Numbers impress me. I grew up knowing that Mickey Mantle of the New York Yankees won the Triple Crown in 1956 with a batting average of .353, 52 homeruns and 130 runs batted in. Later I memorized similar data for basketball, football and hockey. To this day, numbers catch my attention. When I discovered recently that nine Minnesota state legislators approved a measure proposing the freezing of teacher salaries for the next two years, I definitely noticed.

The intent of the measure is to apparently help local school districts manage their budgets by capping one of the expenses those districts incur. If that is the case, the measure isn’t necessary. A control is already in place. It’s called negotiation with local bargaining units. No responsible school district would negotiate a contract it can’t pay for. That’s just plain business sense.

As an educator, I resent any government mandate that says my earnings are limited for a period of two years. As a taxpayer, I fail to see that such a directive benefits me much, unless, of course, the state proposes to cap the other expenses of operating a school system, such as transportation, supplies, utilities, administration and other items.

I guess I should not be surprised at this idea. It was presented by some of the same people who propose to relax the standards to become a licensed teacher so as to create a larger supply of educators. In an economic environment in which fully licensed teachers are unemployed due to lack of funding, how do those proponents of alternative pathways to licensure propose to pay for the employment of their new crop of teachers?

Is our educational system perfect? No. Does it sometimes fail? Yes. There are at least nine reasons in St. Paul to prove that.

Mike Schoepf

Albert Lea