and you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but its completely irrelevant to the debate over the allocation of state funds in Wisconsin.
I never claimed otherwise. This community is for political discussion, so that is what we're doing. Unless you are a Wisconsin voter, I'm pretty sure your opinion is equally irrelevant, but that isn't stopping you from expressing it.
that would be really dumb. why would you offer a six figure salary to some kid right out of college who has never proved themselves in the classroom?
This is a pretty basic business principle. If you offer higher compensation, you expand your pool of qualified applicants. If you offered highly competitive wages ($100,000 was just a bit of an exaggerated example), you won't have to hire kids right out of college. You can afford to be more selective.
the fact of the matter is, if teachers are only motivated by money, they're going to be shitty teachers anyways.
It's possible to be motivated by a desire to teach and want to get excellent compensation at the same time. We don't tell brain surgeons that they should accept less compensation because they are doing good work, why should we do the same with teachers? This is the problem: on some level, people see teachers (and some other professions) as doing charity work that doesn't need to be compensated at the same level as other skilled professionals. That allows lawmakers carte blanche to attack when it is convenient.
they should not be forced to pay dues.
I agree with this.
its not like the electorate has a disdain for teachers.
Really? Because lately I hear a lot of complaining about lazy, poorly qualified teachers that get a free ride along with other public sector employees.
The root problem is something you sort of expressed yourself, that I mention above. People think that teachers deserve less compensation because they're doing good, valuable and "virtuous" work, which should be its own reward. We don't feel that way about highly-paid executives and so don't feel strange awarding them huge compensation. In reality though, teachers should be getting more precisely because they are doing good and valuable work.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 20/2/11 19:49 (UTC)I never claimed otherwise. This community is for political discussion, so that is what we're doing. Unless you are a Wisconsin voter, I'm pretty sure your opinion is equally irrelevant, but that isn't stopping you from expressing it.
that would be really dumb. why would you offer a six figure salary to some kid right out of college who has never proved themselves in the classroom?
This is a pretty basic business principle. If you offer higher compensation, you expand your pool of qualified applicants. If you offered highly competitive wages ($100,000 was just a bit of an exaggerated example), you won't have to hire kids right out of college. You can afford to be more selective.
the fact of the matter is, if teachers are only motivated by money, they're going to be shitty teachers anyways.
It's possible to be motivated by a desire to teach and want to get excellent compensation at the same time. We don't tell brain surgeons that they should accept less compensation because they are doing good work, why should we do the same with teachers? This is the problem: on some level, people see teachers (and some other professions) as doing charity work that doesn't need to be compensated at the same level as other skilled professionals. That allows lawmakers carte blanche to attack when it is convenient.
they should not be forced to pay dues.
I agree with this.
its not like the electorate has a disdain for teachers.
Really? Because lately I hear a lot of complaining about lazy, poorly qualified teachers that get a free ride along with other public sector employees.
The root problem is something you sort of expressed yourself, that I mention above. People think that teachers deserve less compensation because they're doing good, valuable and "virtuous" work, which should be its own reward. We don't feel that way about highly-paid executives and so don't feel strange awarding them huge compensation. In reality though, teachers should be getting more precisely because they are doing good and valuable work.