More Aides for Schools

With declining enrollments, we'd expect the number of Vermont's teachers to decline a bit.   And it is.  According to the 2008 Vermont Teacher-Staff Full Time Equivalent and Salary Report, released just yesterday by our Department of Education, the number of teachers dropped from 8855.77 in 2007 to 8728.03 in 2008.

But the number of teacher aides in Vermont increased from 4329.45 (FTEs) to 4376.1. (And overall support staff increased as well.)  This while student enrollments, including special education enrollments, are declining.  A pick-up of 50 aides statewide is not a lot per school, but the disturbing trend continues.  More and more unqualified personnel are providing more and more of the direct instruction to kids.  We have no requirements for aides.  We pay them next to nothing.  And we pretend to care about education quality.   

Comments

[Karen Kerin]

That is some trend indeed.

[G. Cross]

Curt, you have the correct idea here. We need to hire better trained people to serve as aides, especially in the special education field. We also need to pay them better. For example if we paid each of the 4376 aides an additional $5000 salary that would increase the cost of public schools in the state by a mere $21.9M plus a few bucks for the associated workers' comp, etc. That would increase the per pupil cost by about $229. However, I agree with you, this is a worthwhile investment. Good question to pose to candidates as they run for office this summer and fall.

[Curtis Hier]

Let's get legislative candidates to agree to the minimum requirements. Then we'll leave the negotiations to the local folks. My guess is that they won't keep the same number of aides and pay them more. Maybe teachers will have to do more of the direct instruction. That would be a great oucome.

[G. Cross]

"Let's get legislative candidates to agree to the minimum requirements." So, the idea is to do provide the lowest possible level of service and to call that equal education opportunity. Does that mean that our expectations would also include the lowest acceptable outcomes? Something about this picture just does not add up.

[Curtis Hier]

Yes, minimum requirements, George. Every profession has them. Yours, for instance, requires a master’s degree. But, of course, some of your colleagues have doctorates and therefore go beyond the minimum. Classroom aides, on the other hand, who spend enormous amounts of time instructing children, have no minimum requirements. None. So the lowest possible outcomes are no doubt occurring now. But I think you knew that.

I suppose you think it’s cute playing rhetorical games, hoping to get people to think that requirements for aides are going to cost lots of money or lead to “lowest outcomes.” But it’s not at all cute what your generation of school leadership has done to the current generation of students, shuffling them through and pretending that a piece of paper called an IEP is providing them a quality education. Maybe the IEP should be honest and say, “Johnny will have someone who may very well be dumber than dirt follow him around all day.”

[G. Cross]

Jeeese, Curt, now you're speaking ill of senior citizens. Attack your own all you want, but please leave us old folks alone.

[Retta Dunlap]

I have a better idea. Transform the schools into places that look at the needs of each child and group them that way for parts of the day. Have "highly qualified" teachers work with those kids where they are academically at and get rid of the aides....

The children can't afford to have more of the same and neither can the taxpayer.