|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
Report Comment
"After pounding away in column after column about the critical need to fund education at the regional average, Arnold Hamilton has finally won me over to his argument. I see now our only choice to improve public education in Oklahoma is to spend vastly more on it than we do now.
Vast spending on public education will allow us to do two things. First, we can take away all those confusing choices for parents who want to get their kids out of a failing public school, because papering over a school’s problems with lots of money can’t help but fix things. No more need for charter schools, private schools, or home schooling. Second, we can raise all teacher salaries to well over six figures, and at least double that for administrators. That will insure awesome teaching and administrating.
However, I’m wondering if the more we spend kids will keep getting dumber and dumber anyway. My mom got a great education from a one-room rural school. I think they spent about $10 per year per pupil back then, which adjusted for inflation, works out to around $200 per pupil in this present age. Two hundred dollars is about $6,300 less per year than Oklahoma is spending per pupil right now. Does more mean less?
Parents can still throw wild celebrations over their children's academic achievements. Except instead of rejoicing over acceptance to MIT, Stanford, or one of the service academies, it can be when your 19-year-old finally learns to spell “cat”.
Of course we still need to set the bar for education. We just need to re-target where we set the bar. Like on the floor, so to speak.
Less is more!"
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
