D
David Kerber
Guest
In article <[email protected]>, "frkrygow" <"frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu> says...
> None wrote:
> > Additionally, as am employee of a small school district, there are added costs in today's world
> > that were not present in the educational environment of yesteryear.
> >
> > There have been added legislative requirements that make school buildings more expensive (safe,
> > useable, effecient, etc.), the price of land in the size needed has increased as well as good
> > citizens thinking they can get a premium when schools buy their land (government has lots of
> > money), educational expectations and reporting requirements have increased (local, state and
> > federal), we have things now that we didn't have even 25 years ago (computers, networks, larger
> > sports arenas, higher utility bills, etc.), Title IX and other gender equalizing legislation,
> > laws mandating that public schools offer the same programs to all eligible students regardless
> > of circumstance (handicapped, multi-ethnic, etc.), salaries of teachers and staff have risen
> > (some would say they are still too low) and all of this combined with a growing sense of
> > increased expectations has added costs to our educational system that were not present in the
> > funding considerations of the time period we would all like to return to. ...
>
> It seems to me that some of those "rising costs" may not have risen much if measured in constant
> dollars - which is the only rational way to measure such things. Some other things mentioned are,
> I think, of _highly_ questionable value.
IMO they are, but they are still required by law.
...
> But attitudes can be changed (partly by discussion, which we're engaged in now), and when
> attitudes change, the direction of the changes can be affected. My attitude is that "out-in-the-
> cornfield" schools have negatives that need to be recognized; and that school, being one
> place where children _have_ to go, should normally be in a place a child can get to. Seems
> logical to me!
The counter-argument is that since the kids are required to go, it doesn't matter where it is,
because the parents will do whatever is necessary to get them there, so they might as well put it
where land is cheap. I don't agree with this, but it's certainly a possibility.
...
> Seems to me it's spent to give opportunties and priveledges to a small group of student athletes,
> of whom an at-best tiny percentage may have brief careers chasing after balls in front of bigger
> audiences. Most will gain no benefit at all, other than stories to tell when sitting in a bar
> someday.
Team sports have benefits other than the rare chance of getting a scholarship or making a living at
them. Working as a team, working hard to achieve a goal, physical fitness, making friends beyond the
crowd you normally hang out with, to name just a few.
> I know it's simplistic, but if that money were spent instead to make the school accessible by
> walking or biking, we might encourage healthy habits in a much larger group of students.
They are not mutually exclusive.
--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!
REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
> None wrote:
> > Additionally, as am employee of a small school district, there are added costs in today's world
> > that were not present in the educational environment of yesteryear.
> >
> > There have been added legislative requirements that make school buildings more expensive (safe,
> > useable, effecient, etc.), the price of land in the size needed has increased as well as good
> > citizens thinking they can get a premium when schools buy their land (government has lots of
> > money), educational expectations and reporting requirements have increased (local, state and
> > federal), we have things now that we didn't have even 25 years ago (computers, networks, larger
> > sports arenas, higher utility bills, etc.), Title IX and other gender equalizing legislation,
> > laws mandating that public schools offer the same programs to all eligible students regardless
> > of circumstance (handicapped, multi-ethnic, etc.), salaries of teachers and staff have risen
> > (some would say they are still too low) and all of this combined with a growing sense of
> > increased expectations has added costs to our educational system that were not present in the
> > funding considerations of the time period we would all like to return to. ...
>
> It seems to me that some of those "rising costs" may not have risen much if measured in constant
> dollars - which is the only rational way to measure such things. Some other things mentioned are,
> I think, of _highly_ questionable value.
IMO they are, but they are still required by law.
...
> But attitudes can be changed (partly by discussion, which we're engaged in now), and when
> attitudes change, the direction of the changes can be affected. My attitude is that "out-in-the-
> cornfield" schools have negatives that need to be recognized; and that school, being one
> place where children _have_ to go, should normally be in a place a child can get to. Seems
> logical to me!
The counter-argument is that since the kids are required to go, it doesn't matter where it is,
because the parents will do whatever is necessary to get them there, so they might as well put it
where land is cheap. I don't agree with this, but it's certainly a possibility.
...
> Seems to me it's spent to give opportunties and priveledges to a small group of student athletes,
> of whom an at-best tiny percentage may have brief careers chasing after balls in front of bigger
> audiences. Most will gain no benefit at all, other than stories to tell when sitting in a bar
> someday.
Team sports have benefits other than the rare chance of getting a scholarship or making a living at
them. Working as a team, working hard to achieve a goal, physical fitness, making friends beyond the
crowd you normally hang out with, to name just a few.
> I know it's simplistic, but if that money were spent instead to make the school accessible by
> walking or biking, we might encourage healthy habits in a much larger group of students.
They are not mutually exclusive.
--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!
REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
