John Edwards - more money for teachers

[Technosoul]

Teachers working in poverty areas should get paid more money... is what John Edwards thinks.. as he unvails his new reform plan for primary educaton...

Comment or debate as you so wish.

[butterbut]

Our public schools suck. Its unaccaeptable for the richest country in the world to have such sh***t system. I know I sound like a democrat but its the truth.

[tivodan1116]

Whether they should or shouldn't is not a question for politicians, it is something that will be solved by a market economy.

If the pay is insufficient, they will have a hard time filling those positions and will raise the pay until they get enough qualified applicants.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Whether they should or shouldn't is not a question for politicians, it is something that will be solved by a market economy. If the pay is insufficient, they will have a hard time filling those positions and will raise the pay until they get enough qualified applicants.

It is possible that that "market economy" caused the problem. They do not hire unqualified people to work in poor neighborhoods just because of a teacher-shortage problem. Qualifications are the same state wide.

The problem is that once a person goes to collage to become qualified they want to live in a nice middle-class neighborhood not some crime infested rundown part of town.. And people want to work near where they live because the diving time, and transportation costs, to get to work would be less. If they got paid more then perhaps they would not mind the extra time and expense it would take to drive from the nice nieghborhoods where they live to work in the inner-city poverty areas.

At least that is how it would be in L.A. California, but not sure if my reasoning would apply to all locations in the courntry.

Also, teachers (as would students) prefer a clean modern school that is equiped with all the lastest stuff. Not some old run down building such as you might find in the poor neighborhoods. People like to take pride in their workplace and kids like to take pride in their school.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Technosoul It is possible that that "market economy" caused the problem. They do not hire unqualified people to work in poor neighborhoods just because of a teacher-shortage problem. Qualifications are the same state wide.

Huh? I think you are unclear on the definition of the phrase "market economy".

The problem is that once a person goes to collage to become qualified they want to live in a nice middle-class neighborhood not some crime infested rundown part of town.. And people want to work near where they live because the diving time, and transportation costs, to get to work would be less. If they got paid more then perhaps they would not mind the extra time and expense it would take to drive from the nice nieghborhoods where they live to work in the inner-city poverty areas.

Of course. So when inner cities start having trouble filling these jobs, they will need to raise the pay until they get a suitable number of applicants for the available positions.

Currently, positions are being filled to the districts' satisfaction, or they would raise pay to attract more/better applicants.

It's just like any other job - once the qualifications are met, an employer starts at minimum wage and keeps raising the pay structure until he finds a qualified person who will do the job for that price.

Also, teachers (as would students) prefer a clean modern school that is equiped with all the lastest stuff. Not some old run down building such as you might find in the poor neighborhoods. People like to take pride in their workplace and kids like to take pride in their school.

This would not be solved permanently by more handouts to city schools. The only way this will be solved is 100% school choice in a "money-follows-child" school tax system. That will foster competition and capital investment.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Technosoul Teachers working in poverty areas should get paid more money... is what John Edwards thinks.. as he unvails his new reform plan for primary educaton... Comment or debate as you so wish.

The government (at least at the federal and state level) needs to get out of the education business entirely.

Cities of a particular size or larger that have one school district have some schools that are in wealthy neighborhoods and some that are in poor neighborhoods. Yet, it's the same school district. Why should teachers in one school be paid more than teachers in another school - in the same school district?

The best thing the federal government could do for education is to disband the Department of Education and get its nose out of the schools entirely.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Huh? I think you are unclear on the definition of the phrase "market economy". Of course. So when inner cities start having trouble filling these jobs, they will need to raise the pay until they get a suitable number of applicants for the available positions. Currently, positions are being filled to the districts' satisfaction, or they would raise pay to attract more/better applicants. It's just like any other job - once the qualifications are met, an employer starts at minimum wage and keeps raising the pay structure until he finds a qualified person who will do the job for that price. This would not be solved permanently by more handouts to city schools. The only way this will be solved is 100% school choice in a "money-follows-child" school tax system. That will foster competition and capital investment.

Many inner city schools are understaffed, so they crowd 30 some kids into one classroom with each teacher they can get. That sort of meets districts satisification because they all get to hear the teacher. But the teacher cannot deal with all the kids on a more personal bases (when one on one help is needed) and so the kids who get a little confused get behind and end up with failing grades. A higher pay rate might attract more teachers so that smaller, more effective, class room environments can be provided.

Public schools do not operate the same as private companies and so I do not see where maket economy has much to do with this. For them to bus all the kids of a more wealthy neighborhood because of choice would be costly and not logical. Public schools should not have to compete with each other as they should all be able to offer the same kind of working envornments at schools, the only way to do that is to upgrade the rundown schools so that they are equal with the newer ones built in the newer suburban nieghborhoods.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Chancellor The government (at least at the federal and state level) needs to get out of the education business entirely. Cities of a particular size or larger that have one school district have some schools that are in wealthy neighborhoods and some that are in poor neighborhoods. Yet, it's the same school district. Why should teachers in one school be paid more than teachers in another school - in the same school district? The best thing the federal government could do for education is to disband the Department of Education and get its nose out of the schools entirely.

