0
   

Education, why are teachers so underpaid?

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 02:56 pm
dagmaraka wrote:
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.


This is the post you referred to. You asked what Engineer meant by "better students" and automatically figured that meant "richer". I know that's not what he meant so I suggested a different translation for you.

For that, I have been offered a slap and accusations that I believe ALL poor people do not care about their kids.

Only way I figure it is that you guys can't read, or have some preconceived notion about what is posted and do some weird translation thing in your head.

Private schools are not the sole domain of the rich. Perhaps you didn't know that? Perhaps in your area only rich kids go to private schools. Is that the case? Do no poor kids attend private schools in your area? They do here.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 02:59 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 03:00 pm
dagmaraka wrote:
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.


No, you said "Because that's what I'm hearing from you." Do you not even pay attention to what YOU write?
0 Replies
 
onyxelle
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 03:00 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 03:00 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
onyxelle
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 03:01 pm
Dagmarka, i left a post on the bottom of the previous page you might want to read. It should help shed some light on what you misread in terms of your statement about hearing what McG wrote.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 03:02 pm
onyxelle wrote:
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.


Sure, onyx. I have scholarships since I was 22 (I got my Master's for free, because university education is free in my country).

But that is no systematic, equal, or fair approach towards quality of education. What's the percentage?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 03:02 pm
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.


How generous of you.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 03:05 pm
Boston Parochial School Info

Brighter Futures
For the past 13 years, the ICSF has provided partial scholarships to low-income students attending parochial schools in the Greater Boston area. Among the reasons why our schools offer students both strong academic excellence and spiritual growth:

Our schools are:
Inclusive:
During the past school year, 47% of enrollment was minority, and 22% of students were non-Catholic.

Multi-Ethnic:
Students' families represent more than 80 different countries and speak more than 40 different languages.


Cost-Effective:
The average annual cost to educate a student is $3,500 in a Boston-area parochial school -- 1/3 to 1/2 the average cost to educate a student in a Massachusetts public school.

Academic Success:
98% of our high school students graduate and 90% go on to post-secondary education.

Community Cornerstones:
Parochial schools serve as a firm foundation in our inner-city neighborhoods.

Savings:
To publicly educate all the students in the 61 Boston-area inner-city schools would cost taxpayers an estimated additional $125-160 million.

An Investment in Our Future:
Catholic schools give students a positive start in life and provide a quality workforce for our cities in the years to come.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 03:10 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 03:12 pm
onyxelle wrote:
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.


I was referring to the term "better". "In private schools where teachers tend to get a better group of students". That's a judgment on the students, their abilities, etc. I don't believe the students anywhere are "better" or "worse".
I am sure that there are parents in private schools (far less, certainly - let's just say 'some') in private schools that are also uninvolved. Yet their kids will still likely end up with superior education to the kids in most (not all) public schools, because of the resources they have, attention they're given from the school. It's just an unequal and unfair system that doesn't give access to quality education to everybody.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 03:12 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 03:17 pm
littlek wrote:
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.


Twas what I figgered! Wink

I don't like the prop 2.5 thing but it is on the budget request side. Here in MA in particular, I think the prop 2.5 overrides would pass more often if the schools were mandated to use the moneis for the purposes they are passed and if they were forced to open their books to the public.

School districts here hide to much from the public and use funds for things other than what they were approved for.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 03:18 pm
onyxelle wrote:
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.


Dasha and I both read into McG's post, validly or invalidly, that he was implying poorer students those doing poorly in school 'probably have' uninvolved parents. In the richish burbs I teach in, I see parents at all economic levels uninvolved in their students' education. AND I see students who do well with involved parents doing poorly and the opposite.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 03:19 pm
fishin wrote:
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.


Yes! Here Here! Something we can agree on!
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 03:24 pm
i don't think it's that simple, fishin. Some subsidies are surely outdated or are rewards to the big lobbies and should go (that is not likely, as many people grease their pockets along the way on it), others, especially those that go to the small farmers, are essential, otherwise they'd be completely run over by imports. i also agree that lot of crops are unnecessarily overproduced, which is a part of the health problems that america's facing (all the overproduced cheap junk stuffed into food products and fast food)....but...completely doing away with subsidies doesn't strike me as the ideal solution.
The U.S. workforce is facing global challenges that it doesn't have solutions for yet. Lifting subsidies, tariffs and barriers would certainly also help third world countries that would gladly come into the market with their goods. I would actually love to see that, though it would be a considerable blow for the domestic workforce in agriculture... So far it seems that there is no will to lift any of those anyway. Dunno. I like both third world countries and domestic workers.... who's to choose what's more important? American parties seem to think the domestic worker, as that is ultimately also a voter.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 03:26 pm
I think fishin is on the small farm side (from what I'm reading).
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 03:28 pm
right, i see that. and i agree that some subsidies are actually harmful. but not all.
0 Replies
 
Slappy Doo Hoo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 03:29 pm
I think everyone should make $150K a year. YAY!!!!
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 03:35 pm
onyxelle wrote:

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


Vouchers *with* scholarships, yes?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 02/01/2023 at 06:49:20