A teacher's pay should be merit-based.

Hello again in the final round of an extremely enjoyable debate. My charming and well-mannered opponent has made intelligent arguments from a commendable moral standpoint. However I believe that I have proved that a teacher's pay should be merit-based as I have described. It is now up to you, the voters to decide. The points addressed in my opponent's last argument: 1. I agree that that the fairtest.org article does not explicitly propose their alternatives to the current system of testing being applied as the basis of a merit-based system. Neither does it suggest that it shouldn't or couldn't be. The recommendations and the article as a whole are merely seeking an alternative to the universally applied system of standard testing and don't actually reflect directly on the issue of merit-based pay at all. Similarly my opponent's other source does not tackle merit-based pay only the corruption that the current system encourages. Again, like the issue of whether merit-based pay is politically viable, the question of whether it is "commonly recommended" does not address whether it should or should not be applied. 2. I don't agree that by not immediately arguing a point put forward by my opponent I concede to that point. When others don't respond directly to my arguments, I tend to reply along the lines of: 'As my opponent does not dispute this issue, I assume they agree with me.' This gives the other debater a chance to respond to a point they may have (intentionally or otherwise) over-looked. I did not intend to concede on including universal testing in my frame-work although I would not necessarily rule it out altogether. I certainly do concede that my opponent is a much more experienced debater than myself, so if I have erred from any conventional format or code of conduct, I apologise sincerely. I apologise also for not directly examining the fifth grade class analogy and will attempt to do so now. Assuming fifth grade is equivalent to UK year 5 and would be 9-10 year olds I certainly agree that they should be learning at least basic times tables as well as addition. (Off topic, I am proud to say my five year old who is in year 1 has already got her 2,3,5 and 10 times tables pretty much locked down!) However if for some reason a teacher ends up with a severely educationally deprived group of year 5 pupils who are simply not ready for times tables but manages to vastly improve their abilities in addition and subtraction, then yes, that teacher should be rewarded accordingly, unlike in a universal standards system of merit-based pay where they would miss out despite their achievements. I did not mean to insinuate in any way that my opponent had 'hid' any argument or been vague. I apologise to her and to readers if I gave this impression. 3. I don't feel an overwhelming burden to provide the intricate details of a practical system of peer-evaluation in order to prove the resolution. The resolution stands if we can accept that under any hypothetical system that can cut down significantly on the risks of corruption (which is well within the realms of possibility as the examples prove), then a teacher's pay should indeed be merit-based. As for the economic argument I have stated that the cost would not be "monumental" but never suggested it would be cheap. I made it clear that more money would have to be put into education when I said that teacher's pay should definitely not be reduced and merit bonuses should be applied on top. I am by no means an expert on US government spending but would hazard a guess that a minimal fraction of the US Defence budget would easily finance the system I outline. 4. The renewal vs non-renewal idea seems somewhat flawed to me. It could open up opportunities for concealed discrimination (on racial, faith based or gender bias as well as unfounded rumours etc.) it would essentially be a popularity contest within the school or the education authority as well as being intrinsically linked to standardised testing which I argue is not a good thing. I think the way to solve a market saturated with bad teachers, if that is the current situation in the US, is to attract more highly skilled and educated people into the profession with higher salaries, as would exist in the system I advocate. I know that the problem in the UK is too few teachers, rather than too many. I apologise if my subsequent arguments become briefer as I see the Character Count diminish. 5. I don't mean to appear stubborn but I really don't see how my opponent justifies a direct comparison between organisations and individuals which are inherently different cases. It is easier to monitor and judge fairly the dishonest actions of an individual than a conspired action co-ordinated by a number of people within an organisation. 6. Again I don't feel I need to prove the specific practicalities of peer evaluation in order to prove the resolution. The debate is about whether merit-based pay should be applied. 7. I agree that we should be aiming towards a universal base line knowledge but I'm not sure how this can ever be guaranteed or even clearly defined. Is the universal base line that every child should understand the simplest concepts understood by the most advanced students or that they should understand the most complicated ideas comprehended by those furthest behind? Yes if a 5th grade class has never learned any times tables and a teacher does not improve upon this then he should not be rewarded but if a new teacher takes on such a backwards class and makes substantial progress with these pupils he should definitely be rewarded for improving upon their limited abilities. And yes, I agree that this particular example should not be difficult to attain but a standard set so low would not really be worth setting. 8. Sorry again to readers and opponent if I missed anything but I don't recall saying that "improvement is only a piece of achievement" in either my first post or in round 2. I think I was saying that it was improvement that should be measured rather than grades. my opponent says: "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." I think it's more important that they have the highest level of skills they can personally achieve than that they all have the same skills. I think I've shown that the best way to improve a base standard would be to make the jobs teaching the most behind kids the most rewarding financially so that the best teachers are more attracted to these jobs, as would be the case in my system. Incidentally this is clearly a point in favour of political viability as this is the result that the government incentives for disadvantaged schools my opponent mentioned hope to achieve. I don't think the peer evaluation system necessarily needs to be universally calibrated as long as it is a fair and impartial assessment of improvement. "Fairtest.org doesn't touch this" It doesn't dispute it either. 9. "Monumentally expensive" is quite a subjective term: Monumental: 1. Of, resembling, or serving as a monument. 2. Impressively large, sturdy, and enduring. 3. Of outstanding significance 4. Astounding http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Monumental in comparison to what? Renewal vs. non-renewal does have the advantage of being cheap but I think the negatives I outlined above outweigh this. I don't believe finance should be the foremost consideration in deciding whether merit-based pay should be applied or not. On missed argume ... Thanks again to my opponent for a great debate. Hope readers enjoyed it too. Pro.