He's not an educator; he's "delivering a product," like a used car salesman. So he says you should pay teachers what they're worth, but then immediately says you should pay them "what you can afford to pay." You know, like a car: "Hey, I'll take that Lamborghini! I can afford to pay $500 for it, OK?"
Does this man really think the world works this way?
Reformy Steve says he can only make as much, in his capacity as a principal, as the community can afford to pay him. But he misses the question of whether our society is capable of putting much more money into education. He neglects to mention the fact that the wealthy, who are taking more of the money than they have in 100 years, are paying historically low taxes.
He also neglects to mention that we are a low-tax country:
Even worse, he neglects to explain how he supplements his own income by selling himself out as a public speaker (of reportedly dubious quality). I wonder: would Reformy Steve have a problem with all of his teachers working a side job the way he does?
Reformy Steve says that teachers have to justify their economic value in terms of the economic output of their students. Of course, it's much easier to base a system of compensation on this idea when you cherry-pick your students, which is exactly what Reformy Steve does. Take a look at the statistics for his school, compared to the neighboring public schools:
Reformy Steve thinks the Chicago teachers are acting like a "drunk uncle at a wedding." I've had that particular experience (not with my uncles, though): having to sit through some blowhard pointing his the finger at the rest of the world without acknowledging his own massive hypocrisy.
From the NCES's Common Core of Data, here are the high schools that serve the students of Hartford, CT. Capital (misspelled in the CCD data) is in green; the other magnets (as defined in the CCD) are in red. This shows the percentage of kids at each school who are eligible for free lunch, the best way we have to determine student poverty.Now, let's be fair: 45% is a lot of kids living in poverty. But it's less than half of most of the other high schools in Hartford. Is there anyone reading this who doesn't believe that this affects student achievement - for both the poor and the non-poor kids?How about students with disabilities? I had to go to the Connecticut State Department of Education for this data:
Quite a difference in populations. It's a lot easier to get all of your students into four-year colleges when so few of them have disabilities. How about English language learners?
That might help your writing scores a little, huh?
Gosh, who does that remind me of? Thinking...