Essay topic 28: Teachers' salaries should be based on their students' academic performance.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
Teaching profession is multifaceted and teachers burden complex responsibilities on their shoulders to inspire and conduct the future generations. Some claim that students’ performance in achieving higher credentials must be considered as the standard to evaluate teachers to receive salaries. This claim is flawed as other factors influence on academic success of students.
First, assessing teachers solely by academic performance of students neglects the impact of teachers on students’ academic and social development. Teachers can guide and teach students in not only academic subjects but also social development. Teachers give students constructive feedback on their performance and advice on future path choices as well as moral lessons. They help them learn cooperation, hardworking and perseverance directly and indirectly and develop into fully fledged members of society later. Therefore, it would be unfair to base teachers’ salary on students’ success.
Similarly, the effect of family and environment on students’ performance cannot be overlooked. If a student encounters challenges at home, it may be impossible for the teacher to do much at school. Also some students are not talented enough to learn subjects even if the teacher is highly qualified; thus, holding the teacher responsibilities in such cases would be unfair and unreasonable.
Moreover, academic performance of students is too trivial to determine the payment of teachers. To illustrate this, elementary institutions credit patient, compassion and enthusiastic instructors willing to work with young children. Therefore, teachers’ salary should be in consistent with the pre-set criteria for employment like their potency to aspire interest and create a productive learning environment. Besides, developing a more complex system is desirable to evaluate academic teachers. Academic teachers might be evaluated by offering new teaching methodologies, devoting more time and attention to classes and re examining their approach. This system would avoid the pitfall of merit based salary system.
On the other hand, some may argue that teachers’ salary should be directly proportional to the students’ performance as the payment could encourage and motivate teachers to improve their teaching quality leading to better learning results. However, this perspective could not hold true since academic proficiency is the output of combined effort from both teachers and students. State university students are commonly self motivated and zealous to acquire knowledge. Hence, considerable variation in terms of students’ learning performance is not expected.
In conclusion, teachers’ salary should not be weighed merely on the students’ academic performance but other measures like teachers’ competency, innovative teaching methodologies productive learning environment, etc. should be taken into account as well.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 204, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...e for the teacher to do much at school. Also some students are not talented enough t...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, hence, however, if, look, may, moreover, similarly, so, therefore, thus, well, in conclusion, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 14.8657303371 128% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 11.3162921348 18% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 33.0505617978 45% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 58.6224719101 90% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 12.9106741573 163% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2561.0 2235.4752809 115% => OK
No of words: 417.0 442.535393258 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.14148681055 5.05705443957 121% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.5189133491 4.55969084622 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.35164475064 2.79657885939 120% => OK
Unique words: 227.0 215.323595506 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.544364508393 0.4932671777 110% => OK
syllable_count: 786.6 704.065955056 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.59117977528 119% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 50.7221572893 60.3974514979 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.347826087 118.986275619 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.1304347826 23.4991977007 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.52173913043 5.21951772744 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 10.2758426966 156% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.236710553347 0.243740707755 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0801644874625 0.0831039109588 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0389260670407 0.0758088955206 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.149392632403 0.150359130593 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0177511047537 0.0667264976115 27% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.6 14.1392134831 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 27.83 48.8420337079 57% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.9 12.1743820225 114% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 18.04 12.1639044944 148% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.83 8.38706741573 117% => OK
difficult_words: 140.0 100.480337079 139% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.8971910112 88% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.