Quality education
To the Editor:
I am writing this in relation to state funding of education. It seems to be the hot topic at this time. There are those who say we need more funding in order to continue quality education.
I'd like to say at the outset that this letter has nothing to do with being against education. But my thought always is, what do we mean when we talk about quality education?
If we with grown children talk among ourselves as parents, neighbors, and friends, the topic many times seems to be about our children and the careers they have in far-away places, and we like to boast in the fact of all the money they are making. So I assume that quality education means making lots of money. Is the quality of life money?
If we follow that logic, what we are doing is educating our children to leave our communities. Why? Because they can't make the money here. So what does that do to our tax base? And what does that do to that part of society which funds this "quality education?" Wouldn't it be much more profitable and productive to teach our children to come back into our communities — to be farmers, to be in private business, creating jobs and strengthening the tax base, guaranteeing revenue for our social programs in our local communities? I'm just asking. How are we to continue funding this institution that educates us to leave our communities? How are we supposed to make a living for ourselves, provide for our families, and pay the heavy tax burden to support quality education?
Here is an example. They say, we need to work at getting quality teachers so we need to raise the pay to attract them. Let's assume that they could raise the pay base to $100,000. Can you imagine all the people who would go into education to become teachers? Why? It's the $100,000! Does that mean they would be quality teachers? Just something to think about.
Also, it seems to me, when we become a socialist society our leaders concentrate on assuming responsibilities that rightfully belong to parents and individuals, saying they aren't capable. So then, what happens? The programs expand and expand. What profit is it to consider only the social aspect and the needs, which, aren't rightfully theirs in the first place while at the same time, those needs and requirements gradually diminish the productive base of the private society which creates jobs for people who pay taxes. If there was no productive base, there would be no jobs. Can you imagine the result?
If I may be so bold, I would like to go back to when I entered school. It was a one-room country school. We had a school marm that stayed in our house. If I remember right, she might have received $40 a month. I don't know if she got too much or too little. All I know is that, as a student going to school, when I came home, Dad and Mom were there. When I went to school, I didn't fear for violent acts. I don't recall that, as I advanced to high school, there was any knowledge of drugs. The problem didn't exist. And so it was in the beginning. We didn't consider homosexuality. We didn't even know the term or what it meant. We frowned on welfare, getting something without working for it. That was what we were taught. We learned the basics to survive. Wouldn't that be envious in terms of the quality of education?
Now, with all of this funding we have and all of these social programs, look at the end result. We have violence, we have kids who are on drugs to keep them calm in their seats, we have kids coming home from school with no parents or living in daycare centers. It's a world of no bonding. They say that alcoholic binges are almost at epidemic levels in our colleges. AIDS is rampant, which didn't exist until the '70s. Might I go on? Divorce rates are horrendous. Are we sure that more money is going to give us better education?
There has to be some kind of accountability. People in private business make investments and take risks, anticipating a return on that investment. So it is with education in our communities. Should we not also expect a return to us for the investment we make in education? What opportunity does it give to those who choose to remain in the community as farmers, workers, business men, if we overburden them with taxes? What incentive is there for them to come back and be contributors in our society?
Just some thoughts I had.
Jerry Plett, Lincolnville
