The Instigator
Nijal.T
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should there be performance based pay for teachers?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,846 times Debate No: 31389
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Nijal.T

Pro

I think teachers should be paid based on performance. They are doing the job for a purpose. If that purpose is not accomplished well, then why should they be paid the same amount of money as someone who has done their teaching very well. Paying teachers based on performance can encourage/motivate teachers to perform to the best of their abilities. If this happens, then the kids will be more enthusiastic towards what the teacher is teaching. It becomes a win situation for all.
Zaradi

Con

I accept. The burden of proof lies on my opponent as he a) instigated the debate and b) is proposing a change in the status quo. For the purpose of clarification and to make the debate specific enough to create clash, I will be focusing on high school teachers. If my opponent wishes to center the conversation around

The problem with performance based pay is that there's no accurate way to judge the performance of the teachers. You can't use tests because tests don't always test the full range of information being taught, nor does it test on how well the teachers are actually doing in getting their students to learn the information. You can't just say that those who have the better scores were taught the best because it fails to take into account the initial intelligence of the student. Using multiple tests also don't work because the tests are different to beign with. Using something like the SAT and ACT is like comparing apples to oranges, they're both different tests. So tests don't do it.

You can't do graduation rates either it denies the mentality of a high school at this day and age: teach them a few basics, then shove them on to their next phase of life, much like first grade in respect to getting them to second. High school isn't the last stop in the average education anymore. High school now just serves as a preparation for college. This means that it's not as rigorous, and more students are going to pass just to get them out of high school, which has nothing to do with the quality of teaching.

With no way to test, it's impratical and pointless to impliment this.

Moreover, a performance based pay doesn't actually impact the variable that all teaching methods struggle to impact: the care given by the students. Let's be honest: no average kid cares about the Battle of Waterloo's effect on Napoleon's campaign. No average student cares about learning how to take the derrivative of a function. No average high schooler really cares about the grammatical elements that make the novel "A Tale of Two Cities" a classic. There's no way to get them to care beyond the point of getting a decent grade on something and forgotten immediately afterwards. Just changing teaching tactics doesn't affect this.

This is where my opponent's argument falls apart: just having more enthusiasm in what you're talking about doesn't ensure that the students will do better, much less that they'll care to do better. There's no warrant to prove that just being more excited leads to better comprehension and grades.

Because it doesn't actually change much, and the reasons for why we would aren't true to begin with, there's no reason to impliment it, thus the resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 1
Nijal.T

Pro

I accept the debate to be based on high school teachers which means in general any country"s high schools teachers.