I answered the question as to why some areas might need to pay more then other areas within a district ( in another post just above).

Public education is not a business (nor must it operate on the idea of making a profit).

Public education mandated, supervised, and paid for out of the budgets of the state and federal government is very important, without it our country would take a nose dive economically and in other ways that would cause a big mess. Take off your blinders.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Technosoul Many inner city schools are understaffed, so they crowd 30 some kids into one classroom with each teacher they can get.

Any substantial evidence of this?

This report from the Department of Education seems to reflect otherwise.

The rest of that paragraph is based upon your unfounded assumption and as such is invalid.

Public schools do not operate the same as private companies and so I do not see where maket economy has much to do with this.

1) They do operate much like private companies in the area of labor.
2) They should operate like private companies in many other areas. We got into this mess because they do not.

For them to bus all the kids of a more wealthy neighborhood because of choice would be costly and not logical.

Each school would establish its own budget and would therefore be responsible for figuring out transportation. Again, a free market would arrive at a logical solution. Do you understand how the proposal of "money-follows-child" works?

Public schools should not have to compete with each other as they should all be able to offer the same kind of working envornments at schools, the only way to do that is to upgrade the rundown schools so that they are equal with the newer ones built in the newer suburban nieghborhoods.

LOL... so busing is too expensive, but a massive influx of funds into decrepit, failing urban schools is a good use of money?

That would be impossible. The "product" and "machinery" of education are human beings. No two schools can ever be the same.

Why force students into a situation that might not be right for them merely because of their zip code?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Chancellor The government (at least at the federal and state level) needs to get out of the education business entirely. Cities of a particular size or larger that have one school district have some schools that are in wealthy neighborhoods and some that are in poor neighborhoods. Yet, it's the same school district. Why should teachers in one school be paid more than teachers in another school - in the same school district? The best thing the federal government could do for education is to disband the Department of Education and get its nose out of the schools entirely.

Here is what was like, (and would become like), when the Federal Government was not involved in Education and the "free market" was the determining factor.

See link.

Child Labor in U.S. History - The Child Labor Education Project

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Technosoul I answered the question as to why some areas might need to pay more then other areas within a district ( in another post just above).

If you say so. It is still not logical that the very same school district would spend more money on schools in the better neighborhoods than on schools in the poorer ones.

Public education is not a business (nor must it operate on the idea of making a profit).

Maybe it should be a business. Maybe there needs to be competition. Maybe there needs to be some intrinsic reason to do the best job possible. Government certainly doesn't have competition and has no intrinsic reason to do the best job possible.

Public education mandated, supervised, and paid for out of the budgets of the state and federal government is very important, without it our country would take a nose dive economically and in other ways that would cause a big mess. Take off your blinders.

Why is it "very important" for the federal government to steal my money and give it to some school district in Mississippi or to the Californicators or to some other school district? You claim that without these government indoctrination centers (public schools) our country would take a nose dive economically and in other ways "that would cause a big mess." What is the basis for your claim? We seemed to do pretty well for ourselves as a nation before the government started setting up its indoctrination centers.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Technosoul Here is what was like, (and would become like), when the Federal Government was not involved in Education and the "free market" was the determining factor. See link. Child Labor in U.S. History - The Child Labor Education Project

Nonsense! The fact of child labor (which is not necessarily a bad thing if the labor is training the child for a trade as was the case under the apprenticeship system) has nothing whatsoever to do with the absence of mandated attendance at government indoctrination centers (public schools). In other words, the cause of child labor was not the absence of government indoctrination centers.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Technosoul It is possible that that "market economy" caused the problem. They do not hire unqualified people to work in poor neighborhoods just because of a teacher-shortage problem. Qualifications are the same state wide.

Well, it's not really possible that the "market economy" caused the problem but you just keep on with that fantasy. However, I agree that teacher qualifications are at least supposed to be the same state-wide.

The problem is that once a person goes to collage to become qualified they want to live in a nice middle-class neighborhood not some crime infested rundown part of town.. And people want to work near where they live because the diving time, and transportation costs, to get to work would be less. If they got paid more then perhaps they would not mind the extra time and expense it would take to drive from the nice nieghborhoods where they live to work in the inner-city poverty areas.

Well, I don't know about people going to a collage for anything but I do know that some people go to college. But I also know that it is not necessarily true that a teacher has to live in the same neighborhood as the school in which he or she teaches - even when living in the school district is mandated (as it is here in Buffalo).

At least that is how it would be in L.A. California, but not sure if my reasoning would apply to all locations in the courntry.

Well, we all know that Californicators are weird but why is it a problem that people don't want to live in crime-infested neighborhoods?

Also, teachers (as would students) prefer a clean modern school that is equiped with all the lastest stuff. Not some old run down building such as you might find in the poor neighborhoods. People like to take pride in their workplace and kids like to take pride in their school.

Well, I'm not so sure about "modern" but at least clean and well-equipped. But that's the responsibility of local communities (school districts).

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Technosoul Many inner city schools are understaffed, so they crowd 30 some kids into one classroom with each teacher they can get.

So, how is that "understaffed"? Who says that there must be less than 30 kids in a classroom?

