Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham
Cutting bureaucracy is good, so long as the system can function.
Giving the money direct to schools will mean each school has to have a bureaucrat or 3 to administer and run the financial side. Or do you really think head teachers are trained to do it?
They might know where to spend it, do they know how to spend it?
Would a bureaucrat in the school be better than a bureaucrat in an office 100s of miles away?
Does Bachmann just trash the system that's in place or also come up with a better one?
|
The problem in America isn't that each school has a bureaucrat or that there is one 100's of miles away deciding how the money is spent, it is that there are dozens of them all essentially doing the same job where none of them are needed.
The high school in my town has about 600 students which makes it roughly the same size as the high school I went to when I was a kid. When I was in high school we had 1 principal, 2 vice-principals (and the only reason for this was that we had two separate campuses so each campus had their own) and five counselors. Each grade had a counselor and the fifth one specialized in college stuff and helped the seniors get their college prep and applications etc together.
The school in my town today has 1 principal, 2 vice-principals, 8 counselors, a dean of students, an assistant dean of students and someone called a liaison to the the school board. So suddenly the same number of kids takes 6 more administrators to deal with. There are so many people in between the actual school boards and the schools as well as the where the money comes from and where it ends up that the whole system is messed up.
To me it is a perfect example of the problem with our government as a whole. We never downsize. If there is a problem we add people to try to fix it and if they can't we add more. Eventually it is so bloated it can't sustain itself.