My Commenters Rock

Seriously, they do:

Duke, as usual you hit the nail on the head--and squarely. Having spent over 16 years working in the "real" world, i.e. the private sector/corporate America, before returning to my first and beloved profession (teaching), I was hit with culture shock. At first I found it a bit dismaying, and then just "weird" that a 22 year old "kid" was doing exactly the same job I was doing. Maybe not quite as well (hehe), but the same job with the same responsibilities and expectations. And I, with over 20 years more professional, teaching/training, business, and life experience, was only making about $7,000 more (that was the "dismaying" part, since my 16 years in corporate America only earned me one additional step on the pay scale).

I could not think of ANY job in the private sector in which someone with over 20 years more experience and a graduate degree or two would be doing the SAME job as a 22 year old with no experience. None. Nor could I think of any private sector career in which one would be doing the same thing in the same job for 30 years, except for professionals, such as doctors and perhaps lawyers. 

In corporations, if those doing the same job with the same responsibilities are paid differently, it's usually illegal, and often (correctly) attacked as "gender inequity." As you pointed out, except for the fat cats at the top who get million dollar bonuses or those on commission, the vast majority of private sector workers don't get "merit pay"--they get corporate profit sharing if the business did well that year (based on their positions) or promotions if they do well individually and there's room in the budget.

Teaching is an entirely different model, a different paradigm, even. There is no "career path;" you spend your last year doing what you did your first (only better). It attracts those who find personal and professional satisfaction outside the monetary realm.

Given the nature of the profession, and the individuals it attracts, logic dictates that merit pay is not a motivator. Period.

Christie himself declared this in his address at the Harvard Graduate School of Education on April 29, 2011:
http://www.state.nj.us/education/news/2011/0429har.htm
"I don’t think any teacher goes into teaching to get rich. They go into teaching mostly I believe because of the psychic value of being able to share your knowledge with children and watching those children learn and respond to you." He used this characterization to defend merit pay and counter the criticism that teachers wouldn't continue to collaborate in a system that uses merit pay. {Yes! Yes! Yes!}

Obviously, internal consistency and logic are not his strong points. I can't imagine how he passed his LSATs or wrote cohesive briefs. [emphasis mine]

Gender inequity? Could that possibly be why the corporate "reformers" think they can come in and "transform" schools without the consent of teachers? Aren't most teachers women?

I love when ya'll give me free material! Thanks, Lisa! (When you write this well, you should have a blog - just saying...)