Finance
“Money, money, money, must be funny in the rich man’s world” states Abba in one of their song
Well, when it comes to finance in Education, it’s everything but funny. It is pretty obvious that it cost more money nowadays to educate children than it used to be. With the level of technology used in schools, supplies, fieldtrip+transportation, it is quite clear that schools need more and more money in order to provide an adequate education. Funded 62% by the Provincial and 32% by the Municipal Government, as we can see most of the financing comes indirectly from our tax. But this goes toward a “respectful project”: educate our children to make sure they will have a future! As we seen in class, sometimes, budget cuts need to be done: it is a tough job to do. We knew it was fake in class but it did solicitate great discussions that I really enjoyed. I think if schools are reasonable, there should be minimum cuts to do and Education should be one of the last departments that should be cut! We can not bargain our children’s future!
There is also one thing I would like to discuss about. It is what we called the “law of efficiency”. When I heard that rural schools were not as efficient money wise compared to urban schools, I was shocked. Even if I understand the concept: paying a teacher to educate 25 to 30 children is more “efficient” than paying one for 15 to 20 children, I can not understand why people are comparing. It is completely different! Why aren’t we just closing rural schools and having just urban schools to make it even more efficient if money is so important!? Maybe I am naïve but I think we also need to take into consideration the quality of instruction in both settings. The classroom environment and the level of learning are quite different. I think a teacher will have more time to develop a trustful relationship and build a positive classroom environment in a smaller class. I am not saying it is impossible in a bigger class but certainly represents a bigger challenge. So which one in more important: cheaper education or quality education?
Hey, glad to get you talking about rural vs urban - it's one of my favorite debates. You know that I grew up on a farm outside of a Sk village of about 300 people. I also taught in two schools in Vancouver. Although my varied experience tells me that kids are kids and communities are communities, I also know that both situations (as you point out) offer great benefits. In rural areas, there is continuity and closeness. I had the opportunity as a teacher and principal to follow a student from k-12. I can't remember what grade Lane (one of my students) was in when he refused to bring his shoes for Phys. Ed. I'm sure his mom doesn't remember either. Her and I worked hard to try to get him through the class because he needed it to graduate. I do know that there was a point in his 3 years of high school that he decided to work with us and complete the required Phys. Ed. class. In a small school, he wasn't able to hide. The teacher, the principal, and the parent were the same for the whole three years that he struggled through the class! I have my doubts about whether that continuity would happen in an urban classroom. On the other hand, I completed my entire high school Chemistry and only was able to participate in one lab. The rest we did on paper. I loved Chemistry. I would have loved to see it in progress and to experience it. That was a hardship of my rural school. There is both yin and yang in both situations. They are both good and they both have draw backs. It would be the best, if we could fund education to the point that both urban and rural experienced the best of each situation. It's possible but it would cost more money than we currently spend on education.
ReplyDeleteJackie