Originally Posted by
Crow22
I'm certainly not offended and I don't believe I'm attacking you for disagreeing with your position. Its your right to think and say whatever you want. I happen to know/think different because its been my profession for over 2 decades. I can tell you for certain that during a coaches "season" (especially football) that most will work upwards of 80-120 (or more) hours per week. My personal "average" during football would be 6:45am - 7:30pm (monday-wedns) and 6:45am to 10:30pm (thurs-friday).....then 8am-3pm (sat).....then 1pm-8pm (sun).
I wish like hell I was on hourly instead of salary. Most teachers would agree.
(edit) Regarding the New York Times article you posted, its clearly an advocacy for "incentive based" income for teachers. I would fight to my death to oppose that. Absolutely not. Never.....
You can take the best teacher in the world and place them in an area of low-income families and their test scores are not going to be up to par when compared to an area of high-income families. In other words, take a crappy teacher and place them in an affluent area and his/her scores (regardless of how good the teacher is) will be better than a fabulous teacher in a tougher area. And by that logic, the crappy teacher would be paid more. Its completely flawed and will drive the education system further in the toilet by making teachers be forced to go to more affluent areas to teach. The inner-city schools would crater and would be worse than what they are now.