I know several science teachers who have BS degrees in Chemistry, Biology or Physics and a MS in Education, yet make $40K less than a pharmisist who took largely the same course work (especially the chemistry). I'm not saying the two jobs are comparable - they most certainly are not. But, both degrees would largely cost the same, and have similar amounts of work to complete. Its all about what the market will support.

Merit pay is a business model concept that simply can't work with schools. Since when are the students a product that we spit out at the end of the production line? How do you measure the productivity of a teacher? The number of A'a? The average score on the PSSA test? Graduation rates? Number of students that go on to college? How? You can't. It would be unfair to use your performance standard when comparing a teacher who works with learning support kids all day and another that has the gifted kids all day (this is how the students are divided up). Who deserves the raise? Who worked harder? The whole merit pay idea is an attempt to put a quantitaive measure on a qualitive thing - it just won't work.

Admittedly, this is a lousy forum to discuss such a complex issue. Both sides have points to make, but I can't understand why people are all over the teachers in this one. Why would they accept the board's offer when it would mean a pay CUT for many of the teachers. That would be stupid to accept that - and NONE OF YOU WOULD ACCEPT IT EITHER IF IT WERE OFFERED TO YOU.