> You could double teacher pay and it wouldn't make a lick of difference.
I sincerely doubt that. Having a teacher who isn't struggling financially would be a huge improvement.
I sincerely doubt that. Having a teacher who isn't struggling financially would be a huge improvement.
Also investment bankers have as much autonomy as a client allows them to. And MDs and VPs are as much responsible for their subordinates and client relationships (although not in the same way as teachers are for students).
I had several high-school teachers who weren't financially comfortable, yet still chose to spend hundreds or even thousands on their students during a school year.
Of course, those teachers would have been much more effective if they were in a financially stable position. I also would have had fewer quality teachers leave.
If so, maybe you’ve hit on a kernel of truth: we can’t risk paying teachers enough that they’d have the financial security to leave a bad work situation.
So when the workers have not other options, working conditions can stay low?
(I'm all for financially rewarding good teachers, but because their work is incredibly valuable. It's just ab incredibly hard context in which to separate the good and the bad without creating perverse incentives)