A Tale of Two $100,000 Jobs — A Tale of Two Americas | Hacker News Reader

A Tale of Two $100,000 Jobs — A Tale of Two Americas

blog.american.com

7 pointscwan11 comments

Well first off, everyone should read the New Yorker article referenced. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/08/31/090831fa_fact_...

The issue at hand is not teacher compensation, but the fact that no mechanism exists to weed out ineffective teachers from the pack. I don't think $100,000 a year (after 20 years of service) is too high a price to pay for a competent professional who can have a positive impact on hundreds of lives over the course of his/her career.

In fact, the argument could be made that it is not enough, and that is why traditionally those working in education are not as talented those in other, more well funded fields like finance and medicine.

The scariest part of Steven Brill's article is many teachers' aversion to quality metrics that could actually measure performance and hold them accountable for their work.

Two quotes: 1. Our schools are indifferent to instructional effectiveness,"the study declared. Under the subhead “All teachers are rated good or great," it examined teacher rating processes, and found that in districts that have a binary, satisfactory-unsatisfactory system, ninety-nine per cent of teachers receive a satisfactory rating, and that even in the few school districts that attempt a broader range of rating options ninety-four per cent get one of the top two ratings.

2. I asked the woman for her reaction to the following statement: "If a teacher is given a chance or two chances or three chances to improve but still does not improve, there’s no excuse for that person to continue teaching. I reject a system that rewards failure and protects a person from its consequences."

"That sounds like Klein and his accountability bullshit,"she responded. "We can tell if we’re doing our jobs. We love these children." After I told her that this was taken from a speech that President Obama made last March, she replied, "Obama wouldn’t say that if he knew the real story.

There's a similar article that ran a few years ago (I think) about LA, in the LA Times. It talked both about how hard it is to fire teachers, and also how hard it is to know ahead of time which teachers are any good.

I wish I could find it again, but it's remained elusive in the few minutes I've spent looking.

Indeed, here in California, the reality of what public school teachers make is, on the surface, shocking.

Considering that they're unionized, it's no surprised. I've never understood how it's legal, or, especially, ethical, that public employees may form a union.

I can't believe a teacher can make more than 100k a year plus pension for working 8:15-3:15 9 months a year.

In nyc 100K is a modest salary. Judging by cost of living calculators, it is roughly the same as teachers make where I live.

I don't have a problem with NYC paying teachers whatever it wants, as long as it's NYC paying the NYC differential.

After all, it's NYC folks who get the benefit of living in NYC and they're also the folks who drive up NYC prices.

In Manhattan, decent 1 bedroom apartments go for $1000 per square foot. My grocery bill increased 150% (somewhere between 2x and 3x) as compared to the midwest. My utilities ran $200/mo to air condition a 570 square foot apartment. $100k isn't an adult income in Manhattan. And lets not forget the what, 3.5% city income tax that starts at $60K?

I thought that was part of the point of living in high density, that one gives up living space and some conveniences in exchange for economies of scale and other conveniences.

In suburbs and rural areas, there are transportation costs which must be paid separately for groceries and commuting. How much do those cost you, compared to people who commute from, say, Huntington?

Transportation costs are comparable to $1000+ ft^2 housing prices? Please.

And in the context -- people decrying $100K/year salaries -- it's important to understand that $100k is a small income to live in the city.

I was asking the question, not making the statement.

I agree, $100k is a small income to live comfortably in Manhattan. It's also a small income to live comfortably in Palo Alto.

The inbuilt assumption by those who decry such salaries,is that it is more than plenty to live comfortably somewhere else and commute to a job in a place with expensive housing.

If a 40 mile (one way) commute costs under $1k monthly, the assumption strikes me as quite reasonable.

"When Newt says ..."

Then I reply (especially with apocryphal stories): [citation needed]

Reply on news.ycombinator.com