James, I respect a great deal of what you wrote. I know little about regulations on manufacturers. But here's one point you made that I do disagree with in some areas:

I was not thinking of the teachers, but of course you realize they are some of the the most unaccountable government employees out there. The idea of a tenure system for teachers working K-12 is completely absurd and makes accountability for educational results almost impossible. We are trying to substitute non-stop testing for what real accountability should look like. Give administrators the ability to get rid of under-performing teachers and you could have real accountability. I would trust the onsite evaluation of an experienced administrator over a group of tests any day, but the teacher unions block that at every turn.

The problem is that there a some really crummy administrators out there who don't want to do the work involved in properly assessing and evaluating teachers, and who don't support or nurture their teachers development. Good principals and upper administration make all the difference in a school. Some have spent little time actually in the classroom (hello, Arne Duncan) or who run their schools like a cabal. Like business regulation, poorly thought out programs like No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top have hurt real classroom teaching, creating more work for little gain. And in some instances, the administration hops on board with the latest "new" criteria without evaluating its effect.

Originally Posted by James50

As I have said before, quoting Walt Whitman, I contain multitudes, but I actually like your description and think it accurate. I am emotionally anti-liberal. It has to do with my day to day experience of liberalism. You do not understand the oppressive nature of business regulation. Any day, at any time, someone from the government can walk in and demand your full attention to matters that in your operations have only the most trivial impact. OSHA, EPD, EPA, IRS, DOL (Wage and Hour, ERISA), and Sales Tax auditors from any state in the country which has sales tax and where you do business. There are weekly, monthly, and quarterly reports. There is the effort it takes to keep up with it even though in your heart you know they can always find something wrong. Your ivory tower (I don't mean that in a pejorative sense) keeps you insulated from almost all of this. When you think liberalism, you think of the government helping people who need help, of a safety net. When I think of it, I think of hoards of unaccountable inspectors that can overturn my life in an instant over something that makes no difference except in their arcane world of regulations and rules. This creates a subliminal level of fear that is part of daily life. Of course, the government class wants it that way. It makes me easier to control. I hate it.

I had a particularly harsh inspection with regard to an environmental issue in 1993. The inspector was your worst nightmare - rude, condescending, and worst of all unknowledgeable about an arcane issue I had spent a good deal of time trying to understand. It seemed to me that the election of Clinton (who I had voted for) had somehow given this guy the permission to launch into his fantasy world of abuse to the malefactors he saw at every turn. It took me six months and over $10,000 in legal fees before the agency agreed they were wrong and decided to let the matter pass. I began to view the democratic party as the face of this jihad against small business and against me. I did not vote for a democrat again for 10 years. I still have to push aside the image of that experience whenever I vote for a democrat. You do not need to bother to tell me that this is an over-reaction. I know that, but emotions do rule us more than we are often willing to admit.

And when I see one of the political class getting caught with their pants down(often literally), my southern gentleman side kicks in as well. Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) had a great comment on the mocking of Anthony Weiner yesterday.

Well, that's my take too. (And for a little more fun, see this article in the Daily Mail about Obama's menu choice in Toledo last week after Michelle goes all over the country talking about healthy diets.).

Whether its my Scots-Irish nature or my southern gentleman nature, I have to work to avoid becoming an anarchist.

I was not thinking of the teachers, but of course you realize they are some of the the most unaccountable government employees out there. The idea of a tenure system for teachers working K-12 is completely absurd and makes accountability for educational results almost impossible. We are trying to substitute non-stop testing for what real accountability should look like. Give administrators the ability to get rid of under-performing teachers and you could have real accountability. I would trust the onsite evaluation of an experienced administrator over a group of tests any day, but the teacher unions block that at every turn.

I do not have the time for full exposition of the stimulus. Suffice it to say, that my impression from both left and right, is that it was the Pelosi democrats having the ability to fulfill every local wish for government funds that had accumulated for a generation. We are about in the same place we would have been without it except we have $800B more in debt. The little bit of recovery we have experienced is because of the actions of the Fed. Most of the fiscal policy since Obama was inaugurated has been counterproductive.

No, I think the obvious answer is for the government to get its fiscal house in order and restore some certainty about our economic future. In that environment, investing in long lived assets would make some sense. This is not the 1930s. We do not have the borrowing capacity we had then. Our government is many times larger than it was then. More borrowing for a Keynesian solution will only have the opposite affect as people perceive we are on the Titanic heading for the iceberg. On the great ship USA, we are all trying to gather up our belongings, hold tight to our loved ones, and looking for the non-existent life boats.

