I don't think so. We are talking about 3+ million teachers. They would decidedly have a bell curve of teacher skills. Not the upper 10% that teach at great private or public institutions.

Which students deserve to be taught by the bottom 25% of teachers? Also if we wanted to move the mean skill of these teachers higher what would it take? 4 years? 10?

I think software provides a faster benefit. And one that can hopefully have an outsized benefit to students who have the bottom 25% of instructors. Plus faster software iteration hopefully lets us find more optimal solutions faster for groups of students.

This gives us some breathing room for fixing the long tail instructor issues.

> I don't think so. We are talking about 3+ million teachers. They would decidedly have a bell curve of teacher skills.

Yes, there is a wide spectrum of competency/skill amongst all the practitioners of a profession; that's not a remotely novel insight. That's not an argument for underpaying them.

> Which students deserve to be taught by the bottom 25% of teachers? Also if we wanted to move the mean skill of these teachers higher what would it take? 4 years? 10? I think software provides a faster benefit.

Which students deserve to get taught by the bottom 25% of shitty, barely-tested software chugging algorithms designed on specious theories? Not your kids, I'd bet.

My daughter is already a guinea pig for this stuff. Her public school uses i-Ready. http://www.curriculumassociates.com/products/iready/diagnost...

I have no way of knowing if this i-Ready is the bottom 25% or the top 5% of barely tested software chugging algorithms. It's the only choice I have anyways, so it's hardly worth educating myself on the matter. Luckily my daughter is in the gifted program, so I at least have some assurance that her teacher isn't total crap. And beyond that, being gifted gives her a decent chance of overcoming a potentially shit education.

>Yes, there is a wide spectrum of competency/skill amongst all the practitioners of a profession; that's not a remotely novel insight. That's not an argument for underpaying them.

Well the politics are not there currently to support teacher pay raises in many states. Its shitty but that is how it is. If at some point we get a political culture able to reverse that, great!

>Which students deserve to get taught by the bottom 25% of shitty, barely-tested software chugging algorithms designed on specious theories? Not your kids, I'd bet.

>My daughter is already a guinea pig for this stuff. Her public school uses i-Ready. http://www.curriculumassociates.com/products/iready/diagnost....

Why do we need to entrust these technology solutions to schools? They are pretty ill equipped to evaluate them except for large districts. The school should just be a data source. The actual software should be parent choice, much like we have school choice in many states. If one piece of software gets a bad reputation the parents can choose to use different software. (Much like paying teachers more, this may not be possible in todays political landscape)