That sort of meets districts satisification because they all get to hear the teacher. But the teacher cannot deal with all the kids on a more personal bases (when one on one help is needed) and so the kids who get a little confused get behind and end up with failing grades. A higher pay rate might attract more teachers so that smaller, more effective, class room environments can be provided.

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.

Public schools do not operate the same as private companies and so I do not see where maket economy has much to do with this.

That's part of the problem: these government indoctrination centers don't have any competition and don't have the risk of losing its customer base for producing a poor product.

For them to bus all the kids of a more wealthy neighborhood because of choice would be costly and not logical. Public schools should not have to compete with each other as they should all be able to offer the same kind of working envornments at schools, the only way to do that is to upgrade the rundown schools so that they are equal with the newer ones built in the newer suburban nieghborhoods.

You don't have to bus kids out of their neighborhoods. And thank you for yet another example of government stupidity! Having schools in a neighborhood helps to stabilize that neighborhood. According to one source, "Neighborhood schools are typically anchors in communities" (Cleveland Restoration Society - Current Advocacy Efforts). Also, "It's a real estate truism that home prices rise along with the quality of neighborhood public schools. That's just one reason the business community must work together with educators to make great public schools a reality...In studies conducted in North Carolina and Texas in the 1990s, researchers found a strong link between business community involvement and rapidly rising test scores. In fact, the business community's investment and involvement were found to be the most positive contributing factor...The reason? Unlike politicians or teacher unions, the business community lacks a partisan short-term political agenda. Instead of promoting "reform fads," business people tend to support long-term solutions for sustained economic development" (http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/st...16/focus2.html). Here's another article on the importance of neighborhood schools in the local neighborhood: New Schools Better Neighborhoods: Publications.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Chancellor Well, we all know that Californicators are weird but why is it a problem that people don't want to live in crime-infested neighborhoods?

Um... becomes low/poor education is a cause of crime?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Um... becomes low/poor education is a cause of crime?

Your statement makes no sense.

If I read into your post (which pisses me off when people do it to me) then I'm left with the question "How is the presumed problem that people don't want to live in crime-infested neighborhoods explained by your premise that crime is caused by low/poor education?"

Let me make it easier for you to read. I asked the question: "Why is it a problem that people don't want to live in crime-infested neighborhoods?" You answered with a question (again, I'm reading this into your post because what you wrote made no sense), "low/poor education is a cause of crime?" Let's bring the two together:

Me: "Why is it a problem that people don't want to live in crime-infested neighborhoods?"

You: "[Because] low/poor education is a cause of crime?"

Your question is not an answer to my question. I'm not going to get into the ridiculousness of your notion that limited and/or poor quality education actually causes people to commit crime, particularly given that the vast majority of people who have low/poor education are not out there committing crimes.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Chancellor So, how is that "understaffed"? Who says that there must be less than 30 kids in a classroom? 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. That's part of the problem: these government indoctrination centers don't have any competition and don't have the risk of losing its customer base for producing a poor product. You don't have to bus kids out of their neighborhoods. And thank you for yet another example of government stupidity! Having schools in a neighborhood helps to stabilize that neighborhood. According to one source, "Neighborhood schools are typically anchors in communities" (Cleveland Restoration Society - Current Advocacy Efforts). Also, "It's a real estate truism that home prices rise along with the quality of neighborhood public schools. That's just one reason the business community must work together with educators to make great public schools a reality...In studies conducted in North Carolina and Texas in the 1990s, researchers found a strong link between business community involvement and rapidly rising test scores. In fact, the business community's investment and involvement were found to be the most positive contributing factor...The reason? Unlike politicians or teacher unions, the business community lacks a partisan short-term political agenda. Instead of promoting "reform fads," business people tend to support long-term solutions for sustained economic development" (http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/st...16/focus2.html). Here's another article on the importance of neighborhood schools in the local neighborhood: New Schools Better Neighborhoods: Publications.

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).

I did not assume the wrong thing, you did. 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.

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

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".

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

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.

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.

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 tracks 50 miles away are not going to help the inner city schools, and so your "study" proves nothing.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Chancellor Nonsense! The fact of child labor (which is not necessarily a bad thing if the labor is training the child for a trade as was the case under the apprenticeship system) has nothing whatsoever to do with the absence of mandated attendance at government indoctrination centers (public schools). In other words, the cause of child labor was not the absence of government indoctrination centers.

You and Ron Paul might advocate child labor but I do not. That is why no one would vote for Ron Paul except for heartless people, and we do not need those kinds of people having an influence.

Why don't you just use the real name "public schools" instead to typing all those extra letters for that title that sounds bad? You know what I mean, try to sound a little more like a human being instead a cold hearted dictator.

But banning child labor (other then for family businesses) prevented the abuse of children, and the schools then provided them with options to seek other kinds of work, instead of being forced to follow in their parents footsteps, which offers liberty and freedom of choice, so when they reach the age on consent they can be a banker instead of spending the rest of thier life milking cows on papa's farm.

Your plan is fine if you want another great depression like they had in the 1930s, but I think most of us can live without that happening again.

[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.

[Chancellor]