I'd imagine you'd end up under paying in poorer areas where performance is generally lower and needs are higher. AFAIK performance is generally more tied to parents (involvement, class, etc) than to teachers. Interesting anecdote on teachers throwing things at students, here in Oregon its usually the opposite case we hear people complaining about.
It would be much more appropriate to implement the system at a local level to avoid the issues you describe. That way you’re not comparing teachers in wildly disparate environments.
if you leave the specifics to be implemented at local level then you're just going to create perverse incentives in a variable manner based on how competent local administrators are.
the whole idea is poor. there's little benefit in putting pressure on teachers like this. all you're doing is unnaturally dragging their motivations away from helping kids grow into well-rounded individuals for the sake of them and society to earning more money based on some arbitrary goal dreamed up by a local bureaucrat
Funny, it works great at the districts I’m aware of that use it. You seem to be assuming that teachers whose pay is tied only to seniority care more about kids growing into well-rounded individuals. Why would you assume that?
I’ve talked with educators who moved states to be able to work in such an environment. They love it, and it attracts families that prefer to avoid pay systems that just focus on seniority.
It’s interesting that you refer to this as a “perverse financial incentive” when we use performance-based metrics in pretty much every industry.
That sounds like a great bumper sticker. Not much of an argument though. I work in the education field, and this doesn’t resonate with what I’ve seen at all.
The notion that incentives help shape behavior, and if aligned with organizational goals, they can be useful, is not opposed to “all logic to the contrary.” You seem dead set against innovation in educator compensation, so I’ll just leave you be. Have a good one!
