The fact that they've rebranded teachers gives me concern that they're trying to further devalue teaching as a profession (if that's possible) and remove some of the professional expectations and protections that teaching still has.
>When I asked the head of admissions how they found such good staff he told me their compensation was fully transparent. “Associate Guides” were paid $60,000/year (vs the $40,000 average for Austin teachers), “Full Guides” made $100,000 and the five “Head Guides” in the school each made $150,000. They were able to both poach the best teachers from other schools, but also bring exceptional people into teaching that would not have considered it otherwise. It also let them have very high expectations for teachers once they were hired.
gruez|13 days ago
>When I asked the head of admissions how they found such good staff he told me their compensation was fully transparent. “Associate Guides” were paid $60,000/year (vs the $40,000 average for Austin teachers), “Full Guides” made $100,000 and the five “Head Guides” in the school each made $150,000. They were able to both poach the best teachers from other schools, but also bring exceptional people into teaching that would not have considered it otherwise. It also let them have very high expectations for teachers once they were hired.
rbhtjk|13 days ago
realslimjd|13 days ago
renewiltord|13 days ago
SkyPuncher|13 days ago
It's mostly signaling, but does reenforce that it's on the student to learn - not the teacher to force it into their brain.