He was
certainly aided by the fact that teachers were relatively much higher
paid than today---attracting the best as in any other business other
than education.
So you've said before: Education is like any other business, if you spend
more money you get a better "product." This leaves is with an enigma: the
schools systems that do the best academically aren't the ones where the most
money is spent. Speculation aside, it has been demonstrated many times
over that more spending and higher teacher salaraies do NOT mean better
education. It makes no difference how ligocal it sounds or how much the
principle *ought* to apply, it *doesn't*.
If we assume that your principle MUST hold true, then what schools produce
is not education. (If that were true, the schools with the highest teacher
salaries would have the best education). Rather they must be doing
something else, like indoctrination.
*washingtonpost.com* <http://www.washingtonpost.com/>
*Good Homes, Good Students*
By William Raspberry
What the author fails to address, and all of his ilk fail to address, is
that if schools and the government weren't usurping an inordinate proportion
of our children's time and their parent's money (and therefore, their time),
then perhaps they could be more involved with their children as he
advocates.
James
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.