Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski
After generations there are parents who are so disconnected from what schools can do, that to do the work to get, and keep, kids there is just not something easy to achieve. It might be those parents fault, or their parents fault, or society's. But paying teachers more is not an answer to that problem.
|
A couple of things:
1. It is always amazing to me what we choose to look at from an anecdotal perspective vs. an empirical one. Otherwise well-educated people look at what happens in ghettos from a "If I--given my current personal experiences--were in their shoes" perspective. In almost any other case, intelligent people look at things from an empirical perspective. The difference is significant.
"Why don't they just make their children's education a priority and be more engaged" vs. "If you step on the necks of 100,000 people in this neighborhood (for example) for 3 generations, what percentage will succeed? If you give 100,000 people in this other neighborhood every advantage, what percentage will succeed?"
2. Translating the idea that putting more money into schools always means paying teachers more is ridiculous. Like Adder said, lowering class size is a real thing. And that means paying
more teachers.
Also, my ex-wife has worked in the absolute worst schools and the absolute best. She had many headaches for wildly different reasons. But the best teachers usually don't want to tackle starting from scratch in terrible schools for very little money. Salaries being equal, teachers go where things are cushy. Raise salaries for teachers significantly in depressed communities and draw more talent. Raise salaries to levels competitive with professional jobs along the lines of attorneys and accountants and watch things vastly improve.
But I think we are generally in agreement.
TM
