The grand bargain, that I think "the right" will embrace (they certainly should), is that teachers can be fired like anyone else who are substandard (rather than have a sinecure where they are only fired for serial child molestation captured on a video), while on the other hand, the best and brightest after 10 years or whatever, become master teachers, and make like 150K a year, adjusted regionally by the cost of living. That is the way to attract the talent we need, while getting rid of the drones. You have a career track, and if you have the knowledge, and the talent to teach (which includes acting ability) to achieve excellence, you get rewarded in a serious way - with an upper middle class standard of living. Will it cost more? Of course! But it is a moral imperative that we make this "investment" with, and only with, the ground rules that I outlined. Make sense? Anyone disagree?
I agree in principle, but I do have one question that I feel hasn't been adequately answered.
How do we objectively judge merit? Test scores? Teacher grading by the pupils? I see some problems with judging who to promote to a "Master Teacher".
