Romney: We have too many teachers, cops, and firemen. Fire them!

[Unabogie]

His statement is 100% clear to anyone who cares to listen.

As much as conservatives like to assert that they want to just get the feds completely out of education and hiring police, etc (see Wildcat), it's pretty obvious what a loser this would be as a platform. The vast majority of Americans don't have a fetish for "state's rights". They just want to have cops in their neighborhoods and smaller class sizes for their kids. They don't care if the funding comes from Washington or Sacramento. They just want results. You can see how the official response is that Mitt didn't mean it. He wants to keep the cops, just not hire new cops. Or something. Again, that's a loser. People like having cops, teachers, and firemen.

Mitt stepped on his schlong.

The rest of this stuff is intellectual navel gazing.

 

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Brainster
The number of public school teachers has grown quite substantially over the last 20 years and is projected to continue growing.
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=28

For public schools, the number of pupils per teacher—that is, the pupil/teacher ratio—declined from 22.3 in 1970 to 17.9 in 1985. After 1985, the public school pupil/teacher ratio continued to decline, reaching 17.2 in 1989. After a period of relative stability during the late 1980s through the mid-1990s, the ratio declined from 17.3 in 1995 to 16.0 in 2000. Decreases have continued since then, and the public school pupil/teacher ratio was 15.3 in 2008. By comparison, the pupil/teacher ratio for private schools was estimated at 13.1 in 2008. The average class size in 2007–08 was 20.0 pupils for public elementary schools and 23.4 pupils for public secondary schools.

I am not making a general statement about whether there are too many teachers but the number of teachers has grown much faster than the number of students.

This, of course, was part of a concerted effort to lower the pupil to teacher ratio when it was discovered in the 1980's that a lower ratio greatly improves student performance. I find it very disheartening that so many now want to go back to the bad old days of one harried teacher trying to attend to 40+ students.

So who here agrees with the Obama jobs plan to hire police, teachers, and firefighters with federal money?

I do. It absolutely makes sense. The states have run out of money. The states are unable to do temporary deficit spending while the federal government can. If the federal government covers the expense of doing this we can ride out this depression without sacrificing a generation of students.

 

[BenBurch]

As much as conservatives like to assert that they want to just get the feds completely out of education and hiring police, etc (see Wildcat), it's pretty obvious what a loser this would be as a platform. The vast majority of Americans don't have a fetish for "state's rights". They just want to have cops in their neighborhoods and smaller class sizes for their kids. They don't care if the funding comes from Washington or Sacramento. They just want results. You can see how the official response is that Mitt didn't mean it. He wants to keep the cops, just not hire new cops. Or something. Again, that's a loser. People like having cops, teachers, and firemen.

Mitt stepped on his schlong.

The rest of this stuff is intellectual navel gazing.

I need to hear him say he meant something other than what I heard. As of now, we have this; http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...wer-firemen-cops-and-teachers-would-be-better

 

[mortimer]

This, of course, was part of a concerted effort to lower the pupil to teacher ratio when it was discovered in the 1980's that a lower ratio greatly improves student performance. I find it very disheartening that so many now want to go back to the bad old days of one harried teacher trying to attend to 40+ students.

And since the lowering of the ratio, performance has increased how much?

 

[Robrob]

I agree, it's nothing more than being seen as the "opposite of Obama."

I predict if Obama announced he was against the country being invaded by space aliens, Romney would come out in favor.

"Romney: And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords"

 

[Brainster]

This, of course, was part of a concerted effort to lower the pupil to teacher ratio when it was discovered in the 1980's that a lower ratio greatly improves student performance. I find it very disheartening that so many now want to go back to the bad old days of one harried teacher trying to attend to 40+ students.

Most schools have found that more teachers doesn't mean better teaching; by definition more teachers being hired means that you are scraping lower and lower in the barrel. So, yeah, maybe the class size is smaller, but the average quality of instruction declines.

And in most businesses productivity increases strongly over time. Office workers are much more productive than they used to be even 30 years ago due to the advent of the personal computer. Indeed, productivity improvements (more work done in the same amount of time) allows businesses to pay their workers more without decreasing profits. But in education, productivity has declined sharply over the last few decades, with poorer results from more workers.

The only group to benefit from this has not been the teachers themselves or their students, but the teachers' unions, who receive more dues.

 

[R.Mackey]

Most schools have found that more teachers doesn't mean better teaching; by definition more teachers being hired means that you are scraping lower and lower in the barrel. So, yeah, maybe the class size is smaller, but the average quality of instruction declines.

Maybe, and maybe not. I'd argue that the pool of competent teachers is not nearly as exhaustible as some industry skill-position, partly due to the nature of the job and partly because so many teachers start young. Certainly right now there is absolutely no chance of running out of talent.

And in most businesses productivity increases strongly over time. Office workers are much more productive than they used to be even 30 years ago due to the advent of the personal computer. Indeed, productivity improvements (more work done in the same amount of time) allows businesses to pay their workers more without decreasing profits. But in education, productivity has declined sharply over the last few decades, with poorer results from more workers.

