Sunday, May 8, 2011

9 to 5 -- a conventional and possibly tedious job, connoting a tedious or unremarkable occupation

Due to the current state of the economy, many begrudge teacher benefits. Teachers often seem to have an 8 to 3 job, with fewer hours than the average worker. Their insurance benefits and pension coverage in addition to teacher tenure can seem particularly egregious during the budget shortfalls plaguing the states.

Yet the very best teachers, who seem to inspire greatness in students, and raise the bar for their students are often unmentioned in this debate. I have been lucky enough to have had many of these teachers, and I can honestly say that they are deserving of every benefit that they have earned.

With the exception of 3 teachers that I have ever had, every teacher of mine has considered teaching to be far more than an 8 to 3 job. I have frequently come in before school, after school, and even during lunch to ask my teachers for help. My teachers are always willing to help me, even if I am no longer in their class.

Furthermore, teachers provide so much more than an education. Aside from parents, they are probably among the biggest role models in a student's life. One of my science teachers still asks me how I am everyday, even though I am no longer in her class. My teachers enjoy talking to students, seeing it as a chance to remember why they chose to teach. The enthusiasm that they bring to the classroom belies the stereotype that teachers are teaching for the money or the benefits. They teach because they enjoy training young minds that will guide the future.

It is interesting to note that teachers are often under compensated in comparison to similarly qualified private sector workers. The stereotype that teachers teach because of the benefits has come about due to the relatively poor stature teachers receive in public schools. Many teachers often come from the bottom third of their graduating classes, because higher performing students are encouraged to become private sector workers. This is in stark contrast to countries such as Singapore, which recruit teachers from the top third of graduating classes and require teachers to pass difficult exams in exchange for high respect as a teacher and a large salary, surpassing that of a beginning doctor. The result is better performing schools, as Singapore is currently ranked the best country for a math education.

Ironically, calls to cut teacher benefits will further the destruction of a public school education. Following the model of countries that offer better benefits will make schools better and provide superior long run returns, as better educated students create a stronger economy. Personally, I was lucky enough to find teachers that do love teaching for the sake of teaching and pushed me to become a better student. Reforming teacher benefits could allow that same opportunity for EVERY student.

For more information, this is an interesting article from TIME magazine.

Sunday, May 1, 2011

Economics -- n. the study of human behavior in the face of scarcity

Can you apply economic thought to the problem of education? Definitely!

Economics is the study of human behavior in the face of scarcity. When you consider the American economy as a whole, it's very obvious that scarcity of money is a huge problem. There is limited supply of money available to spend on a plethora of options, ranging from public works, to unemployment benefits, to tax breaks for business. However, the effect of government spending on these projects varies immensely.

Government intervention in economics basically affects the economy in one of two ways: by increasing the demand for goods, or increasing the supply of goods. Processes such as paying for unemployment benefits or repaving roads stimulate demand by encouraging people to buy more goods, or allowing the government to buy goods or services. However, this short-term solution comes with many drawbacks. The short-term increase in demand results in an increase in RGDP as well as a larger increase in inflation. Demand-side stimulation works only if the economy is in an extreme recession.

However, supply-side stimulation works much better, in theory. By increasing supply, the cost of goods decrease while RGDP increases simultaneously! This type of stimulation is caused by an increase in technology, a better input (such as cheaper raw materials or more labor), or by tax cuts and subsidies for companies. The most direct method of government intervention is obviously tax cuts for businesses. This measure easily earns politicians pro-business credentials, but is often useless in practical terms because businesses expect that this policy is short-term. Since the savings are temporary, businesses are not ready to increase production to the levels necessary to spur the economy for the long term, choosing to save the larger part of the savings. The resulting change in RGDP is minimal at best.

So, does that mean that the economy is doomed to remain stagnant? No! In fact, the most reliable way to maintain high levels of growth is to focus on developing new technology that streamlines production and to create a better work force -- through education. The key to long-term, stable growth is a well-educated population that can create jobs and provide excellent skills to maintain the country. These educated people will innovate the necessities of the future.

Unfortunately, in Michigan, Governor Snyder is taking the opposite approach. He is subsidizing tax cuts with cuts to education. In the long-run, the economy will suffer due to the lack of innovation. But in the short-term, it will seem as though Michigan has been pulled out of the recession. It's only too bad that the long-run will be far less rosy.

The levels of economic growth that was sustained during the past few decades was actually the result of the decisions made regarding education in the 50s and 60s. Such prosperity can hardly be expected in the near future with such minimized attention to education.