[WalterBright]

> Can you cite where you saw this data

Not offhand. It was the topic of the Seattle Times for months.

Let's take a look at the private sector. Pay is based on accomplishing goals. It works well. Sure it is imperfect.

> it oversimplifies things quite a bit.

It would be hard to be worse than the current system, which simplifies merit as "has a masters degree". I answered your other points in other replies in this thread.

[softwarebeware]

This is just muddy thinking and hand waving. “Pay in the private sector” is not based on accomplishing goals at all. If it were, there wouldn’t be a huge disparity between men and women, or between those who live in Kansas City vs those who live in San Francisco. Or between those who are over six feet tall and those who are under. And you also say this as if accomplishing goals isn’t figured into teacher pay.

[WalterBright]

> “Pay in the private sector” is not based on accomplishing goals at all.

Where does one start with such an egregiously wrong statement? Companies go out of business if they have employees that cost more than they produce. They can't just raise taxes like the schools do. They can't run deficits like the government can. What do you think regular performance evaluations of private sector employees are for? Why do you think a lot of employee compensation is commission based?

> those who live in Kansas City

Think about it. The only reason pay is higher in SF is because it is more productive to have people in SF, i.e. people accomplish more being in SF.

> as if accomplishing goals isn’t figured into teacher pay.

It isn't, other than getting a master's degree. Which teachers in the government sector are paid based on how well their students do?