End of rant.

James50

I cam empathize with your experience with crap regulation, James. I used to work as a cook for a daycare/preschool/kindergarten run by the YWCA and the health regulations were insane and, IMO, actually got in the way of feeding the kids healthy food. We had to throw perfectly healthy food while feeding processed startchy foods and fruit canned in sugary syrup because of inane regulations on food groups and portions we HAD to follow. We couldn't simply double the amount of veggies or lean meat because we were out of fresh fruit.

IMO you are wrong that this is a "Democratic" problem, though. This is a problem of the entire 'Nanny State" political culture. That daycare is in Fargo and North Dakota is a very Republican state.

And I must strongly disagree with you on teacher tenure. Teachers need protection from intimidation from admistrators. I have a friend who taught for 3 years in Ocala, Florida and she quit because the principle was constantly harassing her for not giving in to his sexual advances. Also, in many areas teachers would feel pressured to censor their teaching lest they get metaphorically lynch-mobbed for, say, teaching evolution or the history of the labor movement.

Originally Posted by Odin

IMO you are wrong that this is a "Democratic" problem, though. This is a problem of the entire 'Nanny State" political culture. That daycare is in Fargo and North Dakota is a very Republican state.

The problem could only be with the specific regulations some of these agencies have in place. I don't think that means we should abandon the agencies or any of their regulatory powers.

Originally Posted by annla899

James, I respect a great deal of what you wrote. I know little about regulations on manufacturers. But here's one point you made that I do disagree with in some areas:



The problem is that there a some really crummy administrators out there who don't want to do the work involved in properly assessing and evaluating teachers, and who don't support or nurture their teachers development. Good principals and upper administration make all the difference in a school. Some have spent little time actually in the classroom (hello, Arne Duncan) or who run their schools like a cabal. Like business regulation, poorly thought out programs like No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top have hurt real classroom teaching, creating more work for little gain. And in some instances, the administration hops on board with the latest "new" criteria without evaluating its effect.

Then get rid of the crummy administrators. Put yourself in the place of those administrators. You are tasked with providing a product that depends to a vast extent on the human beings providing the service. Yet, you are not given the tools to discipline those providers. Maybe one of the reasons the administrators are crummy is that their jobs are one giant effort in futility. Why would you want such a job? I bet all of us who have had kids with a lousy teacher have seen the expression of frustration on the principal's face that all (s)he can do is beg another school to take the under performer. Otherwise, you just have to live with them.

I simply do not understand teacher tenure. K-12 education is one of the most important services government can provide, but we make it secondary to the needs of the teacher unions. What you are saying is that teacher job security is more important than the outcomes of children's education. And the pressure to do better gets an outlet in over the top testing. Its ridiculous. Everyone knows it ridiculous, but we are powerless.

Look at the latest in teacher accountability CA style. Here and here. How can you defend this stuff?

James50

Originally Posted by Odin

I cam empathize with your experience with crap regulation, James. I used to work as a cook for a daycare/preschool/kindergarten run by the YWCA and the health regulations were insane and, IMO, actually got in the way of feeding the kids healthy food. We had to throw perfectly healthy food while feeding processed startchy foods and fruit canned in sugary syrup because of inane regulations on food groups and portions we HAD to follow. We couldn't simply double the amount of veggies or lean meat because we were out of fresh fruit.

IMO you are wrong that this is a "Democratic" problem, though. This is a problem of the entire 'Nanny State" political culture. That daycare is in Fargo and North Dakota is a very Republican state.

Well at least the Republicans give lip service to reducing unneeded and ineffective regulation.

And I must strongly disagree with you on teacher tenure. Teachers need protection from intimidation from admistrators. I have a friend who taught for 3 years in Ocala, Florida and she quit because the principle was constantly harassing her for not giving in to his sexual advances. Also, in many areas teachers would feel pressured to censor their teaching lest they get metaphorically lynch-mobbed for, say, teaching evolution or the history of the labor movement.

Get rid of the bad administrators. See my response above to Annla899.

The kids need an education. You have to decide whose side are you on.

