According to the NYT 94% of U.S. Teachers Spend Their Own Money on School Supplies.
When did this first start being a thing? How did it develop this way? Are there other countries where this is also expected?
Are there other professions where it’s become normalized for workers to spend their own salary on essentials they need to get their job done in the same way?
I don’t know how this developed over time, but I doubt it was overnight. I think teachers have always spent a few of their dollars for things they really wanted but couldn’t easily get from their employers—it has just gotten to an extreme in recent years.
When did it become the norm for school playgrounds to be built by parents, rather than by school systems?
As for other professions, I know that officers in the United States uniformed services have to pay out of pocket for their uniforms. They get a paltry allowance initially, but after that they are on their own for additional uniforms and replacements. I believe that enlisted persons get a more generous uniform allowance, but I suspect that many enlisted persons end up paying out of pocket for at least some of their uniforms.
As I understand it, it’s been the case for decades, to varying extent. As long as teachers have to jump through hoops and cut bureaucratic red tape in order to get school funding approved for Thing X or account for/show receipts/get approval for Thing X out of the budget, they will always throw up their hands and just do it out of their own pocket $$$$$. People crave directness and simplicity and freedom of action.
My daughter was in a magnet public school for K-5–as parents we were expected, nay, browbeaten to donate supplies, money, time, etc. [OLD MAN COMING ON] None of this was the case when I was in public elementary school!
My one and only heiress is now in a Catholic school, for which we pay, and are also expected to “contribute” X$ each year. For this she gets books, most supplies, and an iPad mini which is hers to keep after three years.
At the public school my wife gave a ton of time (and we gave money) to the nonprofit that helped the school with its arts programs. At the Catholic school my wife hasn’t been sucked in…yet.
Now that my daughter is in private school, I am not surprised that their hand is in our pocket. but I was appalled by it when she was in public school. The burden was on the, let’s say, 30% of parents who donated generously, and the 10% who gave what they could. But parents shouldn’t have to dip into their own funds as a matter of course for public education.
My public K-5 education included music, art, drama, and chorus, and parents were expected to contribute…nothing. All of these are now “magnet” special programs.
I’m not an enemy of public education. I’m an ally. I would love to see it funded to the point where, at the LEAST, teachers didn’t have to beg for tissues, crayons, and glue–in a solid middle class district. Can’t imagine what poorer districts are going through.
TL;DR it’s a goddamn disgrace. Sure, blame teachers for striking when they pay for supplies out of salary. FU teacher haters.
Not developed ones.
In most if not all Western European countries, if you have to wear specific clothing (uniforms were mentioned above), your employer has to provide them. In Spain this may mean providing them physically (always the case for protective equipment) or paying a “uniform bonus” which isn’t taxed as income.
I taught in Alabama public schools from June, 1978, until May, 1982. The State paid for two things: (1) my salary and (2) a space to teach in. As a band director I depended very heavily on my band boosters/parents club to provide instruments, music stands, chairs, printed music, method books, etc. Whatever came out of my pocket was less than negligible, but my 20-hour days were not so.
In fairness, we education majors were told all of this would be the case while in college.
Jeepers - is this a common US thing too?
This has always been a thing, though, historically - hell, in some services officers used to have to pay just to be officers, never mind for their uniforms. This comes up often in the Sharpe novels, for instance. And even just paying for the costly uniforms served as a filter of sorts in services where this wasn’t a thing, like the Navy.
That historically is a pretty short period, though: standing armies are a rarity through history, rather than the usual. We just take them for granted because they’re what’s usual now.
Sure, when I said “always” I meant “as long as we’ve had the modern idea of a national army”. I know in the Middle Ages, supplying uniforms to functionaries (livery) was a thing.
This also happens in the UK, where teachers have similar complaints about the system to the US. There will always be some teachers who prefer to buy stuff from their own funds rather than go through the administrative hoops that bureaucracy requires.
As for parents paying for ‘extras’, that happens here too. State schools are always going to be underfunded, so parents make ‘voluntary’ contributions towards a wide range of things that would have been free in the ‘good ole days’. Contributions for things like school trips are always voluntary, because if they were a charge, then poorer kids would miss out. The hope is that those who can afford it, will cover the costs of those who can’t.
As far as I have been able to tell, teachers have been 1) paying out of pocket for a long time and 2) it’s not “essentials” they are paying for. They don’t seem to be paying for chalk or dry erase markers or textbooks or at least I’ve never seen anyone stating that they are buying that type of supplies. They’re always buying either “nice to haves” ( Like the items the teacher in the NYT article was buying) or buying crayons and such for children who don’t have them.
As far as the “nice to haves” , I don’t really see that as terribly different from a government worker buying their own pens, whiteout, highlighter, etc because they don’t like the ones supplied by their employer. But we do need to find a better way to provide crayons and scissors to kids whose parents can’t or won’t supply them rather than relying on the teachers’ generosity.
When I was in high school, which was a new building that mostly had whiteboards rather than chalk, teachers were frequently griping about the cost of dry erase markers and how they had to buy their own or go without. IIRC the school gave them a very small number, in August, and expected them to last until June.
It also happens in Belgium, according to a survey from 3 years ago 9/10 elementary school teachers spend an average of 261€/year on school supplies.
In the UK (still part of Western Europe, dammit), employers only have to supply clothing required for safety purposes.
They do not have to supply uniforms or money to acquire uniforms. Most places do, but it’s not an actual requirement, and I have had an employer (for a 0 hours contract, no less) who charged employees for their compulsory uniform.
Not really, not everywhere, and in fact most medieval soldiers weren’t liveried. And there were several centuries between the Middle Ages and “the modern idea of a national army”.
My mom started teaching nearly 60 years ago, and so far as I know, she had out-of-pocket expenses for her entire career.
It varies from district to district, though. Around here, all of the suburban districts cover all of the essentials, but in the Cleveland Metropolitan School District, teachers even have to buy their own copier paper.
There are also grants available for a lot of things, though of course that means that the teacher is spending extra time instead of extra money to apply for them. Technology in the classroom usually comes from a grant.
This is odd to me. When I read OP, my first response was “Always?” I thought about the smal towns where “school” consisted of whatever random housewife was halfway literate and had some time on her hands.
This is the truth. American schools are absolutely appalling compared to most other industrialized countries. I don’t want to start a rant, so I’ll just leave it there. Schools in other industrialized countries are very well resources compared to American schools.
I think knights had to provide their own horse and armor. Lords might distribute such as the spoils of war, but they didn’t have to.
It’s somewhere in between that. If your salary and professional opportunities are tied to your students’ test scores and/or your evaluation, you are under a lot of pressure to purchase products that increase your effectiveness. Elementary teachers, for example, are expected to have interactive, engaging bulletin boards that they change regularly. They usually don’t get many supplies to construct them. You’ll be told you have what you need, but your evaluations will be poorer if you don’t spice them up. It may not even be a conscious bias–it’s just your room looks like crap compared to everyone else. That sort of thing can add up.
It also varies a lot from campus to campus. I’ve worked in environments where I had to buy my own dry erase markers and had paper so strictly rationed I provided my own. Again, if you are told you need kids to be doing interactive, custom assignments but not given the paper to make that happen, you pretty much have to buy it. My current campus is much, much more supportive, which is why I am here.
Yes, I know, which was why I said “functionaries”, not “soldiers”
Yes. And?
Non-nobles fighters provided their own kit as well. Although later, munition armour was a thing too.