Union, or the Money?
Are they willing to embrace change? From the Education Intelligence Agency:
Unions Poke Holes in $125,000 Teacher Plan. So a proposed New York City charter school will pay all classroom teachers $125,000, plus a possible bonus for performance, and will pay for it by eliminating some support positions and passing those duties on to teachers.
I'm skeptical, but it's a bold idea, and that's supposed to be why we have charters. What surprises me is the raft of union people who are also skeptical.
In the charter, the principal will make less than the teachers. This, according to the head of New York City's principals' union, will lead to "anarchy and chaos." United Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten must have been taken off guard by the New York Times, because she actually gave a candid explanation for her hesitation: the charter isn't unionized.
UFT hasn't gotten teachers a $125,000 salary after 47 years of trying. A non-union charter schools opens with that, with no negotiations required.
We have two UFT charter schools, with regular contract salaries and all the union protections and benefits a teacher could want. And we have The Equity Project charter school, with $125,000 salaries and without those protections and benefits. Let's see which one prospective New York City charter school teachers prefer.
No, I'm not advocating that salary for Gilford (at least until the numbers can be run). But look at the audacity of it - a startup situation, large cash for the risk, throwing off the rules, and a chance to do it (perhaps) your way. Get this:
...the principal will make less than the teachers...
In the private world, the producers get the cash. It is not unknown for top sales folks to earn more than the owner of the company. Why not? If they are bringing in the cash, they should get it and a smart owner knows it.
Why should it be different in the education industry?
It should be interesting to see what happens....