Nope.

Even if we accept the validity of this analogy -- one can always manufacture a toaster faster, but there are limits to how much and how fast a human brain can absorb information -- the product is not the same over time. Children today are being taught different things, and in some cases much more, than in the past. Any attempt to measure "productivity"-style teaching efficiency without correcting for curriculum and even cultural evolution is invalid.

I'm not saying schools are inherently better now than they used to be, but the simple fact is we are expecting them to prepare our children for a more complicated world than we grew up in. Be careful.

The only group to benefit from this has not been the teachers themselves or their students, but the teachers' unions, who receive more dues.

Now here I tend to agree with you. Over the years I've been sharply critical of teachers' unions, particularly here in California where their problems are well documented (notably in a series of LA Times articles last year). But the way to address this isn't to reduce the number of teachers. While it is tempting to apply the same "Starve the Beast" logic the Right espouses for government entire, this does not improve teaching quality. All it does is force lousy administrators to entrench even deeper, protecting all the wrong people while discouraging good teachers, new talent, new administration.

Romney's approach will certainly make things worse. Again, California as an example -- we've been trimming just the way he wants for years, our class sizes are way up, and instruction quality is somewhere south of gangrenous for it.

Obama's approach will probably also make things worse, by which I mean it'll have only an oblique effect on teaching quality while wasting an awful lot of money.

Actually fixing this problem is going to require not more money so much as more stable money -- and this can only come with involvement from the Federal level. States simply are not stable enough nor able to borrow rapidly enough to get the job done. This is only half the battle, however. Once achieved, there needs to be real reform in the teaching workforce, which is going to mean hard negotiation with the unions. But this negotiation cannot succeed without better leadership within those unions, and that will never happen without the stability I mention above. You're just not going to find the people you want without making teaching and administration valued positions again.

It's going to take a while, and I'm not optimistic.

 

[Ziggurat]

Most schools have found that more teachers doesn't mean better teaching; by definition more teachers being hired means that you are scraping lower and lower in the barrel. So, yeah, maybe the class size is smaller, but the average quality of instruction declines.

Actually, this may be wrong. I recall reading that there aren't really any good a priori estimators for who will be a good teacher. Hiring decisions are effectively pretty arbitrary, so expanding the pool wouldn't necessarily decrease quality.

But for the same reason, raising salaries perversely could. Normally increasing salary attracts better talent, but that depends on the hiring process being an effective filter to weed out bad talent. If it's not, increasing salary can increase the number of bad applicants more than the number of good applicants, and if you can't tell the difference, average quality can drop.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This has nothing at all to do with any of those things you talk about. This is about the role and responsibilities of the federal government and of state and local governments.

My state is a mess, the worst of the worst, and I think it would be a horrible idea for the federal government to reward us for our failure. Because all of Illinois' problems were caused by Illinois.

Yea you will be like the auto manufacturers or the financial sector. And if a town is too poor to have the services it needs just let the whole town burn no one who matters lives there.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well you're the one who started in on "since when do we do this?" and the answer is for your entire lifetime. Then you move the goal posts and assert that block grants are pork, which doesn't have anything to do with your original question, which was when did we start doing this.

And let's move on to your second point:



Well duh, that's the whole point. We also have a national interest in our kids going to school and our cities not being overrun by crime and our forests getting routine care so they don't turn into wild fires.

That's in all of our interests, just as much as good roads are. But again, this isn't new. The highway bill passed in 1956, so unless you are seriously old, you've never lived in a country that didn't provide federal dollars to prop up state functions. It just hasn't existed in your living memory. And strangely enough, this was never a controversy until the Teabaggers came around and decided that STATES=GOOD and FEDS=BAD. Which is frankly moronic.

Only socialists use the interstates!

 

[ponderingturtle]

Actually, this may be wrong. I recall reading that there aren't really any good a priori estimators for who will be a good teacher. Hiring decisions are effectively pretty arbitrary, so expanding the pool wouldn't necessarily decrease quality.

But for the same reason, raising salaries perversely could. Normally increasing salary attracts better talent, but that depends on the hiring process being an effective filter to weed out bad talent. If it's not, increasing salary can increase the number of bad applicants more than the number of good applicants, and if you can't tell the difference, average quality can drop.

So we are seeing arguments for why teachers should be underpaid.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Only socialists use the interstates!

espacially the interstate on Oahu!

 

[WildCat]

I do. It absolutely makes sense. The states have run out of money. The states are unable to do temporary deficit spending while the federal government can. If the federal government covers the expense of doing this we can ride out this depression without sacrificing a generation of students.

No, it makes no sense at all. Illinois and California were in terrible shape prior to the recession. They won't recover when the economy does. California in particular votes down every single tax increase while demanding more and more government services. Why should the rest of the country have to pay for California services the voters of California refuse to pay for? Didn't you just vote "no" on a cigarette tax hike?

It's a bad, bad, bad idea for the federal government to bail out states.

