It's hard for me to tell whether you think "experienced" teachers should be more highly compensated because they "do it better" or if you think the better teachers should just be paid handsomely outright, regardless of their tenure. I believe a teacher's pay should be based on performance, not the number of years they haven't been fired. How to measure teacher performance is up for debate.
I'm not going to say teaching is easy, but everyone that I know that became a teacher basically defaulted into it because their other career plans didn't work out or because they didn't have career plans in the first place. Granted, this sampling does not represent every teacher and the job itself may not be as easy as many people think, but it's an easy job to get and a difficult job to lose. Everyone on this message board could get a job teaching, but not all of us could get programming or chemical engineering jobs.
And isn't it the teachers' unions that oppose differential pay anyway? Steve Jobs had it partly right when he said the teachers' unions are the problem with the U.S. public education system and that you'll never get good people to run schools when it is so difficult to get rid of the bad teachers. But there are other problems with the system like lack of choice for students (why not let them attend any public school they want?) and economically speaking, the demand for education is artificial (everyone is required to attend). Plus there's a cultural issue, especially in low-income areas (black, white and otherwise), where scholastic achievement is frowned upon by peers.
Teachers always seem to be fighting for higher pay and I'd love to see them get it, but not some little five percent or twenty percent increase. Ignoring the tax implications, can you imagine if teaching salaries were suddenly put in the six-figure range and principals were allowed to hire and fire at will? What percentage of today's teachers would lose their jobs to truly qualified professionals? 20%? 80%?
There is an overriding attitude when it comes to education that every child should have the same opportunities and therefore be treated the same, but children are all different; they learn and are inspired in various ways, so why is the goal to make every classroom identical? The current system caters to a certain mindset and I guess I (and probably most everyone on this board) was lucky to be one such "good tester," but it would be nice if schools were allowed to specialize, liquidate the teaching pool a bit and students were allowed to shop public schools.
I'm not saying privatize, but at least take on some of the philosophy of privatization and competition. Then educational budget increases (and decreases) will have an actual impact on quality of education and money will go to the teachers that deserve it.
PS. I also have a hair-brained scheme where an uber-tiny fraction of each citizen's income would go to every school and teacher they ever had. Recieve teaching royalties until you die- how's that for incentive?
Slashdot Mirror
It's hard for me to tell whether you think "experienced" teachers should be more highly compensated because they "do it better" or if you think the better teachers should just be paid handsomely outright, regardless of their tenure. I believe a teacher's pay should be based on performance, not the number of years they haven't been fired. How to measure teacher performance is up for debate.
I'm not going to say teaching is easy, but everyone that I know that became a teacher basically defaulted into it because their other career plans didn't work out or because they didn't have career plans in the first place. Granted, this sampling does not represent every teacher and the job itself may not be as easy as many people think, but it's an easy job to get and a difficult job to lose. Everyone on this message board could get a job teaching, but not all of us could get programming or chemical engineering jobs.
And isn't it the teachers' unions that oppose differential pay anyway? Steve Jobs had it partly right when he said the teachers' unions are the problem with the U.S. public education system and that you'll never get good people to run schools when it is so difficult to get rid of the bad teachers. But there are other problems with the system like lack of choice for students (why not let them attend any public school they want?) and economically speaking, the demand for education is artificial (everyone is required to attend). Plus there's a cultural issue, especially in low-income areas (black, white and otherwise), where scholastic achievement is frowned upon by peers.
Teachers always seem to be fighting for higher pay and I'd love to see them get it, but not some little five percent or twenty percent increase. Ignoring the tax implications, can you imagine if teaching salaries were suddenly put in the six-figure range and principals were allowed to hire and fire at will? What percentage of today's teachers would lose their jobs to truly qualified professionals? 20%? 80%?
There is an overriding attitude when it comes to education that every child should have the same opportunities and therefore be treated the same, but children are all different; they learn and are inspired in various ways, so why is the goal to make every classroom identical? The current system caters to a certain mindset and I guess I (and probably most everyone on this board) was lucky to be one such "good tester," but it would be nice if schools were allowed to specialize, liquidate the teaching pool a bit and students were allowed to shop public schools.
I'm not saying privatize, but at least take on some of the philosophy of privatization and competition. Then educational budget increases (and decreases) will have an actual impact on quality of education and money will go to the teachers that deserve it.
PS. I also have a hair-brained scheme where an uber-tiny fraction of each citizen's income would go to every school and teacher they ever had. Recieve teaching royalties until you die- how's that for incentive?