Isn't this the way it should be?
Implied in your statement is that the worst teachers would be paid the least (or be gone). Isn't that the way it should be too?
Implied in your statement is that the worst teachers would be paid the least (or be gone). Isn't that the way it should be too?
Should be? I don't know. It would have market efficiency, but probably not educational efficiency. Kids whose parents couldn't afford the $25,000 a year for a good school would probably get short changed. Talent may not be spotted at the lower end, so you'd get some inefficiencies (waste) of potential.
The talent pool of teachers -- along with all the equipment -- would get divided up pretty quick. The best teachers flowing to the highest paying jobs and the worst teachers floating to the bottom.