<p>Again, I think we have to ask ourselves what it would take to attract students from the top two thirds, and whether we are willing to pay it.
Some of the students on the other boards are expecting glamourous jobs with corner offices and consulting fees. Are taxpayers expected to match that? And what is exactly going on in the schools of education to make you think that teachers are the bottom third of the class?</p>
<p>I don’t think that is the issue.
That is way too simplistic.
When teachers make more per hour than the median wage, with in many places decent benefits /working conditions & hours- but we still have poor educational results for the masses, throwing more money at the same system without looking at what is actually the issue- is not going to effect improvement.</p>
<p>We don’t have enough engineers and those jobs are well paid I think many would agree.
[Bill</a> Gates addresses educational reform - UPI.com](<a href=“Top News, Latest headlines, Latest News, World News & U.S News - UPI.com”>Top News, Latest headlines, Latest News, World News & U.S News - UPI.com)</p>
<p>From what I have observed personally, the teachers who have more tenure ( and higher pay) are not necessarily more dynamic or professional than those teachers who are lower on the ladder. Ive seen teachers who are on their 2nd career, so they are lower on the ladder, ( and closer to retirement age) but more committed to teaching & take it seriously as a profession.
Ive also seen teachers switch districts, knowing that they will be at the bottom of the ladder again.
Same with private school teachers, switching to public ( partly for the benefits).
I think all teachers should be certified in the state- and it is up to the state to determine what that means.
But once they are, as long as they keep their license current, they are considered to be an active teacher- & their pay scale should reflect that whether they switch districts or temporarily stop out of teaching in the public schools.
( If I were king)</p>