Laura Shulman pointed me to a recent Washington Post article on e-teachers (which is kind of an icky term, I think) in local high schools and their experiences teaching online. It was on page A1 of Friday's edition, if you still have the paper, or if you have a (free) washingtonpost.com login, you can read it online at:
Do you identify with their experiences? How would teaching high school online be different from teaching college online? I can think of ways it would be much harder, but also ways it would be much easier (for example, students NEED to graduate high school, so I don't think you'd have the non-starter and serious procrastination problems that can consume so much of our time and energies--although part of the article seems to suggest that at least some of that problem remains).
And can I just note one part: "In Fairfax, where online teachers earn $9,000 a course"--wow! (Of course, the course is likely a nine-month course, not four-month like our courses, but boy are they still beating us there...) Later in the piece, it reports on a Prince William teacher who receives $300 per student. That said, other colleges where faculty can get online teaching gigs pay similarly to what NOVA pays (although the proprietary schools, of course, pay a bit more). It is intriguing to see such a K-12 vs. higher ed disparity. I wonder what the pay looks like for online high school teaching in regions not as wealthy as ours.