If IT doesn't pass

[Tim Lohrmann <timlohr@yahoo.com>]

Visionaries,
     This post is speculative since there is
not a school levy scheduled yet, at least not to my
knowledge. If there is one held, it might very
well pass. So In case the levy is unsuccessful, I'll
share some thoughts. 
      
    The scenario we've been given(if the levy fails)
is
 something like firing 30 teachers, closing a school,
 etc. I noticed that only 2 administrators would
 lose their jobs. 
 
  I realize that educators and many, many others
 disagree with the politicians and will try to elect
 new ones more sympathetic to expanded school funding
That's as it should be. But, at least until next
November, there seems to be little that
 can be done about the politicos. Apparently something
 has to be done about the local education budget much
 sooner than that. 
So, in view of the fact that teaching jobs are
 almost impossible to find locally, wouldn't it make
more sense(in the spirit of solidarity) for the school
 district employees to ask their union to look into an
across the board percentage temporary pay decrease as
opposed to firing this relatively large number of
teachers?
 And by across the board, I mean administrators too.
It
 would seem that many of the administrators are being
 paid significantly more than the teachers who
 actually interact with the students, and so might be
able to agree to a larger percentage pay decrease. 
 
 This is a terrible alternative I realize. I agree
 that teachers have a very important career and
deserve to be paid more, not less. But if nothing else
can be done--at least in the short term--it seems this
bitter medicine would be preferable to the firing of
such a large number of individuals who would have
little prospect of finding comparable employment in
this area. Sure, this reduction wouldn't do much for
staff morale. But just think of the morale of those
teachers who lose their jobs completely?
 
 Another cost reduction that seems possible is in the
 area of technology. One of the justifications for
 large expenditures on computers for the classroom is
 that technology is rapidly advancing and children
 must be able to use it or be unprepared upon
graduation. If it's true, as we all know it to be,
that computer technology is changing so rapidly, then
does it make much sense for us to be training students
on equipment and software that will undoubtedly be
obsolete by the time the student enters the job market
after graduation? Couldn't the school system offer
mandatory computer technology classes in the Junior
and Senior years of High School? This makes some sense
in that it would be offering instruction on equipment
that is likely to be in actual use when the student
graduates. Also, it would enable the school system to
save the money that is presently spent on computers,
software, and instruction to students in the lower
grades--students being trained on soon-to-be obsolete
hard and software. It also might free time up for the
younger students to spend their time learing basic
thinking skills and concepts.
Just some thoughts, TL
  
 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! 
http://auctions.yahoo.com