You're probably aware of the ongoing debate with regard to the Knox Co. school budget. They're short on funds and a new high school they're building is already behind schedule and over budget before even the first bids have submitted.

The two most publicized measures being discussed as ways to save money are eliminating driver's education programs and eliminating foreign language instruction in middle schools.

Read more discussion after the jump...

A KNS editorial today comes out basically in favor of eliminating driver's ed. A letter to the editor expresses concern about eliminating foreign language instruction in middle schools, and suggests it should instead be part of the core curriculum.

First, on driver's ed, I have mixed feelings. The Mrs. and I both had it in high school. Even though I already knew how to drive, it was beneficial and I learned a lot about being a better and safer driver. One argument against cutting driver's ed is that it also helps parents reduce insurance costs. That's where they lose me. This amounts to a government subsidy. And my guess is that it is mostly the more privileged students who benefit from driver's ed (and reduced insurance rates) because they are the only ones whose parents can afford to buy them cars and insurance in the first place.

In addition, some who favor eliminating driver's ed note that the safety aspects can be taught in the classroom. So, I would tend to agree with the KNS that if it comes down to cutting basic instruction programs v. driver's ed, instruction programs should win. Involved parents would just have to teach their kids to drive. Others who can't be bothered can send their kids to commercial driving schools. It will be a shame if it has to come down to such a choice, though.

On foreign language instruction, I agree with the letter writer that this should not be eliminated, and in fact should probably be part of the core curriculum. I would go so far to say it should be expanded to K-8 and continued through high school. The educational, developmental, and future economic side benefits are fairly well understood. Further, it is generally believed that we lose much of our ability to learn language when we reach puberty. Apparently, the brain is rather loosely wired early on to be more receptive to making all the necessary connections. Once all those connections get wired up a certain way, it's harder to rewire or route new ones. At least that's the highly scientific explanation I recall. It is also believed to be the same for music, which is one reason the Suzuki Method is so effective. But that's a different rant.

There was also another letter saying that athletic fields and facilities should be cut back or eliminated, including the suggestion that high schools share facilities such as football fields, because sports programs only benefit the small majority of students who participate. As I recall, one cost savings measure proposed by the school board was to not include athletic fields at the new high school starting out. I'm not a huge sports fan, and didn't play sports in public school, but sports are central to the social fabric of student life, for good or ill. Games, pep rallies, participation in band, etc. involve most of the student body and teach teamwork, pride, community spirit, and more. Cutting athletic (or art or music programs, for that matter) may save a few dollars, but at what overall cost?

Anyway, what do you think? Vote in the poll on driver's ed and language instruction. Are these suggested cuts the best way to stay within budget? What other ways could schools save money? And why is the budget so tight? Why isn't the community willing to pay more taxes for better education?

OK, then.