James50

pbrower2a said "I can more easily imagine a reversion to the times in which families (especially women discouraged from joining the paid workforce) did their own canning, sewing, and cooking. I like to believe myself as sympathetic to feminism as any man can be, but I can understand why a social order would drive most women out of the workforce so that male "breadwinners" can hold the jobs: unemployed, angry men are dangerous to a political system and to public safety due to revolutionary and criminal tendencies accentuated with male aggressiveness. "

And from a totally separate blog, this comment: "JMG has mentioned that when you grind out the numbers, it often doesn't make economic sense for both individuals of a cohabitating couple (married, domestic partners, whatever) to work in the market economy after analyzing the costs of commuting, eating out, day care, etc.

So you sometimes find one person working a standard 9-5 job while the other person is trying to cobble together the skills needed to build up their household economy.

Since that goes against the current economic culture that believes that everyone should aspire to "a real job", the person trying to do the household economic development is often viewed by the rest of society as being somewhat aberant.

So we sometimes see two canoes lashed together: one canoe named "The Normal One" that is being paddled by the person with "the real job", and the other canoe named "The Strange One" that is paddled by the person trying to develop their household economic base.

Note: If you're reading blogs like this one, then you are probably in the canoe named "The Strange One";-)

But at this point in history, it doesn't hurt at all to have a life partner who fits in really well with the existing economic model while you scramble around trying to patch together something that will function in the future - and like the poster with the Canadian horses, sometimes your experiments won't work out the way that you had hoped.

(A lot of my experiments sure haven't.)

So your more-mainstream partner helps keep you afloat today while you're cobbling together a future; and then as the current economic model gradually (or suddenly) implodes, you can help your partner crawl into the "Strange" canoe, cut the lashings binding you to "Normal", and then both of you can paddle like mad and hope that "Strange" works."

My own observation - my youngest daughter went that route, and as far as I know, nobody's given it a second thought.

Originally Posted by James50

Then get rid of the crummy administrators. Put yourself in the place of those administrators. You are tasked with providing a product that depends to a vast extent on the human beings providing the service. Yet, you are not given the tools to discipline those providers. Maybe one of the reasons the administrators are crummy is that their jobs are one giant effort in futility. Why would you want such a job? I bet all of us who have had kids with a lousy teacher have seen the expression of frustration on the principal's face that all (s)he can do is beg another school to take the under performer. Otherwise, you just have to live with them.

Before there was tenure, public officials had much discipline over teachers. They were able to bleed teachers for campaign contributions and induce them to participate in campaigns for elected officials. Teachers who taught courses with the potential for political or economic controversies knew enough to praise the political machine and its political agenda. They also knew that if someone connected to a politician wanted a good grade and didn't get it, then a decision to give an honest but unflattering grade could put one's career in jeopardy.

I've been a substitute, and I once sent a misbehaving student to the principal's office. That student threatened me with the supposed fact that her mother was on the school board and that I would never be able to teach again if her mother found out. Teachers need protection from that.

Are there incompetent and under-performing, or misbehaving teachers? Sure -- and even with tenure they can be fired. There is practice teaching mandatory in all tracks to accreditation that can show whether someone is temperamentally unsuited to teaching (and being temperamentally unsuited to teaching could be more of a problem than someone who lacks mastery of the subject material). There just isn't that much material to master, and I could make the case that about anyone with a few appropriate courses in college including the practicum as well as a BA degree (and the appropriate temperament) could teach in elementary school. One had better be fairly good in one's specialty in high school, but a good generalist could teach almost anything.

I simply do not understand teacher tenure. K-12 education is one of the most important services government can provide, but we make it secondary to the needs of the teacher unions. What you are saying is that teacher job security is more important than the outcomes of children's education. And the pressure to do better gets an outlet in over the top testing. Its ridiculous. Everyone knows it ridiculous, but we are powerless.

You don't want teachers being rotated into a classroom only to be fired a few weeks later, as that would be difficult on the kids. At-will employment is the norm in environments in which bonding between employees and clients is weak. Cast off a salesclerk in a department store and nothing really happens. Replace a teacher and there is some explaining to do. It had better be "reasons of health".

I have been there -- but a teacher's job security needs to be there lest the students catch on. Students have begun smear campaigns, and there are pressure groups. If I were in an urban school I would probably the sort of teacher who would most need a union for protection because I don't show much tolerance for student behavior -- and I would grade hard. I've heard some black kids tell me that they don't want me to press them to "act white". (If I were a real racist I would tolerate substandard performance as an expectation from blacks -- and I would be confirming racist values. Such is good for nobody.) Tough. Our economic order shows no mercy, and it is best that kids of all origins get all the help that they can when it is potentially available.