 

[Dcdrac]

It appears from this side of the Atlantic that the GOP has gone collectively insane, it was once a party that seemed to have at least an understandable grounded in reality philosophy, now it seemsto be in the grip of head in the cloud lunatics wanting to enforce their nuttiness on a once proud to be pragamatic and realistic party.

 

[WildCat]

Yea you will be like the auto manufacturers or the financial sector. And if a town is too poor to have the services it needs just let the whole town burn no one who matters lives there.

Illinois isn't poor, we are just very corrupt and wildly inefficioent. We have several times the number of government taxing bodies than California does, despite being just 1/4 the size. We have many redundant and overlapping bureaucracies whose only functions are to reward political cronies with jobs and pensions. DuPage County, for example, has over 40 mosquito abatement districts, all with the power to raise property taxes and their own bureaucracies and administration to support. Frankly, we don't deserve a dime of federal money.

 

[Skepticemea]

Exactly. The very worst thing the federal government should be doing is bailing out irresponsible state governments.

But hey, why be responsible when Uncle Sam rewards you for being irresponsible?

If a state government fails then the people who live there should move to a state that's doing well.

 

[WildCat]

If a state government fails then the people who live there should move to a state that's doing well.

It's certainly an option.

Make no mistake about it, Illinois and California are in the shape they're in not because of economic conditions out of their control but because of a bloated and corrupt government (Illinois) and a populace that has the power to vote down every proposed tax increase, and does (California) while demanding ever more government services.

Paying for these states local functions is like giving cash to a junkie.

 

[Skepticemea]

It's certainly an option.

Make no mistake about it, Illinois and California are in the shape they're in not because of economic conditions out of their control but because of a bloated and corrupt government (Illinois) and a populace that has the power to vote down every proposed tax increase, and does (California) while demanding ever more government services.

Paying for these states local functions is like giving cash to a junkie.

Of course, the entire population of California can't move to, say, Texas but the ones able to afford to up sticks and move will. Also, those with the right skills will be able to get jobs. Those who can't, well... you can't help everyone, right? The rump-state might not be able to afford schools or police or fire fighters but, hey, life's tough.

 

[Bikewer]

Federal assistance for law enforcement may be a double-edged sword. I'm familiar with a couple of examples that had/have problems.
Way back in the 70s, there was a program called "LEAP" or Law Enforcement Assistance Program. Some acronym to that effect...It may have been Law Enforcement Educational Assistance or something... I forget. I confess I don't know if this plan was Republican or Democratic in origin or maybe, back then, even a bipartisan one!
At any rate, it provided a wide range of financial assistance to law enforcement agencies. The idea was to upgrade the equipment and materials for smaller departments, and also to provide educational assistance to officers to obtain college credits and degrees.

On the education side, huge numbers of officers were essentially paid to take college courses and to get degrees ranging from Associates to Masters. One of our present sergeants holds a Masters from this program.
The idea being to "professionalize" the police sector. Results were mixed. With many colleges wanting to reap the benefits of the Federal largess, but not having specific "criminal justice" curricula, they hired a lot of ex-cops to teach courses.
As might be expected, with everyone getting Federal money and everybody on the same team so to speak...Degrees were easily obtained and the quality of education suspect.
The sergeant I spoke of could only just write a report decently when he was working for me....

In regards to upgrading equipment... This was initially a great thing for lots of small, cash-strapped departments. Federal money flowed and new cars, radios, weapons, and other goodies were purchased. Officers were hired.
However, like all such programs, if you wanted to keep the money flowing you had to keep buying. To show you needed it.
So, I'm familiar with local departments that found themselves sort of overflowing with new toys of all sorts, and unable to use it all...
As well, officers hired under the program lived under the cloud of having funding cut off at any time due to administration change or whatever.

Currently, we have the phenomenon of "Shared drug interdiction funds". Basically, departments recieve monies dependent upon drug seizures and arrests that take place. The Feds decided that if say... A million dollars worth of drugs and drug-related cash were seized in a particular county, then the county should reap the rewards of those seizures and recieve federal money.
This leads, as one might expect, to very suspect enforcement, since the drug trade effectively provides funding for the police trade. According to a Time article from a couple of years ago, there are small departments all over rural America that are essentially being kept afloat by these federal rewards.

 

[Travis]

And since the lowering of the ratio, performance has increased how much?

In my school district the dropout rate was halved and the proportion moving on to college increased as well. Other school districts may have had dissimilar results.

No, it makes no sense at all. Illinois and California were in terrible shape prior to the recession. They won't recover when the economy does. California in particular votes down every single tax increase while demanding more and more government services. Why should the rest of the country have to pay for California services the voters of California refuse to pay for? Didn't you just vote "no" on a cigarette tax hike?

It's a bad, bad, bad idea for the federal government to bail out states.

Before the recession California was able to pay for its schools. Other areas of the state government were completely screwed over by incompetence but the schools were always paid for.

And while I voted against the cigarette tax last November I voted for a local property tax increase because it was specifically for schools. It did pass.