nconstantine@wakefieldschool.org> wrote:
> An interesting piece that you wrote here. I must take some issue however
> with your position. Let us just concentrate on not using paper in the
> classroom. It should not be about saving tress, but about saving money. A
> very low estimate of a ream of copy paper is $3.00 a ream. Since schools
> buy
> in bulk let us drop that to $2.50 a ream, heck let us say $2.00 a ream. If
> you save 1 ream of paper per week in every class in the school and in every
> office in the school it begins to add up in real dollars. Dollars not spent
> on paper can be spent on many other things. Add in printer ink and you
> really start to save. Take away all of the staff and teacher time spent
> maintaining the printers and copiers, plus the leases for the copiers and
> the dollars continue to pile up. I will leave out the law breaking that
> goes
> on at the copier or printers in the classrooms. It should not be about Tree
> hugging.
>
But again, just as I wondered whether we were merely shifting the ecological
costs somewhere else down the line, I wonder if the use of copiers and
printers has simply shifted the where the costs of providing materials
falls.
In my case, I don't have a standard textbook. I tried that route, and it
didn't work. Either the textbooks had the wrong focus, or the books I got
for students to use as resources covered too much and were left behind on a
regular basis by kids who really didn't care about how to do a right tab
after the quiz on it was over. In my case, I suspect that making and copying
my own "textbooks" was a better use of resources than buying commercially
available textbooks that weren't the right tool for the job.
[ For info on ISED-L see http://www.gds.org/ISED-L ]
Submissions to ISED-L are released under a creative commons, attribution, non-commercial, share-alike license.
RSS Feed, http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?RSS&L=ISED-L
