I completely disagree. The best teachers should be compensated, but there is no reason to spend 100k on high elementary school & high school teachers... Hell you could have a grad student teaching the course -- the material isn't hard. The trick is getting the kids to work and be motivated, and that's primarily caused by setting high standards and having parents emphasize the importance of education.
The trick is getting the kids to work and be motivated, and that's primarily caused by setting high standards and having parents emphasize the importance of education.
I think a good (grade school) teacher is not necessarily one who is an expert in the material (though, of course, base competence is necessary) but one who is an expert in motivating and engaging students.
"It is amazing how big a difference a great teacher makes versus an ineffective one. If you want your child to get the best education possible, it is actually more important to get him assigned to a great teacher than to a great school." Bill Gates
While I believe its true, I still don't think good teachers are worth 100k/year. That's way too high. That's higher than any other basic profession except doctor/lawyer, and there are certainly some doctors and lawyers that don't make that much, e.g., public defenders.
This argument still makes no sense to me. Teachers are in an obvious and direct way responsible for producing the next generation of doctors, lawyers, and computer programmers. How can we then in good conscience refuse to pay them as much as people working in those fields?
Think of it this way: in private firms, employees who demonstrate mastery of both their own specialization and "people skills" are promoted to management, so that they can guide and support the next generation of workers. They are paid more for this than their employees, in part due to the fact that not everyone can do what they do. Similarly, teachers have to balance knowledge of the actual material being taught, and all the "soft" skills of classroom management: facilitating discussions, maintaining discipline, keeping emotions and energy on an even keel.
Any manager who could effectively herd 30+ techies would be lauded as worth their weight in gold; why then isn't a teacher who does the same thing with as many children (a harder task, to be sure) appreciated as the deft administrator they must be?
While it would be great if the world revolved around what we should and shouldn't do, the reality is that it revolves more around what we can and can't do. By and large, economics are responsible for what people make, not what we feel they should get paid.
But you're comparing exceptional teachers to average doctors/lawyers. The people that could be great teachers have a lot of good alternatives, so if you want good teachers to teach, you need to reduce their opportunity cost by paying more.
Then you have to ask yourself should these great teachers be teaching average students, or should they only be teaching the best? Or should they be incentivised into going into science or engineering? These are tough questions, I honestly think the best scenario would be for top engineers and scientists (practicing) to mentor students, and help them see the big picture/inspire them while their teachers train them in the skills necessary.
But teachers pay is only a function of seniority. The system doesn't care whether a teacher is good or bad, the pay's the same if they've been in the job as long.
Most people simply do not want to work in an environment like that.
"That's higher than any other basic profession except doctor/lawyer"... and computer programmer.
Assuming that pay is tied to performance and the material being taught is relevant (two huge problems,) a good teacher more than pays for their salary in the increased productive output of their students.
but there is no reason to spend 100k on high elementary school & high school teachers... Hell you could have a grad student teaching the course -- the material isn't hard.
I would have thought it obvious that "hardness of the material" has little to do with what makes a great elementary school or even high school teacher.
Why? It would seem to me that you should always pay as little as you can get away with, and that that statement can always be made true by revising the qualification "as you can get away with". In other words, if paying as little as you can get away with causes some negative effect, then you aren't really getting away with it, so to speak.
