that the program costs $190,000/year, for example, do they ever do an analysis to see if any of the $190K can be reduced?</p>
<p>At one of our high schools, the administration decided to forgo a corporate sponsorship of our football field/stadium a couple of years ago. That would have paid for a LOT of athletic needs. But they decided that they didn’t want to get into the whole branding thing at the high school level. I wonder what they would decide if the offer came in this year?</p>
<p>Also, in my district, our school board is housed in five (?) old and antiquated buildings in locations scattered across the district. The school board is constructing a new, singular building that is centrally located. I personally think the new building is a good idea, as it saves a ton of money annually over the operating expenses of the five old buildings. The five buildings will be sold off (when the market allows…which could be a long time, I concede.) The staff will be co-located, cutting down on delivery expenses and time delays between buildings, and increasing economies of scale. There is a contingent of citizens who comment how they change their driving pattern to avoid driving by the new BOE “palace” because it makes them so sick in these financially strapped times.</p>
<p>I think it’s a good move on the BOE’s behalf to go forward with this new building; its cost savings will save money on the bottom line…helping to NOT eliminate various ECs and educational programs.</p>
<p>There are lots of options for boards of eduction…but it takes a lot of creativity and guts to make them happen. And some areas have already done that and must now make cuts that impact the classroom. I’m sad when these cuts happen…like teacher furloughs, huge classes, elimination of certain classes, not rehiring retired teachers…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Math, Science, English, History. Custodians and maintenance. Lunch room with sliding scale lunch discounts. Nurse. That’s it. Everything else should be funded by parents and kids. Yes, only kids ‘with money’ should have access to the ‘extras’. That’s how it works in the real world- if you want to join the country club, no one will pay for you. Want to drive an Escalade? You have to pay for it! Those are the principles that our country were founded on…</p>
<p>Obviously the classes you cite are the most important, but I think exposure to and awareness of the arts is part of being a well-rounded, and yes, fully-educated, citizen. And for some kids, high school sports or the drama club are what keeps them in school, or keeps that occupied after school so they are not hanging around getting into trouble. Could schools function without them? Perhaps, but I think the world would be a poorer place for it.</p>
<p>^ I agree, SDmom</p>
<p>As for saving teaching positions by eliminating AP classes, World History is required in our school as is US History. The students who now take them as AP will still have to take these classes, so there would be more non-AP sections of these classes. How would this eliminate teaching positions?</p>
<p>Perhaps AP classes are typically smaller since fewer students sign up?</p>
<p>raiderade- Good point. In schools where only a few students are enrolled in AP that would make sense. But in our HS, AP US History/AP World History/AP Calc AB/AP Lang/AP Psych and AP Spanish as well as others are very popular and the classes are at least as large as the regular classes.</p>
<p>If they are going to get rid of AP classes perhaps they will let capable students graduate after only 10 or 11 years in HS. That will save the schools money and let students go on to the college level courses they need. My kids thrived on APs and would have quit school if they had to take easy courses for 4 years.</p>
<p>^^ Obviously I think they’re important- and I do think that they are wonderful for kids who need to be motivated and interested in school. I just don’t think that I should have to pay for it.</p>
<p>AP classes and honors classes, on the other hand, should be publicly funded. General question- do schools in Asia fund ECs?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Would most of those with masters degrees have spent the effort to obtain them if there was not a higher salary at the end of the effort? According to the site [Teaching</a> Degree Graduates: Starting Salaries for Teachers](<a href=“http://www.topeducationdegrees.com/starting-salaries-for-education-graduates]Teaching”>http://www.topeducationdegrees.com/starting-salaries-for-education-graduates) most salaries are capped at $45,000 with a bachelors only, yet can increase to $70,000 with a masters degree. That’s a 55% increase … and it goes to $79,000 with a masters-plus. The teachers there (and elsewhere) can also get student loan forgiveness if they meet various criteria. (I assume these are averages)</p>
<p>I understand many states also reimburse some portion of the degree expenses - in Baltimore, according to [Teacher</a> Benefits](<a href=“http://www.bcps.k12.md.us/Careers/Benefits/Teacher_Benefits.asp]Teacher”>http://www.bcps.k12.md.us/Careers/Benefits/Teacher_Benefits.asp) , it’s 75% of the expense of obtaining a masters. They also get free health, dental, vision and life insurance. Then there’s the pension …</p>
<p>These are all great things, at least on the receiving end - but there’s no free lunch, even if we call it that.</p>
<p>How many of these teachers would we keep if we capped everyone at the same amount regardless of maximum degree held? Sure we have them now - but we, at least to some level, got them because we signaled that we would pay more for them - and now we (in the generic sense) are seeing that we don’t have the money we’ve already spent.</p>
<p>raiderade:</p>
<p>our AP courses are packed. The teachers defy union contract and will take up to 40/class.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why can’t the free market prevail in education? Teachers with higher qualifications and reviews should be paid more than those with lower qualifications- those with poor reviews should be on PP and if the poor performance continues, fired.</p>
<p>“AP classes and honors classes, on the other hand, should be publicly funded.”</p>
<p>mimimom–Not following your logic. Why would you think these enhanced classes should be publicly funded? Just wanting to understand your position, since you seemed to be advocating a “meat and potatoes only” school budget…</p>
<p>I’ve always wondered why education is so quick to get the axe. Isn’t that one of the few things that county governments can do that will actually increase revenue over time? Better educated people pay more taxes and earn more money, barring unusual cases.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In a free market each teacher could individually bargain for compensation, and individually promoted if doing well or fired if not - I could live with that. However, we have instead collective bargaining, with levels based on degrees, years in service, generous pensions, etc.</p>