Biden promises there will be a cure for cancer if he’s elected

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

They certainly don't support higher education to the same extent as the Dems. do.

evidence please?

we don’t enthusiastically endorse waste or indoctrination. education, yes.

which side opposes school
choice, can you remind me, i forgot?

to democrats, “supporting education” means giving more
money to teachers unions, so that much of that money will
get donated to democratic political campaigns. But it doesn’t necessarily improve the quality of the education being offered.

Spending more, isn’t necessarily the same thing, as supporting education.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

evidence please?look at where the majority of the great schools are - left leaning states.

we don’t enthusiastically endorse waste or indoctrination. education, yes.

which side opposes school
choice, can you remind me, i forgot? You mean segregationist schools? That is not supporting education, that is trying to take $ from public schools.

to democrats, “supporting education” means giving more
money to teachers unions, so that much of that money will
get donated to democratic political campaigns. But it doesn’t necessarily improve the quality of the education being offered.

Spending more, isn’t necessarily the same thing, as supporting education.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your right spending more isn't necessarily the same thing as supporting education but it is a very good proxy.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Your right spending more isn't necessarily the same thing as supporting education but it is a very good proxy.

the best schools are private schools. i’m not sure that because they happen to be located in states that today are liberal, means anything. some
of them are hundreds of years old, so i’m not sure todays political climate in those states, is why those schools were built there. but that’s what you are suggesting?

show me the evidence that spending is any kind of proxy. Here in CT, we spend
more than 14k per kid in my town ( southington). schools are pretty good. the catholic school
costs 5k per year, and has much higher test scores.

there is almost zero correlation between spending and student performance. student performance is largely determined in the home. i was a public schoolteacher for a brief time, i come from a family of
many public schoolteachers. money has almost nothing to do with it, especially when 90% of
an education budget goes to teachers salaries, healthcare, and pensions. Students don’t know or care about that stuff. that does almost nothing to improve test scores.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

the best schools are private schools. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't you think that has something to do with being able to accept who they want, put certain requirements on the students/parents, charge tuition (or more tuition) which limits the pool to a certain type of people and not have to educate every student - even those who aren't invested in their education?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Don't you think that has something to do with being able to accept who they want, put certain requirements on the students/parents, charge tuition (or more tuition) which limits the pool to a certain type of people and not have to educate every student - even those who aren't invested in their education?

yes it has something to
do with that.

but spending money isn’t always the answer. if i’m a teacher at a crappy school
in hartford, and next year i get a fat raise and cheaper health insurance, how does that help my students perform better? because i’m any municipal education budget, that’s where all the money goes. because the unions control the politicians, at least here in CT. when you have to cut things like art and music, and lay-off non tenured teachers to satisfy union contracts, i don’t see how that helps students. do you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

yes it has something to
do with that.

but spending money isn’t always the answer. if i’m a teacher at a crappy school
in hartford, and next year i get a fat raise and cheaper health insurance, how does that help my students perform better? because i’m any municipal education budget, that’s where all the money goes. because the unions control the politicians, at least here in CT. when you have to cut things like art and music, and lay-off non tenured teachers to satisfy union contracts, i don’t see how that helps students. do you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree $ isn't the always the answer and with your example it may not help the students. However, if you can attract better teachers bc of higher pay/benefits that would benefit the students. There are many states that don't fund the teacher salaries adequately and that was reflected in the strikes last year. Some of the teachers were making like $35K and hadn't had raises in a few years.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I agree $ isn't the always the answer and with your example it may not help the students. However, if you can attract better teachers bc of higher pay/benefits that would benefit the students. There are many states that don't fund the teacher salaries adequately and that was reflected in the strikes last year. Some of the teachers were making like $35K and hadn't had raises in a few years.

I used to laugh at teachers who used to say, when contracts were being negotiated, that the reason the students weren't doing well was because teacher's salaries were too low. So what did that mean--if they got pay raises, they would do better? If the salaries went up to meet their demands, then they would do better? Or did it mean that they were not good teachers and that good teachers did not take the job because it didn't pay enough? So, did it mean that, if the administration raised the salaries adequately, they would fire all the teachers and hire good ones that would sign on for the better pay?

No, it would not mean that. It would mean that the same teachers that were in place, and supposedly not good, would all get pay raises. And nothing would change except they'd get paid more for continuing to do what they had been doing.

Or, maybe I'm wrong, and a pay raise would be like a magic wand and make the bad teachers into good ones.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I agree $ isn't the always the answer and with your example it may not help the students. However, if you can attract better teachers bc of higher pay/benefits that would benefit the students. There are many states that don't fund the teacher salaries adequately and that was reflected in the strikes last year. Some of the teachers were making like $35K and hadn't had raises in a few years.

we’re having decent dialogue here. there’s something to be said for better pay attracting better teachers, but again, i point you to catholic schools, where teachers are almost literally paid in dirt, yet those schools get world
class teachers. teaching is a calling, if
you offer too many perks ( great benefits, insane time off) you get people
who go into teaching for that reason, and that’s not good.

i’ve seen this from every angle. and i'm willing to bet you believe that i want what’s best for all kids, not just my kids. i’ve been a student in public and catholic school, i’ve taught in public and catholic school, i’ve been a parent of
kids in public and catholic school. Money has very little to do with it, and another truth is this, liberals
do a terrible, terrible job of spending that money. way too much money is diverted away from things that actually help
kids learn, way too much money goes to salary and benefits, which does almost nothing for students.

here’s the fix. make teacher retirement and healthcare benefits exactly equal to the average of what’s available to white collar professionals in the private sector. that will save a ton. use that savings to hire more teachers, which reduces class size, because that IS correlated with student performance. Also, there is no sane argument against school
choice. And since all that really matters is what’s going on at home, we need to do more to encourage strong, stable, close nuclear families, because that is by far, the biggest driver of student performance, nothing else even comes close. the older i get, the
more certain i am that this is almost all that matters. without it, almost nothing else works.

i do appreciate the challenging questions, and the respect with which you asked them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device