Merit pay based on student achievement is necessary.

Before we begin I would like to define the terms merit pay and student achievement. Merit pay is defined as an additional sum paid to an employee whose work is superior and whose services are valued. Student achievement is defined as the act of completing a school course. My partner and I would now like to move on to our three contentions that to base merit pay off of student achievement, the U.S would have to come up with a plan so that teachers couldn't cheat the system, teachers don't get to choose who walk through the doors to their classroom and We shouldn't simply withhold money rewards from teachers who are ineffective: we should help them improve or evaluate them out of the profession. Contention 1: To base merit pay off of student achievement, the U.S. would have to come up with a plan (extremely close to standardized testing) so that teachers couldn't cheat the system. This seems as though it would work out amazingly well, however it has been proven that standardized testing (and tests like it) actually damages education. A source from fairtest.org had this to say: Despite their biases, inaccuracies, limited ability to measure achievement or ability, and other flaws, schools use standardized tests to determine if children are ready for school, track them into instructional groups; diagnose for learning disability, retardation and other handicaps; and decide whether to promote, retain in grade, or graduate many students. Schools also use tests to guide and control curriculum content and teaching methods. Though theses tests are good enough to define and diagnose the previously listed conditions, no test is good enough to serve as the sole or primary basis for important educational decisions. Readiness tests that determine if a child is ready for school are extremely inaccurate and encourage the use of primary schooling. Groups most affected and hurt by these tests include students from low-income families and minority classes. They are likely to be put in special education programs that are not needed or are more likely to be given a more watered down version of curriculum. In many districts, raising test scores has become the single most important indicator of school improvement. As a result, teachers and administrators feel enormous pressure to ensure that test scores go up. Schools narrow and change the curriculum to match the test. Teachers teach only what is covered on the test. Methods of teaching conform to the multiple-choice format of the tests. Tests that measure as little and as poorly as multiple-choice tests cannot provide genuine accountability. Contention 2: Teachers don't get to choose who walk through their doors. It's the luck of the draw. Good teachers certainly believe all children can learn, and want them to. But success in terms of test scores depends on many factors, mostly too obvious to mention, outside the teachers' control. Not the least among these is the support of fellow practitioners. In many cases, a child's learning requires the support of others besides just the classroom teacher. It depends on an administrator who can effectively create a climate for learning in the school. It may depend on reading specialists who can help students comprehend their textbooks. It may depend on intervention specialists who helps devise strategies for teaching disabled students to make more effective gains. It even depends on successful foundations provided by teachers in previous grade levels. Contention 3: We shouldn't simply withhold money rewards from teachers who are ineffective: we should help them improve or evaluate them out of the profession. Merit pay advocates also hope that a compensation structure will do that job of evaluating teachers that should properly be done by effective building administrators. The myth that teachers' unions protect bad teachers from dismissal is not true: bad administrators protect bad teachers from dismissal or non-renewal. But teacher evaluation is more complicated than simply looking at test scores. It requires careful examination of specific teacher behaviors in the classroom, of how a teacher relates to students, and his or her command of the subject matter they are teaching. This cannot be judged simply by looking at test scores, which may be high in some cases in spite of uninspiring instruction: it requires an effective and highly skilled administrator who knows what she is looking for when she observes a teacher interacting with her students, and who is skilled at helping teachers improve. In short, pay for performance provides an easy way out when quality supervision of instruction is what should really be taking place. I negate the resolution that merit pay based on student achievement is necessary. I strongly urge a neg ballet.