My opponent stated "The problem with performance based pay is that there's no accurate way to judge the performance of the teachers. You can't use tests because tests don't always test the full range of information being taught."
Even though that is the case, they do test the most important knowledge there is to know, so good test results will still indicate whether a teacher is teaching the important stuff well or not
My opponent stated "nor does it test on how well the teachers are actually doing in getting their students to learn the information."
That is a point that can be resolved, which I will say in my own point.
My opponent stated ". You can't just say that those who have the better scores were taught the best because it fails to take into account the initial intelligence of the student."
That might be the case, but every year students are taught new things, and these new things are taught by the teacher. They give out homework, so even if the student studies at home, the study has still been guided by the teacher. Only a little amount of learning is individually done by students without any guidance and even still, only the really enthusiastic kids who enjoy the subject thoroughly or want to top the class, bother to do independent learning. The rest just look to the teacher for guidance. So concluding this, it is quiet fair to say to some extent that better scores were taught the best.
My opponent stated "Using multiple tests also don't work because the tests are different to beign with. Using something like the SAT and ACT is like comparing apples to oranges, they're both different tests. So tests don't do it."
"tests don"t do it" , this is a rather invalid statement. As you said yourself, we are discussing high-school teachers not American high school teachers. In New Zealand, there is only one curriculum followed through the whole period of highschool/college (same thing for us) which is NCEA. So, if we were to see what NCEA grades each subject class is getting in a specific year in a specific teacher"s class, we will get a pretty good outcome of how well they are teaching on average.
My opponent stated "Moreover, a performance based pay doesn't actually impact the variable that all teaching methods struggle to impact: the care given by the students. Let's be honest: no average kid cares about the Battle of Waterloo's effect on Napoleon's campaign. No average student cares about learning how to take the derrivative of a function. No average high schooler really cares about the grammatical elements that make the novel "A Tale of Two Cities" a classic. There's no way to get them to care beyond the point of getting a decent grade on something and forgotten immediately afterwards. Just changing teaching tactics doesn't affect this. "
This isn"t completely true. When kids get to their last years of high-school, like the second to last year or the last year, they are choosing subjects (according to New Zealand) that interest them very much, that they would want to possibly carry out in University and that they would like to incorporate in their job. For example, if they take History, they will be interested in getting a decent grade to perhaps take a course in history when at University, but in order to actually get a decent grade you"d have to be relatively interested in what your studying so then you can actually engage yourself into the task you are required to do. As for forgetting afterwards, that"s a variable we can"t change. Students will either forget it afterwards or not care. But that"s not the point. To be completely honest, in school it is all about making sure that the students get the best grades that they should be able to get so they can enter University and carry on getting a job eventually. In order to get the best grades for an assessment, the teacher needs to teach well. If the teacher, teaches well, then the students will be enthusiastic about what their learning and they"ll do good in the exam/assessment. If they do good, they get good grades, and that is really all that matters in high-school. Realistically, it's not as if the students get brain washed right after they complete and assessment, they will still remember things if they jog their memories later on, it's just a matter of being bothered to do that.
Then to my points; There are alot of factors to be considered when taking the step towards performance based on pay for teachers, there are obstacles as well. But what decision doesn't have these two things? Whenever an important decision takes place, there are always obstacles, but what makes it worthwhile is the vision of what the outcome will be in the future. Performance in terms of teachers, teaching is not all about the test results of their students. A simple idea would be to get the head of department of every subject to a have quick visit to each of the teachers in their subject once every week and note down their style of teaching. So, does the teacher just talk on and on without anything interesting for the students to take in? Or, does the teacher have a great smile, talks to students individually when they do work, gets down on knee-level when talking to the students so that they have a more comfortable communication between them? All these sorts of things can also impact on how well a student does in a specific class. If they feel comfortable with the teacher, the teacher must be doing something right. If the student feels comfortable, they are more likely to ask questions and less likely to be hesitant which means they'll understand more in class about the subject rather than going home and googling the whole thing because they were too scared to ask the teacher.

Then, we should also think of this from a different angle. A recent news article on this link; http://www.guardian.co.uk... heavily criticizes the idea of performance pay for teachers. However, a good quote is "These recommendations will make teaching a more attractive career and a more rewarding job. They will give schools greater flexibility to respond to specific conditions and reward their best teachers." Basically, what it's saying is that, if news gets around that teachers are now being paid based on their performance, the teaching career will look brighter for teachers who want to teach but may disapprove the pay rate. If they are passionate about teaching and they know they can do it well then they will be more motivated to go into the teaching career. This then means that high schools get a more variety of teachers to choose from, so it's more likely that a qualified, passionate teacher will be accepted for the job. This does good for the school and the students.

My rebuttals and my argument points clearly validate the idea of performance pay for teachers, therefore the moot falls on the affirmative side.
Zaradi

Con

Zaradi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Nijal.T 4 years ago
Nijal.T
I'm saying, teachers already get paid wages. But they should start getting paid based on how good their performance in teaching is. Like some teacher perform better than others, they put in more of an effort, they do it because their passionate and not just in it for the money. They should be appraised :). That's the sort of thing I mean.
Posted by PonyGirl 4 years ago
PonyGirl
Of course they should get paid.
You are having a debate saying that teachers should get money for doing performances right? if not, oops. Oh well, they Shiould be getting paid cause thy are just doing their jobs
No votes have been placed for this debate.