A teacher's pay should be merit-based.

I'll be addressing arguments in general at first, and then I'll address specific arguments after that. It seems to me that this debate now needs an overview, as my opponent has now offered up a plan from my source (fairtest. org) in order to fix all of the problems I claim are inherent in the prospect of teacher merit pay. First of all, this means that if I can disprove his alternative being viable, I've gained incredibly strong footing in this debate. Furthermore, if I can prove that the inherent harms of merit pay exist no matter the assessment system used, I believe I will have won this debate. I will do so now. 1. The peer evaluation system is not politically, logistically, or ethically viable, or at least not moreso than a standardized testing model. What my opponent doesn't tell you about my source is the reason for its analysis. If you read the entire page I cite, you will find that I cited it because it does a wonderful job of summarizing the problems with universal assessment systems involving standardized tests, which are a cornerstone of US assessment, and probably aren't going away any time soon. What that organization does not address at all is the implementation of the peer evaluation system in any sort of universal sense. That's because not even the most highly qualified educational experts would recommend this. This has been a serious problem for over 5 decades. Why haven't we implemented this yet? We haven't because it isn't a number of important things: a. It isn't universally applicable in any way: keep in mind that my opponent clearly conceded that, in order to pay a teacher based on merit, the measurement of the merit must be universally established. My analogy: if one 5th grade class is on times tables and another is on addition and subtraction, the two classroom teachers should not receive equal pay just because students are showing academic achievement. Clearly, one class is conceptually behind. The peer evaluation system is fraught with bias and subjective opinion. Which teachers will assess? How will the localities be assigned assessment teachers? How will we ensure that all assessors have the same concept of how to meet educational goals? Educational research strongly discourages universal curriculum for the very reason that all students are individuals. They should all end up with the same knowledge at the end, but the students may not apply it in the same ways. Which way is the right way? Standardized tests tried to address this, but are failing miserably. b. It isn't logistically possible: teachers are already incredibly pressed for time, especially with shrinking budgets and school years. Not only that, but the definition of what a good, experienced teacher is varies from state to state, even from district to district. Finding enough teachers who have the time, resources, and proper training and skills to assess millions upon millions of classrooms is unrealistic, and a bureaucratic nightmare. c. It doesn't solve the problem of flawed assessment systems: how will peer evaluating teachers measure academic success? Via grades? GPA? Test scores? Project results? All are still based on flawed systems of measurement. We run into the same problems as before. If a peer assessor is looking for students who are able to score high marks on a given project at the end of a unit of instruction, the teacher, again, can inflate grades or artificially manipulate performance in numerous ways to pass his or her evaluation. This is inherent to merit-based pay. There are always ways to cheat a system, especially one that is so bogged down and bloated as judging teams for each classroom. The ONLY way to stop this behavior is not to base pay on merit. Now, onto the rest of the debate. I'll address my opponent's responses to my arguments: 1. I've disproved my opponents alternative as viable above. I also would like to point out his concession on accountability requiring universal standards, which is key to why his alternative cannot be successful. 2. Corruption is inherent in merit-based pay. When performance affects pay, there will always be individuals who attempt to gain more pay by cheating the given system. The perceived success rate is based on the ability to cheat. My evidence proves that there are myriad ways to inflate academic performance, and that those ways have already been heavily exploited. Furthermore, please highlight my example of state governments manipulating student performance in response to the No Child Left Behind Act. That's huge, because states were not doing this until their educational performance affected school budgets. It is directly analogous to the affect merit pay will have on individual schools and students. 3. The problems of socioeconomic, ethnic, and geographic locations will still exist within that utopian plan. These problems are inherent with or without peer evaluation. There is nothing to say that a given peer evaluation team would not be a suburban team coming into a rural school, or an urban team coming into a suburban school, where the learning environment can be completely different. We cannot eliminate human bias from any plan, and we certainly can't expect to solve a couple hundred years of problems with one seemingly simple fix. Even if this system doesn't further entrench the inequities of society within education (which it probably will—statistically, schools are more segregated by specific population than they were prior to Topeka v. Board), the inequities will continue, and my scenario of teachers flocking to places where merit-based pay is far more likely will become a quick reality. And my opponent's initial advocacy: 1. The actual ability of a student is a requirement of testing. That is the accountability I keep talking about. The public will not accept, and should not accept, two classrooms of the same grade with vastly different abilities. How does that serve education? Improvement is only a piece of achievement, as my opponent admits in his initial debate posting. The reason standardized tests are even used was a failed attempt to ensure that accountability. Any solution must include it. 2. While you may think it is easy to implement, two things stand in the way of us accepting this as a possible reality: my above analysis in this post, and the fact that 50 years of research has not led to a peer evaluation implementation for universal student achievement assessment. 3. Well, if the example of sales can't be used to demonstratively prove anything about teaching, I suppose it isn't necessary to the debate. The police officer analogy is much closer to the teaching profession in terms of importance and accountability, which clearly proves my point dexterously. 4. However, the corruption isn't just tied to standardized tests. It's deeper than that. Even the letter grades that my opponent refers to in his initial advocacy can easily be manipulated, as can an observed day of "performance" by students. The system my opponent proposes cannot fix the inherent flaws of merit pay. 5. For the most part, the impacts I list in my case are inherent to merit pay, not inherent to standardized testing. The evidence I cite uses standardized testing scenarios, but the same scenarios are a very plausible reality in any system because any system that is merit-based will invite and encourage (inadvertently, but still encourage) corruption. Thus, I negate the resolution. I look forward to my opponent's response!