Presidential candidate, John Edwards thinks he has a solution for education reform. For one, he proposes increasing the salaries of teachers up to $15,000 in high poverty areas.
Then I read an article that says this:
Numerous research studies have shown that the quality of teachers is the single most important contributor to student achievement. Indeed, teacher effectiveness has been found to matter more than the students’ income level, their race, or their parents’ level of education. While teacher salaries are not an infallible proxy for teacher quality, they are one of the best indicators we have of teachers’ experience, skills and knowledge. Should we understand that the teachers in these high poverty schools are ineffective.? Yet John Edwards wants to pay them MORE! Yes, I realize a higher salary supposedly attracts more highly qualified teachers, but with tenure how are the schools going to get rid of the obviously lacking teachers who are already there? They won't. The fruitless teachers will continue to do a lousy job and get paid more for it. Why not offer a bonus to teachers who perform well? An across the board increase doesn't make sense to me. Better yet... why not offer school choice to parents?Another grand idea of his is to create universal preschool. Is he unaware of the recent studies showing the negative effects of sending children to school too early?
Our children are preparing for unprecedented global economic competition," Edwards said in the policy statement. Then why is he worried about babies going to school earlier rather than the sharp academic decline from grade 8 to 12?
