[Chancellor]

Quote by: Technosoul Here is the answer to your first question. Overcrowded Classrooms Double in City - September 27, 2006 - The New York Sun The teachers say so (and they should know the best).

Teachers don't necessarily know best. Like most people, they're going to want to make their jobs easier. They're going to want to do less and get paid more. It's human nature! Because teachers are so heavily unionized, I really don't trust what they say about classroom overcrowding.

I did not assume the wrong thing, you did.

I didn't assume anything.

And their is no magic about it, if higher wages draw in more people qualified to teach then you would have more teachers, and that means smaller class sizes.

But this isn't a response to what I said. Notice: "You falsely assume that the teacher must be able to deal with all the kids on a more personal basis. You also falsely assume that paying teachers more money is somehow going to magically improve their ability to do so." Show me how paying individual teachers more money is going to magically make teachers better able to deal with all the kids on a more personal basis.

Children are not "products" they are human beings, you are very heartless to suggest they are products being sold to people.

I didn't suggest any such thing; but my comment regarding competition is valid.

In California taking the school bus is an option, normally the parents drop the kids off and pick them up. If you want your kid to take a school bus it will cost you a couple of hundred dollars a month to do so. By the word "bussing" I would mean "anykind of transportation to move people".

Well, I did say the Californicators were weird.

The state does not provide free transportation to school for kids.

Here where I live the school district provides free transportation for those students who live too far away from school to walk.

Some businesses do get involved in helping the schools out. In poor neighborhoods the businesses cannot afford to do that or else they are from out-of-town and just use the area because rent is cheaper.

And when businesses do get involved the schools tend to do better.

But if a developer wants to create a new living area by building lots of houses and if chain stores want to build near those houses then the county creates special fees in that permit to make them supply the additional "support" a new community would need, such as the schools for the area they wish to develope. The county is the government at work, and the new schools for those new areas are not the products of charity or because some construction or real esatate developer has a kind heart. The fact is that to sell their high priced homes they need nice schools as "selling points" to encourage buyers to buy. If you buy a home you buy it because of the neighborhood and what it can provide for you and your family.

Well, maybe that's true where you are but I've never seen a developer here (not that there are too many) building schools to go along with their new housing developments.

But not everyone can afford to move from the older inner city out to one of those newer housing developments, and the real estate developers building new housing tracts 50 miles away are not going to help the inner city schools, and so your "study" proves nothing.

It isn't my study and it proves what it proves. People don't need to move from the inner city: they can stay and help improve the inner city.