Well first off, everyone should read the New Yorker article referenced. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/08/31/090831fa_fact_...

The issue at hand is not teacher compensation, but the fact that no mechanism exists to weed out ineffective teachers from the pack. I don't think $100,000 a year (after 20 years of service) is too high a price to pay for a competent professional who can have a positive impact on hundreds of lives over the course of his/her career.

In fact, the argument could be made that it is not enough, and that is why traditionally those working in education are not as talented those in other, more well funded fields like finance and medicine.

The scariest part of Steven Brill's article is many teachers' aversion to quality metrics that could actually measure performance and hold them accountable for their work.

Two quotes: 1. Our schools are indifferent to instructional effectiveness,"the study declared. Under the subhead “All teachers are rated good or great," it examined teacher rating processes, and found that in districts that have a binary, satisfactory-unsatisfactory system, ninety-nine per cent of teachers receive a satisfactory rating, and that even in the few school districts that attempt a broader range of rating options ninety-four per cent get one of the top two ratings.

2. I asked the woman for her reaction to the following statement: "If a teacher is given a chance or two chances or three chances to improve but still does not improve, there’s no excuse for that person to continue teaching. I reject a system that rewards failure and protects a person from its consequences."

"That sounds like Klein and his accountability bullshit,"she responded. "We can tell if we’re doing our jobs. We love these children." After I told her that this was taken from a speech that President Obama made last March, she replied, "Obama wouldn’t say that if he knew the real story.