Comments on: NYC charter to pay teachers more than lawyers

By: Liam

Liam — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:56:58 +0000

There is a comment string on a similar post at BMG. I made the point on it that by constraining the bidding process, unions had, in fact, constrained instructional improvement. And, unsurprisingly, another blogger argued, like Walter, that it was an insult to imply that he would be a better teacher if he were paid more.

Walter, as a former teacher, I have to tell you that my single biggest frustration was being paid in step with teachers who were not as good as and didn’t care as much as I was and did. As a teacher, I deserved $125,000. In our society, which seems to be slowly slipping into a bottomless morass of pop culture, what could be more needed, or more noble, than paying the individuals who are invested with handing off the intellectual torch to the next generation what they are worth.

By: Jim Stergios

Jim Stergios — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:03:12 +0000

Walter: Thanks for your comment. I wouldn’t turn this into something that is ad hominem. It’s not. Why do we often seek out the highest paid doctors when seeking health care? Often because they are the best in the business. The additional payment is in part to attract the most motivated teachers, yes. But, in a world where we increasingly have data on student performance and on the value added by teachers, the idea is to attract the best teachers.
Perhaps that is you. You could apply. If money does not matter to you, then you don’t have to apply. I am not sure why this school’s decision strikes you as harmful to you.

By: Walter

Walter — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:01:26 +0000

Ok here is my take on this… If they are paying teachers more the implication is they will teach better? Its kind of insulting to my character, as if I am not teaching to the best of my ability because I am underpaid.

“I could get your child to read but they aren’t paying me enough.”

I do not think you would find this comment anywhere.