Teachers' salaries should be based on the academic performance of their students.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
Today, education is one of the most controversial subjects. The past few decades have been characterized by exponential change and disruption in many industries, but education has remained largely untouched. Now, analysts and media companies alike are questioning the system. One particular solution that has gained significant attention is the potential to base teachers' salaries on academic performance. Initially it seems intuitive, but unfortunately, it encourages unethical business practices and is not a viable solution to fixing our education institutions.
To begin with, tying teachers' salaries to performance is not uniform in measurement. Undoubtedly, it would be nearly impossible to compare the performance between a physical education teacher in an elementary school to that of a biology teacher in high school. Both jobs require the same level of education for getting the job but one is more technical than the other. Payroll discrepancies will appear as a result; as a result, teachers may shift towards particular subjects, leaving other needed areas in low supply. A compensation system tied to student performance would not be plausible, and without a clear payment structure, performance based salaries will not work.
Furthermore, compensation that correlates with academic performance may have an adverse effect on teachers and their incentive to teach. One might think that they would be encouraged to become better teachers. Rather, the effect may turn formerly talented teachers into instructors interested in molding their students to perform well on standardized tests. To illustrate, a viral video of UConn's valedictorian speaker, Abu Dhaji, highlighted this issue. He exclaimed in front of his graduating class that college had taught him to be a valiant test taker but had left him ill-equipped for the real world. Education is in dire need for change, but compensation packages based on academic performance is not the solution.
In contrast, this is not to say that academic performance related compensation will not work for all institutions. For instance, many small technical colleges have highly esteemed professors who are more concerned with their research and funding. As a result, they become lackadaisical in their student facing roles. In this case, compensation based on student performance may give those teachers an invested interest in focusing on their classes. Nonetheless, education has a much broader problem, and performance commissions are too parochial in viable applications.
Education is widely known to be antiquated; reform is on the horizon, but salaries that are based on the academic performances of students is simply not it. We need teachers who are focused on shaping students into true intellects, not into developed test takers.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, furthermore, if, may, nonetheless, so, well, for instance, in contrast, as a result, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.5258426966 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 28.0 33.0505617978 85% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 58.6224719101 87% => OK
Nominalization: 31.0 12.9106741573 240% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2382.0 2235.4752809 107% => OK
No of words: 427.0 442.535393258 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.57845433255 5.05705443957 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54576487731 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.16080829896 2.79657885939 113% => OK
Unique words: 235.0 215.323595506 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.550351288056 0.4932671777 112% => OK
syllable_count: 748.8 704.065955056 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.740449438202 0% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => 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: 32.5827723044 60.3974514979 54% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 103.565217391 118.986275619 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5652173913 23.4991977007 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.47826086957 5.21951772744 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.83258426966 166% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.190713702323 0.243740707755 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.058032034962 0.0831039109588 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0483558300938 0.0758088955206 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.112990099174 0.150359130593 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0368635897959 0.0667264976115 55% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.1392134831 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.28 48.8420337079 74% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.08 12.1639044944 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.08 8.38706741573 108% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 100.480337079 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.