Comments on: A Very Bad Good Idea

By: Highly Qualified or Highly Satisfied? » Edurati Review

Highly Qualified or Highly Satisfied? » Edurati Review — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:08:35 +0000

[...] can make compelling arguments that fall just outside of the bulls eye. Our attention is directed to Kevin Carey’s objections on the Quick and the Ed, who suggests the tax-cuts-for-teachers notion could be arguable for any [...]

By: Loren Steele

Loren Steele — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:40:00 +0000

It’s not even remotely a bad idea. Tax incentives have always been used to stimulate growth of business. By eliminating Federal taxes on teachers we encourage more people to enter the profession, and almost certainly increase retention. BTW in which other profession is it considered unfair to pay more to someone with more experience? In nyc our salary scale takes a pretty good jump after 6 years, and that’s about how long it takes to become a good teacher. If you read the article again, notice that Friedman wants to double the salary of teachers in shortage areas like science and math, one of your suggestions.

You can’t reward high-performing teachers because there is no way to fairly measure performance. That idea is a nonstarter.

By: john thompson

john thompson — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:43:00 +0000

What’s going on here? You’ve made four posts in a row where we are in substantial agreement. I still don’t know what you’re talking about in that post on Wall E and Frank Miller. As long as they don’t work for Michelle Rhee or for a hedge fund, I’ll keep an open mind on them.

By: Downes

Downes — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:37:00 +0000

The plan is probably a bad idea, but not for the reasons you outline here.

Your criticism represents the program as though the only impact would be on existing teachers, and of course, veteran teachers would be favoured under the system.

But the purpose of the plan would be to encourage new teachers to apply. It would probably be success at this, because it promises a greater high end salary in the long run.

This probably generalizes. In any system designed to improve the quality of applicants by increasing compensation, you have to reward *current* as well as future teachers, and such rewards will almost certainly be progressive.

Why? Because any other system smacks of unfairness, and demonstrating that you manage a system in an unfair manner is a significant *disincentive* to new applicants.

Indeed, I would suggest that one of the major deterrents to high quality people considering a teaching career is the barrage of postings, just like this one, that attack existing teachers, teacher unions, existing contracts, and the rest. Nobody wants to work under such conditions.