<p>“So what kind of teachers could a school get if it paid them $125,000 a year?”
<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/education/05charter.html?_r=1[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/education/05charter.html?_r=1</a></p>
<p>it will be interesting to see the results of this experiment. They seem to have drawn in the cream of the crop and only time will tell if that makes a difference when educating their target audience. </p>
<p>I wonder if they can expel a student the same way they could fire a teacher that is not performing.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.tepcharter.org/[/url]”>http://www.tepcharter.org/</a> the website of the school. the enrollment is only 120 students and was filled by lottery</p>
<p>There are MANY low income disadvantaged children that have very loving involved parents. If these kids get a top notch experience at school in conjunction with a stable, loving home life, I have no doubt this will be a success. OTOH, if the kids are spending their non school time under stress, homeless, hungry, the outcome may not be as good.</p>
<p>I wish them all the best.</p>
<p>The $125000 salary will have absolutely no impact.</p>
<p>^^^ so you’re saying that these kids will not fare any better in a small school with completely dedicated teachers than they would in public school</p>
<p>I’m not talking about the size of the school, I wrote that the salary won’t have an impact. Teachers teaching in crowded inner city schools making $35000 a year are as dedicated if not more dedicated than teachers making significantly more in wealthy towns. They’re not in it for the money, most are in it because they believe that they can make a difference in children’s lives - that’s why the salary is irrelevant.</p>
<p>"Teachers teaching in crowded inner city schools making $35000 a year are as dedicated if not more dedicated than teachers making significantly more in wealthy towns.</p>
<p>But are they as high quality teachers? Teachers in inner cities are more likely to be new in the field and not certified in the subject they are teaching than are teachers in more affluent school districts.</p>
<p>I’m guessing that one can get a higher quality teacher – including by attracting higher quality people to the field --by offering $125 k salaries instead of $35 k salaries.</p>
<p>“But are they as high quality teachers? Teachers in inner cities are more likely to be new in the field and not certified in the subject they are teaching than are teachers in more affluent school districts.”</p>
<p>Yes they are as high quality as teachers anywhere and are not new in the field. Of course by that time they won’t be making 35k but they don’t make 125k either. In Ct., they are as certified as anywhere else.</p>
<p>My district average salary is over $80,000 and top salaries are over $120,000. (At least according to a website that has NY teacher salaries statistics from a couple of years ago. [New</a> York Teacher Salaries 2007-08](<a href=“http://www.myshortpencil.com/newyorkteachersalaries.htm]New”>New York Teacher Salaries 2007-08)) Most of our teachers come in with a few years of learning to be teachers in NYC or other districts. Most are good, a some are excellent, a few are terrible. I don’t think the salary had too much to do with how good they were.</p>
<p>More money is not the answer. Getting rid of tenure would be a giant step in the right direction.</p>
<p>I was about to say what ‘nysmile’ said - more important than some high salary is the ability to relatively easily fire teachers who aren’t performing well, promote teachers who do perform well even if they don’t have the seniority of some other teachers, and not be saddled with the union demands. Failure to do that would result in similar teachers who would simply be more expensive. The salary should be based more on supply and demand. The idea of bonuses as an incentive could help as long as the attainment metrics are appropriate. Private schools tend to practice the above with the parents being the ultimate decision makers. Public schools don’t and parents have little influence.</p>
<p>Does it really matter that much? </p>
<p>The most important factor, BY FAR, is the quality of the students.</p>
<p>They’d get me, that’s for sure.</p>
<p>The quality of students is usually related to the quality of parents.</p>
<p>It will be an interesting experiment if nothing else. Definitely worth exploring.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep.<br>
While a great teacher can make a difference, a merely good teacher combined with great parents (involved, supervising, responsive, educated, and with academics as a priority) is a much more combined effective influence for the vast majority of students.</p>
<p>It’s true about the parents and kids themselves being large factors but considering those two factors as constants, the quality of the teacher is still a factor worth paying attention to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think that’s the case. Los Angeles laid off all untenured teachers this year in certain subjects due to the budget crisis. The fact is that inner city schools in L.A. are taking the biggest hit with some schools losing over half of their teachers (one school 70%) whereas the L.A. schools in more affluent areas are losing far fewer teachers because they have more experienced teachers. I think offering a competitive salary is the way to draw top talent into any field. But it only works in education if you can get rid of people who are not earning the salary.</p>
<p>Tenure is an outdated mode IMO. My first grade teacher was physically and emotionally abusive and was granted tenure. What a joke. She is now a clown after attending clown school, seriously. Scary stuff!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not really. Why would so many teachers go into private education instead of the higher wages in public education? I imagine the quality of the students is a HUGE part of it.</p>
<p>Good point, dontno. I am and have been working in private education since my son was four and started school. I left the US so he could have a private education for free. The salary is o.k. but with the perk of free education for my child and many other things related to international education, I have stayed put. He has moved on to the states. It was the best move! I would say our school has about 30% pure English speakers. The rest speak many other languages and are learning English. It is essentially then an ESL school. Some children come from very rich families and some just regular families. The class size is around 15, I know when kids get haircuts, I can speak to them about their grandparents. We are tiny in the scheme of things. That makes all the difference. The school doesn’t have a lot of money and fancy facilities. But I love it. My son was so lucky to be an alumni. He knows it. I think teachers’ needs have to be met and that includes their own children, their housing, the culture of the school. Money really is down on the list. It does help though…:)</p>