In an op-ed for the New York Times, Diane Ravitch writes that turn-around schools are fairy tales. When you actually look at the numbers, those inner-city miracle schools with over worked teachers don't really do better than regular schools. Kids excel in schools, when they come from stable families with regular meals, bedtimes, and paychecks. 

If every child arrived in school well-nourished, healthy and ready to learn, from a family with a stable home and a steady income, many of our educational problems would be solved. And that would be a miracle.

She and other education advocates have made this same argument several times over this past year. And I don't disagree with them. Statistically, no education reform is as important as the economic and emotional stability of a community. 

But is it possible to argue both that A. Schools aren't as important as family life and B. Teachers are undervalued and need a raise and respect? If family life is the most important factor in predicting the educational success of a kid, shouldn't I be the one getting the raise? Isn't Ravitch undervaluing teachers in this article? Why should we pay teachers more, if their work doesn't seem to translate to more learning?