Look at the latest in teacher accountability CA style. Here and here. How can you defend this stuff?

California is a fun place to live -- with some paradise climates along the coasts, cities full of excitement but relatively safe, and some marvelous attractions. It's a horrible place in which to be a teacher. Teachers often qualify for low-income housing because their jobs are low-income by California standards -- especially in view of the real estate costs. California used to attract first-rate teachers from outside the state as late as the 1960s. That is past. Teaching remains something that one does in California only if one can't make a living elsewhere -- like bartending, which is more lucrative. The rural Midwest, which gets the best educational results (students have fewer distractions and they know that if they don't want to stay on the family farm and milk cows the rest of their lives, gets the best results at relatively low costs.

When you look at the skill set that a good teacher has, you have the profile of a first-rate salesperson. Teaching is salesmanship, and someone greedy or desperate might turn to selling cars or furniture. The methods for convincing a fifth-grader that he can do long division are much the same as those for selling the latest television.

Originally Posted by pizal81

Today we had short political discussion about the next election. An older friend of mine the earliest of early X'ers. (I think he was born Jan 2 or 3 61) Was saying that the Republican party doesn't want to win this next presidential election because no matter who wins is going to fail over and over again while the economy sputters. Look who is running, Donald Trump, Sarah Palin? They're jesters. I really think we might as well pencil Obama in for 2012 and I thought that before he said this because of the low quality of the Republican candidates. So the GOP may be dogging it until 2016 as far as running for president.

He also noted to watch out for Ryan who wrote the budget proposal who will probably be the Republican's pick for 2016 noting that he is an economist.

I thought it was interesting since my he knows nothing about the theory, but sees that the next few years will remain turbulent and that the party in power during the downturn will lose support for a long time. He may be looking back at the Great Depression as a model.

If the economy is where it is now in November 2012 (which it increasingly appears it will be), Obama will lose no matter who the Republicans nominate. His record is terrible. Right now there is nobody going after him on it, because the media are all supporters of his. The Republican candidate will have a mountain of ammunition to use against him.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

If the economy is where it is now in November 2012 (which it increasingly appears it will be), Obama will lose no matter who the Republicans nominate. His record is terrible. Right now there is nobody going after him on it, because the media are all supporters of his. The Republican candidate will have a mountain of ammunition to use against him.

Yeah, it is a little early to tell, but if Palin has the best shot at the nomination it's not a good sign.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

If the economy is where it is now in November 2012 (which it increasingly appears it will be), Obama will lose no matter who the Republicans nominate. His record is terrible. Right now there is nobody going after him on it, because the media are all supporters of his. The Republican candidate will have a mountain of ammunition to use against him.

Uh...........no. In case you think that all the media are liberals on his side, then you don't know about FoX Newspeak Channel.

Even if the economy is in bad shape, the voters will hold that against Republicans if they hold Republican politicians culpable. The Republicans have nothing to offer except ravaging the safety net that has been in place for years and for tax cuts on behalf of the super-rich.

Originally Posted by James50

(Wow, PB. You wrote an entire post without mentioning "trickle down" or "nazis". Whatever meds you have gone back to, stay on them. You are actually making some sense. )

Sorry to lift out this one sentence, but this was the failure of the original stimulus. It went for all sorts of political payoffs and was almost completely wasted.

The big missing ingredient in the economy right now is investment in assets with a life over 20 years. This is primarily construction. If we had a normal amount of economic activity in construction, not a boom, but just normal contribution, our employment rate would be 6%. Unfortunately, there is almost a direct inverse correlation between the deficit and construction. As the deficit has gone up, construction has gone down. Perhaps this is coincidence, but more likely is that the unresolved deficit problem has raised uncertainty about the future to a point that no one can rationally invest in the long term. In economist talk - the risk premiums are too high.

(And before someone points it out, I am a commercial construction supplier. So, yes, I am talking my own book.)

James50

The stimulus was too small, partially because when it was orginally drafted the full extent of the downturn was not known, and partially because a sufficiently large stimulus was thought politically impossible to pass congress.

