Education, why are teachers so underpaid?

engineer wrote:

In private schools where teachers tend to get a better group of students, they make less (more competition for the positions.) It's not that society doesn't value or respect teachers, it's just the rules of economics playing out. When teachers start quiting to work in factories for better pay, the pendulum will swing a little to restore the balance.

By better students, you mean richer, right? Because the rich six year olds are not any smarter than poor six year olds. But the difference on how many resources will be spent on their education will make a difference over time.

Market may great for commodities. People are not commodities. There are other values to consider than just supply, demand and economic performance, when it comes to public education. Not all spheres of our societies have to be economically productive and that's ok, because they serve another purpose.

McGentrix wrote:

dagmaraka wrote:

McG, are you saying that ALL poor parents, those that cannot afford private schools by any stretch of imagination, do not care about their children's education and do not get involved in it? Because that's what I'm hearing from you.

Then you are deaf perhaps?

you meant blind, perhaps. No I'm not. Perhaps you didn't express yourself right. In fact, scratch the perhaps.

I will let you show me what is the breakdown of private school attendance by parent's income. So far I remain unconvinced. If you show me support for you claim that poor parents can afford private schools, i'll let you have it.

Haven't you noticed towns and cities everywhere slashing funds for their school districts? I have.

dagmaraka wrote:

I will let you show me what is the breakdown of private school attendance by parent's income. So far I remain unconvinced. If you show me support for you claim that poor parents can afford private schools, i'll let you have it.

Scholarships and voucher programs are two ways that underprivileged children can attend private schools.

I will let you show me what is the breakdown of private school attendance by parent's income. So far I remain unconvinced. If you show me support for you claim that poor parents can afford private schools, i'll let you have it.

littlek wrote:

Haven't you noticed towns and cities everywhere slashing funds for their school districts? I have.

I see this sort of comment fairly often but it seldom pans out to be true. For example, there is no school district in MA that has spent less in any FY since '94 than it did the previous year.

They may not have funded a budget at the requested anount but that is different from cutting funding.

McGentrix wrote:

dagmaraka wrote:

McG, are you saying that ALL poor parents, those that cannot afford private schools by any stretch of imagination, do not care about their children's education and do not get involved in it? Because that's what I'm hearing from you.

Then you are deaf perhaps?

Having just come into this conversation, I don't think McG is saying ALLL publich school parents aren't involved in their children's education. That would be an ugly generality. What i am reading is that because PS students come from everywhere and have every sort of parent, there are MANY STUDENTS WITH UNINVOLVED PARENTS.

I happen to be an involved parent, but there are many children in both my daughters' classes as well as the students in my Husband's class who's parents are so uninvolved, they don't see the teacher except when they're forced to or their child won't get their quarterly report cards. Hang around for parent/teacher conferences if you ever have children, and you'll see this to be so.

I've even heard a mother tell my husband she couldn't 'be coming all out to the school because shes' trying to open a restaurant and that is her FIRST PRIORITY right now'. This is indicative of MANY PARENTS in public schools. Not all, not most even, but a great many of them.

fishin wrote:

dagmaraka wrote:

Market may great for commodities. People are not commodities. There are other values to consider than just supply, demand and economic performance, when it comes to public education. Not all spheres of our societies have to be economically productive and that's ok, because they serve another purpose.

That argument cuts both ways. Education need not be economically productive for society as a whole or for teachers.

i don't get it, fishin. i think that's exactly what i'm saying.... Except that I would add that the society should 'subsidize' teachers so that enough qualified teachers remain interested. We do it for the farmers.

fishin wrote:

littlek wrote:

Haven't you noticed towns and cities everywhere slashing funds for their school districts? I have.

I see this sort of comment fairly often but it seldom pans out to be true. For example, there is no school district in MA that has spent less in any FY since '94 than it did the previous year.

They may not have funded a budget at the requested anount but that is different from cutting funding.

This shows how little I know about taxes. I'm referring to the prop 2.5 stuff..... which would be different.

McGentrix wrote:

dagmaraka wrote:

McG, are you saying that ALL poor parents, those that cannot afford private schools by any stretch of imagination, do not care about their children's education and do not get involved in it? Because that's what I'm hearing from you.

Then you are deaf perhaps?

Having just come into this conversation, I don't think McG is saying ALLL publich school parents aren't involved in their children's education. That would be an ugly generality. What i am reading is that because PS students come from everywhere and have every sort of parent, there are MANY STUDENTS WITH UNINVOLVED PARENTS.

I happen to be an involved parent, but there are many children in both my daughters' classes as well as the students in my Husband's class who's parents are so uninvolved, they don't see the teacher except when they're forced to or their child won't get their quarterly report cards. Hang around for parent/teacher conferences if you ever have children, and you'll see this to be so.

I've even heard a mother tell my husband she couldn't 'be coming all out to the school because shes' trying to open a restaurant and that is her FIRST PRIORITY right now'. This is indicative of MANY PARENTS in public schools. Not all, not most even, but a great many of them.

dagmaraka wrote:

fishin wrote:

dagmaraka wrote:

Market may great for commodities. People are not commodities. There are other values to consider than just supply, demand and economic performance, when it comes to public education. Not all spheres of our societies have to be economically productive and that's ok, because they serve another purpose.

That argument cuts both ways. Education need not be economically productive for society as a whole or for teachers.

i don't get it, fishin. i think that's exactly what i'm saying.... Except that I would add that the society should 'subsidize' teachers so that enough qualified teachers remain interested. We do it for the farmers.

One mistake doesn't mean another should be made. Farm subzidies should go away completely. We end up paying farmers to produce food stuffs we don't need (and end up throwing away) and paying "corporate" farms which take the money and use it to put smaller private farmers out of business.

Scholarships and voucher programs are two ways that underprivileged children can attend private schools.