Wiseacre
Retired USAF Chief
In Obama's speech last night, he said that laying off teachers has to stop. I wasn't aware that many teachers have been laid off, and those that were might have been as a result of the teachers union refusing to accept lower benefits in exchange for fewer layoffs, if any.
My question is, how many teachers do you think are being laid off relative to the administration (non-teachers). What's your experience or knowledge, are we really cutting teachers over non-teachers?
(snippet from a response to Obama's speech at Heritage.com)
Jobs for Teachers?
In his remarks tonight, President Obama argued that his jobs proposal would create more jobs for teachers. He went as far as to say laying off teachers "has to stop".
But since 1970, student enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools has increased just 7 percent, while public elementary and secondary staff hires have increased 83 percent. Moreover, in the 1950′s, there were approximately 2.36 teachers for every non-teacher in a school district. Today, in our nations school systems, that ratio is closer to 1 to 1. So every teacher in the classroom has an administrative counterpart in your local public school district. That is a tremendous strain on state budgets. But it is also a huge boon the education unions.
President Obamas call to spend more precious taxpayer dollars to "prevent teacher layoffs" may do more to inflate schools non-teaching rosters than to retain teachers.
On a per-pupil basis, federal spending on education has nearly tripled since the 1970′s. And those who have benefited the most from this profligacy arent the children sitting in the nations classrooms. No, the increase in federal education spending (and commensurate increase in Washingtons involvement in local schools) hasnt led to improvements in academic achievement, to increased graduation rates, or even to a narrowing of the achievement gap. It hasnt served to improve outcomes for children, but it has propped-up the public education jobs program that too often aims to meet the needs of the adults in the system, not the children it was designed to educate.
My question is, how many teachers do you think are being laid off relative to the administration (non-teachers). What's your experience or knowledge, are we really cutting teachers over non-teachers?
(snippet from a response to Obama's speech at Heritage.com)
Jobs for Teachers?
In his remarks tonight, President Obama argued that his jobs proposal would create more jobs for teachers. He went as far as to say laying off teachers "has to stop".
But since 1970, student enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools has increased just 7 percent, while public elementary and secondary staff hires have increased 83 percent. Moreover, in the 1950′s, there were approximately 2.36 teachers for every non-teacher in a school district. Today, in our nations school systems, that ratio is closer to 1 to 1. So every teacher in the classroom has an administrative counterpart in your local public school district. That is a tremendous strain on state budgets. But it is also a huge boon the education unions.
President Obamas call to spend more precious taxpayer dollars to "prevent teacher layoffs" may do more to inflate schools non-teaching rosters than to retain teachers.
On a per-pupil basis, federal spending on education has nearly tripled since the 1970′s. And those who have benefited the most from this profligacy arent the children sitting in the nations classrooms. No, the increase in federal education spending (and commensurate increase in Washingtons involvement in local schools) hasnt led to improvements in academic achievement, to increased graduation rates, or even to a narrowing of the achievement gap. It hasnt served to improve outcomes for children, but it has propped-up the public education jobs program that too often aims to meet the needs of the adults in the system, not the children it was designed to educate.