One of the worst mistakes of the Obama administration was it's decision to pretend that the size of the stimulus was "just right", and then try to sell it with a "recovery summer", when they knew full well that the stimulus was too small. They ended up looking like idiots and discrediting themselves in the process.

As for deficits, you have the casuality mixed up. Construction spending went down because the housing bubble burst, which sent the economy into a recession. As a result of the recession tax revenue to the federal government fell at the same time that spending increased in the form of items as such as unemployment assistance and food stamps, which caused the deficit to increase. You cannot point to the deficits opened up by Bush at the begginning of the decade as a cause for the recession either. By 2004, at the latest, it was clear the impact on the budget that the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would have. Between that point and mid to late 2007, when the recession began, there was a boom in housing. If people really reacted to deficits as you say they do, a recession would have begun in 2004.

Right now overal construction activity is low because there is little demand for it. Many individuals and businesses are still paying off debts accumulated during the boom years and lack the means to consume at a sufficient pace to employ people to produce the goods and services that they consume.

Regarding Paul Revere: Well, no, Palin got it wrong. For one thing, I seriously doubt she had the information in the letter the Revere wrote which is where that quote came from, and the Palin supporter dug up. Also, Revere wasn't shooting off a gun and ringin' those bells. He was telling the British what he knew because they had a gun to his head. He wasn't warning the British of anything while he was riding.

Revere got caught. Two other riders got through.

James, students aren't products.

I'm not denying we don't need good teachers. If we need good teachers we need to pay them. We need good administrators, too.

Teachers don't have the power to fire administrators. Regarding teaching being salesmanship: I have found that to be quite true.

Originally Posted by annla899

I'm not denying we don't need good teachers. If we need good teachers we need to pay them. We need good administrators, too.

Sure. But how often do these job openings NOT generate several qualified applicants? That's even more true today than just about ever -- with interest in the relative security, benefits and pensions that government jobs provide. That districts generally don't have a problem filling open positions with well-qualified applicants runs counter to the suggestion that they *need* to be paid more to attract them. Then again, this is a corollary to the "no amount of education spending is enough" argument that seems to run rampant in society today, despite spending 4x as much per student in inflation-adjusted dollars as in 1960 (source: U.S. Department of Education, "Digest of Education Statistics", Table 194):

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d...s/dt10_194.asp

When job openings for teachers stop attracting sufficient qualified applicants to fill positions, when you stop seeing enough college-age kids pursuing a teaching career to meet demand, then it's time to raise the compensation package.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Sure. But how often do these job openings NOT generate several qualified applicants? That's even more true today than just about ever -- with interest in the relative security, benefits and pensions that government jobs provide. That districts generally don't have a problem filling open positions with well-qualified applicants runs counter to the suggestion that they *need* to be paid more to attract them. Then again, this is a corollary to the "no amount of education spending is enough" argument that seems to run rampant in society today, despite spending 4x as much per student in inflation-adjusted dollars as in 1960 (source: U.S. Department of Education, "Digest of Education Statistics", Table 194):

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d...s/dt10_194.asp

When job openings for teachers stop attracting sufficient qualified applicants to fill positions, when you stop seeing enough college-age kids pursuing a teaching career to meet demand, then it's time to raise the compensation package.

I think teachers are paid enough generally. I never met a teacher who was in the poor house, but I did have a teacher who got fired and got paid more managing a "Sonic".

And seriously, how much do you pay someone who gets summers off.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Who knows what she was talking about. It's funny that people see her as a genius or an idiot, though, depending on their own political views. I'm sure that she is neither.

I don't think Palin is a quick thinker so when she put on the spot she may just do the best she can. (I may be projecting that one because that is how I am) I don't want to elect anybody who uses the kind of rhetoric she uses though.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Sure. But how often do these job openings NOT generate several qualified applicants? That's even more true today than just about ever -- with interest in the relative security, benefits and pensions that government jobs provide. That districts generally don't have a problem filling open positions with well-qualified applicants runs counter to the suggestion that they *need* to be paid more to attract them. Then again, this is a corollary to the "no amount of education spending is enough" argument that seems to run rampant in society today, despite spending 4x as much per student in inflation-adjusted dollars as in 1960 (source: U.S. Department of Education, "Digest of Education Statistics", Table 194):

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d...s/dt10_194.asp

When job openings for teachers stop attracting sufficient qualified applicants to fill positions, when you stop seeing enough college-age kids pursuing a teaching career to meet demand, then it's time to raise the compensation package.

