I have answered.
I believe teachers should be paid what they're worth.
If good, they get a rise; if crap, take a cut (or the sack).
What isn't fair about that?
You are continuing to break the "no hijacking" rule for the Clean Debate Zone. Answer the questions posed in the original post. I will reiterate them for your benefit.
1. Do you believe that public school teacher pay in your state should be raised, lowered, or stay the same?
2. How much is a first-year teacher paid as an employee of the school district in your area?
For an example of how a correct answer looks, look to the very first response to this thread. I will quote it here for your benefit.
1 - a teacher's pay should be raised if they get good results; lowered if their students do badly.
2 - The starting wage for a new teacher should be the current average (adjusted for inflation over the years) for the school district, more if they can show a history of good results.
A fresh of of collage bod would receive less than the average, as they have no experience and have yet to prove themselves.
No one will hire a failing teacher so that doesn't matter.
Is that answer clear enough or do I need to use shorter words or type slowly?
I'm trying to work out why I'm breaking any "no hijacking" rule as I've answered your questions as I believe is the correct way to deal with teachers' salary.
You may not like it, but I don't believe teachers should get uniform pay.
That's not hijacking; that's answering truthfully.
As for the first response to the thread, I believe this fails because it doesn't take into account the teacher's performance.
Simple numbers don't always work, even for a maths teacher.
That system is the norm in my school and I agree with it.
In fairness, I should be honest - I get ten times the salary of the lowest paid teacher so I'm likely to agree with the system.