- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
That makes it even worse. If they're getting paid $100K for nine months, then the REAL annualized cost to the taxpayers is closer to $130K.
No. See Simon's post.
The driving factor in ALL government salaries should be supply and demand. The fact that they are performing a task that you deem important is irrelevant to the fact that there are plenty of qualified teachers out there.
And I disagree. The volume of qualified teachers has nothing to do with the importance of the job.
This argument might have some merit if paying teachers such exorbitant salaries actually meant that more capable teachers would be recruited and student performance would improve...but it does not, because the unions also ensure that there is no merit pay and no one ever gets fired for anything.
Exorbitant is your opinion. And I already said that I agree with the difficult of getting rid of bad teachers. I disagree with the lack of merit pay, too.