The problem with public education in the States is that the districts are too small, comprising only inner-city schools or only suburban schools or only rural schools. The result is a vast funding disparity between the inner city and the suburbs. In Canada, our school boards are generally based in the cities and service the surrounding suburbs and some rural areas. This means that the funding is more evenly distributed. It's not perfect, because when funding cuts happen, the suburbs make up their losses through fundraising while the inner city schools simply do without. But it seems to me you don't get the same kind of disparity that I hear about in the States. (Please, if I'm wrong, correct me - this is an impression formed from articles about inner-city schools in the States, and that's all it is.)
In the States, three things need to happen: the funding needs to be increased to meet the actual needs of students, it needs to be equalized across all areas, and it needs to pay, in part, for better teacher salaries. If anything, the schools getting more funding should be the ones doing poorest, and the funding should go into extra training for the teachers and extra early-childhood programs at little to no cost to parents, to make up for the lack of early childhood stimulation that puts poor kids at a disadvantage from the get-go. As for teacher salaries - people need to earn a living wage, especially if they've got student debt to pay off, and if you want professional people you have to be prepared to pay them professional salaries. If those things happened, you'd see a marked improvement in school performance quite quickly.
Arts programs should not be a frill reserved for rich kids - who can, after all, afford private lessons. They should be a part of the educational spectrum at all public schools, all the time. Period.
And of course, the political will to do all of this doesn't exist, because too many people are looking at it as someone else's problem - they're going to homeschool their kids as their church demands, so why on earth would they care to improve public education?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-16 09:55 pm (UTC)In the States, three things need to happen: the funding needs to be increased to meet the actual needs of students, it needs to be equalized across all areas, and it needs to pay, in part, for better teacher salaries. If anything, the schools getting more funding should be the ones doing poorest, and the funding should go into extra training for the teachers and extra early-childhood programs at little to no cost to parents, to make up for the lack of early childhood stimulation that puts poor kids at a disadvantage from the get-go. As for teacher salaries - people need to earn a living wage, especially if they've got student debt to pay off, and if you want professional people you have to be prepared to pay them professional salaries. If those things happened, you'd see a marked improvement in school performance quite quickly.
Arts programs should not be a frill reserved for rich kids - who can, after all, afford private lessons. They should be a part of the educational spectrum at all public schools, all the time. Period.
And of course, the political will to do all of this doesn't exist, because too many people are looking at it as someone else's problem - they're going to homeschool their kids as their church demands, so why on earth would they care to improve public education?