It does not surprise me that we pay 4x more per student than in 1960. In 1960 there was no need for technology such as computers, etc, in the classroom or out of the classroom, nor were energy costs to heat, cool and maintain buildings anywhere near as high. The question becomes how much of those increased costs in inflation adjusted dollars is in teacher salaries and how much is going toward technology, fuel costs, increased security, specialists, teacher's aids for students with disabilities, etc? There are also far more administrators of all kinds than in 1960.

I was in Kindergarten in 1961. At that time there was a lot of money put into schools for us Boomers, mainly in expansion, because the GIs didn't mind paying for it and because there were huge numbers of us. The country wanted to compete with the USSR--sputnik, etc. Since there was no such thing as learning disabilities back then, kids sank or swam. If you had trouble reading, you got put in the "dumb" reading group. In my small high school of 900 students, we had a principal, a vice principle, two or three secretaries and 3 guidance counselors and 1 school nurse. There were probably 3 janitors. There were no security guards, not even during dances. The teachers did that duty. I don't think we had a nurse in grade school.

I was responding, in part, to pbrowar's post regarding California schools.

Nobody goes into teaching for the money. They may go into it because it has afforded greater job security in the past because of tenure , etc. However, in my experience, it takes years of practice to become a good teacher versus one who is simply qualified.

There are bad teachers out there who should not be teaching and who, I agree, have been stupidly protected.

EWWWW, Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum is running for Prez.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Who knows what she was talking about. It's funny that people see her as a genius or an idiot, though, depending on their own political views. I'm sure that she is neither.

Palin is not necessarily smart in the intellectual sense but she is shrewd as all hell.

Originally Posted by pizal81

I think teachers are paid enough generally. I never met a teacher who was in the poor house, but I did have a teacher who got fired and got paid more managing a "Sonic".

And seriously, how much do you pay someone who gets summers off.

Many teachers work or go to school in the summer, the latter because they need to maintain qualifications. But as I posted elsewhere, you don't go into teaching for the money. Anyone who goes into teaching because he or she thinks they're going to make as much as an engineer is deluded.

A couple of weeks ago I mentioned that a district-by-district analysis of Ryan's Medicare/Medicaid plan was coming out. Here it is with an interactive map that you can click on to see the damage the plan would do to your neck of the woods... or, more accurately, the damage it is going to do to House Republicans -

http://democrats.energycommerce.hous...-medicaid-cuts


I don't care how conservative you are, if you got a loved one in a nursing home, this is going to scare the bejesus out of you . .. and really, really piss you off at the voting booth.

Originally Posted by annla899

Many teachers work or go to school in the summer, the latter because they need to maintain qualifications. But as I posted elsewhere, you don't go into teaching for the money. Anyone who goes into teaching because he or she thinks they're going to make as much as an engineer is deluded.

We get what we pay for though. I don't want to slander all the good teachers out there, and I know there are good teachers who work very hard, a lot harder than people think (teaching is actually one of the more demanding out jobs out there if done correctly, and good teachers work a heck of a lot harder than 90 percent of the people working in office jobs), but just going by the standardized test scores and grades of applicants to teaching programs, teaching generally attracts the least prepared and least qualified students. The talent gap extends to administrators as well, since they generally come from the same pool as teachers.

In our society, especially during the last 30 years of increased income inequality, money and prestige are linked, so ambitious people who are willing to work hard and value what they do generally go into careers that they believe will reward them for their labor. Since teaching is perceived as a less lucrative, less valued career, it generally attracts people who are less ambitious, and willing to put less work into it, than the individuals who choose careers in medicine, engineering, or law.

The result is a workforce that views itself closer to unskilled labor that punches a clock than to educated professionals. Schools serving at risk populations where high concentrations of poverty exist fail to educate the students, while those serving wealthier populations generally do well because of the societal expectation for those students to succeed, but they many times contain a horrible social environment that leads to poor student outcomes from the standpoint of their interpersonal development such as peer bullying and mental health issues.

