A teacher's pay should be merit-based.

My opponent makes some excellent arguments and it is obvious that she and I agree on a great deal. It seems to me however that her argument centres more on the inadequacies of the current testing system and on the possibility of corruption than on the actual resolution of this debate. My position is that if a reliable means of testing the 'distance travelled' in academic achievement by each pupil was in place and the opportunity for corruption was removed then a teacher's pay should be merit-based. To find more reliable means of testing that are less susceptible to corruption and not "monumentally expensive" we have to look no further than one of the links provided by my opponent: http://www.fairtest.org... "Better methods of evaluating student needs and progress already exist. Good observational checklists used by trained teachers are more helpful than any screening test. Assessment based on student performance on real learning tasks is more useful and accurate for measuring achievement - and provides more information - than multiple-choice achievement tests.... ....Trained teams of judges can be used to rate performance in most any academic or non-academic area. In the Olympic Games, for example, gymnasts and divers are rated by panels of judges, and the high and low scores are thrown out. Studies have shown that, with training, the level of agreement among judges (the "inter-rater reliability") is high. As with multiple-choice tests, it is necessary to enact safeguards to ensure that race, class, gender, linguistic or other cultural biases do not affect evaluation." I believe that a simple peer-evaluation system could be put in place to help prevent corruption. If a teacher is setting, teaching, invigilating and marking their own tests then obviously there is potential for dishonesty. If these tasks were shared amongst colleagues, perhaps even teachers from other schools, there would be much less opportunity for a teacher to dishonestly affect a student's score. To examine my opponents main points: 1. Is not really an argument against merit based pay but is an examination (no pun) of the flaws of standardised testing. To say there is "no way to accurately measure student achievement" seems defeatist to me, just because standardised testing is not accurate doesn't rule out other methods (as shown in my opponent's source). If the current political climate doesn't favour other methods it does not necessarily follow that better ones could not become accepted. 2. Does not argue against merit-based pay, only against bad testing methods and corruption which I have addressed above. 3. Everything in this paragraph I whole-heartedly agree with but again it talks of the unfairness of the current system, not the one I propose. In the UK we have a system where schools are ranked in a 'league table' based on exam results. This leads to the best schools getting bigger budgets so they hire the best teacher's at higher salaries and teach the kids from the richest families because school's performance affects property prices. This is a corrupt system that maintains an artificial elite. The system I propose would involve all teachers at all schools receiving the same basic salary but with individual bonuses based on the improvement (not the grade) of each individual. 4. My opponent says:"The impacts of merit pay are clear. Highly qualified teachers will take positions in schools where they can achieve. Mediocre teachers (the ones left) will take positions in the schools that need highly qualified teachers instead." I believe that in the system I advocate the best teacher's would instead be motivated to work at the worst performing schools, because there they would have the most opportunity to make substantial improvements, thereby earning bigger bonuses. And, briefly to look at my opponent's responses to my previous points: 1. Discussed above, the affirmation will not "discriminate against certain teachers based solely on the area in which they choose to teach." They should be rewarded for the improvements they make not the actual level of ability of their pupils. 2. I think 'distance travelled' could easily be tested by an independent party comparing the work of pupils between one semester and the next. 3. I agree completely that sales has nothing to do with teaching (I attempted to make this clear when I raised the example) I was using it merely as an example of how performance related pay clearly affects motivation. 4. Again, measures including those I mentioned above should of course be taken to prevent such corruption and just because current tests are "deeply flawed" and ripe for abuse, it does not follow that if this situation were fixed teacher's pay should not be merit-based. 5. In listing negative impacts my opponent seems to be referring to the impact of systems such as the UK 'league table' model that I mentioned above. I do not advocate schools with the best overall exam results being able to pay a higher salary to teachers. I think that is wrong. I think teachers should be paid for the positive impact they have on young peoples education, not because they are teaching a privileged minority. A teacher's pay should be merit-based. Thankyou.