WHEN I BEGAN teaching in the late ’60s, we had pens, pencils, crayons and rulers to give to the children. The school would supply the paper for their assignments. Our textbooks would be reasonably current, and some might even be new. Maps and globes would be in our classrooms for referencing.

Sitting at their desks would be some 30 to 35 sixth-grade students, three or four of whom spoke no English. I, unfortunately, spoke no Portuguese. I did take a six-week course to learn some basic phrases (now forgotten), but to communicate with these children was very difficult. There would also always be a student or two in the class who had a severe learning disability. Together in that classroom for six, seven or eight lessons a day, the 36 of us would all work very hard.

My salary was a modest one (all my friends who graduated with me from college were earning more, and they didn’t even have to return to college for night courses). My benefits were good. At times I did consider changing careers, but I loved what I did so I stayed. I knew I would always be lower-middle-class, and that was okay.

At that time it was usually reported during the budget process that school-personnel costs made up approximately 75 to 80 percent of the school budget. That was not unexpected because everyone understood that education is people-intensive. Hospitals do not exist without doctors, nurses and patients. Schools do not exist without teachers and students.

Today, in my community of East Providence, it is reported that school personnel costs now make up 85 to 90 percent of the budget, and somehow that mysteriously relates only to the demands of teachers and not to the needs of students. And there is no money for pencils. Why is this so? Well, some elected officials say ad nauseam that this is so because our teachers are “living large” and (especially hurtful) are largely uncaring. But greed is not driving up the cost of education. It is the educational process itself.

Over a span of years, class sizes have been reduced to approximately 25 students. Only a school committee sees this as a negative. Educators and parents know that children benefit from smaller class sizes, especially the younger child. Yes, as a teacher, I also benefited. My homework was now 125 papers a night to correct rather than 175. At a rapid correction rate of a paper a minute — well, you do the math. This would all be before planning the first of five or six lessons for the following day.

The year 1975 gave us IDEA (Individual with Disabilities Education Act). Special education has driven up the cost of education exponentially. The cost of educating a special-education child can be anywhere from two to ten times the amount of regular education. We now have special-education specialists and trained teacher aides. I would venture that there are at least 20 students in East Providence who have their own individual aide. Some might even have their own nurse. We now require and need physical therapists, occupational therapists, adaptive physical education teachers, speech and language therapists, social workers, school psychologists, elementary counselors, school-nurse teachers and others as never before. All of these positions increase the line item: personnel cost. This increase comes at the expense of other line items.

Yes, East Providence teachers should and will pay a share of their health-care premiums, because the cost of health care continues to skyrocket and all must contribute to keep such a benefit viable. Yes, East Providence teachers did agree to a salary freeze for this year and may have to agree to one next year because our national and local economies are tanking. But School Committee members must realize that salary and benefits are not the problem, and reductions of such are only a part of a temporary solution. The public is demanding that all teachers be rated highly qualified. The public must recognize the cost of attracting and retaining talented, motivated, and highly skilled professionals.

In Rhode Island, education is funded overwhelmingly by the local property tax, a tax that is 43 percent higher here, on average, than in the rest of the nation. This cannot continue if public education is to survive. Federal taxpayers must fund special education as the federal government promised in 1975, having reaffirmed that promise in 1997. Rhode Island must not continue to be the only state in the union without an education funding formula.

Free public education must be recognized as an investment in our people and in our nation. Free public education is necessary for the maintenance of a functioning democracy. Unfortunately, some have now come to the point of asking: Can we afford it?

John A. Savage, a Republican, is a Rhode Island state representative and a retired teacher and principal.