There was a time when maybe education was less important - back when the majority of the labor force engaged in occupations that required only basic literacy and computation skills, such as farmers or factory workers, but in the modern age, where most of what we traditionally think of as labor is done by machines, what occupations do exist require a much higher level of education. As a result, we really can't afford to underfund our schools anymore, or view them as backwaters where only the unambitious and untalented go to work.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Sure. But how often do these job openings NOT generate several qualified applicants? That's even more true today than just about ever -- with interest in the relative security, benefits and pensions that government jobs provide. That districts generally don't have a problem filling open positions with well-qualified applicants runs counter to the suggestion that they *need* to be paid more to attract them. Then again, this is a corollary to the "no amount of education spending is enough" argument that seems to run rampant in society today, despite spending 4x as much per student in inflation-adjusted dollars as in 1960 (source: U.S. Department of Education, "Digest of Education Statistics", Table 194):

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d...s/dt10_194.asp

When job openings for teachers stop attracting sufficient qualified applicants to fill positions, when you stop seeing enough college-age kids pursuing a teaching career to meet demand, then it's time to raise the compensation package.

During the good economic times of the 90's and 2000's it actually proved very difficult to attract people to teaching jobs in certain areas. Now of course it may be a little bit easier due to the poor economy, but, as I've said elsewhere, I don't think that we should include high unemployment and poor benefits throughout the economy as an integral part of the plan to attract people to the teaching profession. We should plan as though the economy will be good.

As for the increase in educational spending - as annla899 pointed out, there are costs that schools bear that they didn't need to back in the 50's and 60's. I don't necessarily view those costs as a bad thing. Although I am skeptical of the utility of computers in improvement of the educational process generally, students certainly need to be exposed to them and educated in their use since so many jobs now require at least a basic knowledge in the use of computers. I don't view special education as a bad thing either. Schools are meant for education, so where else would we educate those students? Our society certainly saves a lot of money in the long run if we are able to educate special education students to the point where they can contribute by holding down a job, or at least assisting in their care. Otherwise they would spend their lives as essentially wards of the state.

That being said, one of the big drivers of the increase in educational costs is the increase of the cost of the educational labor force. The cost increase is driven by two factors. The first is the increasing openings for college educated woman in other sectors of the labor force that pay more - such as health-care. Traditionally, and by traditionally I mean before WWII and in the 19th century, teaching was regarded as suitable for woman, and so was one of the few career paths open to them. As a result, schools could get away with paying them less than they would otherwise. The second is the premium that college education generally commands in the labor market. The wages of those with a college degree increased much faster than the wages of those without a college degree over the past 50 years, and also much faster than inflation. Since becoming a teacher requires a college degree, in order to remain somewhat competitive schools needed to raise their compensation in order to keep up with other offerings. Still, teaching remains one of the less lucrative careers that a college educated person can go into, although part of that is due to the fact that the compensation structure is different than in other jobs.

Originally Posted by btl2283

We get what we pay for though. I don't want to slander all the good teachers out there, and I know there are good teachers who work very hard, a lot harder than people think (teaching is actually one of the more demanding out jobs out there if done correctly, and good teachers work a heck of a lot harder than 90 percent of the people working in office jobs), but just going by the standardized test scores and grades of applicants to teaching programs, teaching generally attracts the least prepared and least qualified students. The talent gap extends to administrators as well, since they generally come from the same pool as teachers.

In our society, especially during the last 30 years of increased income inequality, money and prestige are linked, so ambitious people who are willing to work hard and value what they do generally go into careers that they believe will reward them for their labor. Since teaching is perceived as a less lucrative, less valued career, it generally attracts people who are less ambitious, and willing to put less work into it, than the individuals who choose careers in medicine, engineering, or law.

The result is a workforce that views itself closer to unskilled labor that punches a clock than to educated professionals. Schools serving at risk populations where high concentrations of poverty exist fail to educate the students, while those serving wealthier populations generally do well because of the societal expectation for those students to succeed, but they many times contain a horrible social environment that leads to poor student outcomes from the standpoint of their interpersonal development such as peer bullying and mental health issues.

There was a time when maybe education was less important - back when the majority of the labor force engaged in occupations that required only basic literacy and computation skills, such as farmers or factory workers, but in the modern age, where most of what we traditionally think of as labor is done by machines, what occupations do exist require a much higher level of education. As a result, we really can't afford to underfund our schools anymore, or view them as backwaters where only the unambitious and untalented go to work.

I completely agree with you.

Originally Posted by btl2283

We get what we pay for though.

We attract a certain person based on a variety of factors including but not limited to pay. Once on the job, they have to make a good impression for (usually) 3 years. After that they are untouchable. After that, you can no longer say you get what you pay for. You get what you have to put up with.

James50