“Would six-figure salaries attract better teachers?”

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The biggest gains with 6 figure salaries is realized when only a few schools are doing it.

So what you get there is good quality teachers being taken out of the poorer districts, and then having a higher concentration of WELL paid good teachers in a VERY select (elite) area.
Yup i can fully see how that will help the gen pop education

"The rich getting richer, The poor get the picture"

Yep, though I imagine that's already the case with prep schools.

If OTOH, you changed the majority of teacher salaries to high salaries, your immediate gain is close to zero. Would take a few years for people to jump over to education in response, and you still have all the current, seniority favoring members of the teachers unions.

[billvon 3,120]

>If OTOH, you changed the majority of teacher salaries to high salaries . . .

Whoah there! I don't think you'd want to "change them over." Instead just go to a higher ceiling, and a (potentially) faster advancement to that salary. There's no need, and no benefit, in paying a cruddy teacher more money. There is significant benefit, though, in offering an excellent teacher a path towards rapid advancement, the sort he'd see in industry.

[Royd 0]

If OTOH, you changed the majority of teacher salaries to high salaries . . .

Quote

Whoah there! I don't think you'd want to "change them over." Instead just go to a higher ceiling, and a (potentially) faster advancement to that salary. There's no need, and no benefit, in paying a cruddy teacher more money. There is significant benefit, though, in offering an excellent teacher a path towards rapid advancement, the sort he'd see in industry.

Shouldn't that already be part of the unionization process. The old apprentice type program. Sadly, it's about protecting slackers and dead beats.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>If OTOH, you changed the majority of teacher salaries to high salaries . . .

Whoah there! I don't think you'd want to "change them over." Instead just go to a higher ceiling, and a (potentially) faster advancement to that salary. There's no need, and no benefit, in paying a cruddy teacher more money. There is significant benefit, though, in offering an excellent teacher a path towards rapid advancement, the sort he'd see in industry.

it "might" work if you got rid of the union, else it would just be another tax raise for everybody else

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>If OTOH, you changed the majority of teacher salaries to high salaries . . .

Whoah there! I don't think you'd want to "change them over." Instead just go to a higher ceiling, and a (potentially) faster advancement to that salary. There's no need, and no benefit, in paying a cruddy teacher more money. There is significant benefit, though, in offering an excellent teacher a path towards rapid advancement, the sort he'd see in industry.

This particular discussion was a school that would be paying that immediately, but you're right that raising the potential may lead to the desired end result, if pay were linked to performance (which is hard as hell to do with teaching).

Union politics aside, it's always a problem when the newcomers to the company (school) are being paid top dollar while the current employees see minimal raises.

That's the glaring fault in the tech world where one often has to change jobs in order to advance in pay/stature. Turnover is bad for the companies.