A teacher's pay should be merit-based.

I hate character limits, as well. I'll address arguments in the order in which they were given in my opponent's round 3 post. 1. On fairtest. org and the viability of peer evaluation: I want to reiterate the purpose of fairtest. org, and encourage the readers of this debate to read over it to evaluate claims on both sides. While the site does recommend peer evaluation as a possible alternative to authentic educational assessment, it says absolutely nothing about its application as a universal medium for basing merit pay on. That isn't the purpose of their advocacy, and the peer evaluation model has not been applied to this system, despite it not being a new concept within the educational community. Hundreds of educational researchers have scoured the planet looking for viable alternatives to assessing achievement. This is not a commonly recommended solution for the reasons I've outlined. 2. On universality of testing: My opponent conceded it by not arguing it in his round 2 post. It was not addressed, so it became my job to tell you why this becomes important to the debate. And it is. As I prove in my round 2 post very early on, the universality of the test is necessary to gauge accountability amongst different localities of a nation. I remind you of the 5th grade classroom analogy that I have now used twice in the debate. I assumed that, since the universality of the test went uncontested in the 2nd round, he agreed that it is necessary to include such accountability within a system of merit based pay. I didn't hide the argument. It was a clear part of my initial advocacy. 3. On implementation of peer evaluation (how it won't be problematic in the 3 ways I suggested): This is all very vague. My opponent claims that these judges can sidestep the issues I've outlined, deeply rooted societal issues and educational issues, but doesn't tell us how his system is built to do this. He can't articulate how these trained judges will escape bias, be assigned fairly, assess through systems that aren't flawed but a staple of US education (i. e. letter grades, percentages, etc. ), or how even to standardize the peer evaluation methods. This is necessary, as well, but is it possible? I'd also like to highlight the economic aspect of my arguments that go unaddressed. Think about millions of classrooms, and judges assessing each one "x" number of times per year. We are already short on education budgets. People have to be paid to do this. A lot of people have to be paid to do this. It isn't just a couple people. It's got to be nationwide. 4. On teacher motivation: I would refer you to the example that I gave in round 3 regarding administrative evaluation and renewal vs. non-renewal. That is a system which works highly efficiently, and does not involve merit based pay. The threat of poor performance is the loss of a job. I'd also like to point out that reform may need to start with the colleges training our teachers. We may simply have a teaching market over-saturated with bad teachers, at which point a merit-based pay system is a bandaid fix for a gaping, festering wound on education. 5. On the No Child Left Behind Act being unrelated to the debate: I don't see how the No Child Left Behind after-effects are not directly analogous to the corruption issue. In fact, you'd think a state government would be easier to check than an individual, who scrutinized far less and by far fewer people. In order to make peer evaluation even moderately worthwhile, you could only assess a teacher so many times in a year. A state government is far more looked after in terms of checks and balances. Hence, if a school district or state education dept. is able to corrupt student achievement assessments in order to reap the benefits of it, an individual is much more likely to be able to exploit such a system. Plainly, merit-based rewards (like pay) empirically cause corruptive behavior. 6. On the harms of peer evaluation not existing: The harms come from the widespread use of something that shouldn't be used in a widespread manner. Transforming an idea into something that large with no tentative research on the outcome is always dangerous. These harms can and most likely will occur for the reasons I outlined. Standardized tests of the 21st century aren't supposed to produce these results, either, but they are a human creation, just like a peer evaluation system. And yet, human nature rears its ugly head. While I can't guarantee that rampant discrimination will occur, I can assess, using historical precedence and my knowledge of human nature, that it probably will. 7. On classrooms not being equal in ability: So, here's where my opponent finally addresses something with regards to universality. I think we are confused on what each of us mean by "differing abilities. " Obviously, multiple intelligence theory tells us that some kids are better with hands-on learning and projects, while others find their strengths in listening, or in musical activities, etc. That isn't what I'm talking about, and my 5th grade classroom analogy clarifies. No matter how we teach the kids in those classrooms to perform certain skills, there must be a universal baseline of knowledge. Remember the math example: if one classroom of equal grade is learning times tables, and the other is still learning addition and subtraction, something is wrong with the latter classroom. Multiple intelligences and individualized learning styles doesn't stop a teacher from effectively meeting benchmarks. And, obviously, learning one's times tables, or acquiring a certain reading level, is a basic skill, and should not be considered to be difficult to attain within a well-run classroom. 8. On the issues of what composes academic success (improvement vs. highest grade): Not at all. That was a response to your round 2 arguments. Universality, as I hope I've further clarified, has little to do with which parts of education you assess, but rather making sure that the assessment is attempting to show nationwide improvement based on basic standards. I hate to sound like a broken record, but it's about accountability, to parents and politicians alike. Not only that, but since the good you've been trying to achieve since your initial debate post was that education is good for a nation, it would only make sense that a nation would want all of its students to have the same skills that it deems necessary for a high quality of life within its borders. Hence, making sure that every classroom in the nation is proficiently teaching these standards is highly important to the debate. ~The claim, based on the above analysis, is this. Based on the arguments made previously, the peer evaluation system cannot be universally implemented or universally calibrated. Fairtest. org doesn't touch this, because they don't claim to have the ability to assert that this can be done. Neither does analysis of the current educational research community. I hope this clarifies for future posts. 9. On "difficult does not mean we shouldn't implement": Right now, monumentally expensive makes it a non-reality. Education budgets are shrinking, as I noted earlier in the post. Implementing a working administrative system like the one I outlined in my round 2 posts, involving renewal and non-renewal, costs no extra funds (as evaluations can be done with the admin, who are already highly trained to assess teacher performance), is ensured to be done locally, and also seeks to uphold state educational standards. This system simply needs to be renovated across the nation. On missed arguments: due to time constraints, I'm not gonna worry about the offense gained by dropped arguments here. I think I've defended my position with great dexterity, and don't feel the need to gain ground over word count.