The idea of basing a teacher's salary on how their students perform on the surface seems like an idea that would encourage better teaching and reward those who consistently prepare their students the best. However, this proposition is one that could easily be exploited by teachers who now have a financial insentive to prepare their students for the test instead of preparing them to succeed in future classes. Additionally, teachers who are employed in areas where students typically perform poorly would be at a geographic disadvantage. Overall while a very tempting idea, basing teacher's salaries on their students' academic performance would not increase the quality of teaching for all students.
By instituting this policy, teachers would theoretically be paid according to their ability to teach their students; however with their livelihoods at stake, some teachers would resort to nefarious methods to ensure their students test highly. These methods could include teachers solely preparing their students for the material that will appear on the examination or possibly helping the students cheat during the test. Additionally, this policy could result in teachers trying to influence which students would be selected for their class. By selecting the best students, teachers would ensure a higher paycheck without having to improve their teaching abilities. Critics would argue this policy would also force the teachers who refuse to cheat the system to improve their teaching ability and thus it would improve the overall quality of education. However, the simplest method to improve the quality of teachers is to simply pay them overall more because that would draw more talented people to become teachers who previously would not be comfortable with the lower salary.
In addition to the possibility for teachers to abuse this policy if enacted, teachers of consistently underpreforming institutions would be unfairly biased against. These schools typically contain students trying to deal with school, family issues, and money problems which are not present to the same extent in more effluent areas. Additionally, these schools might also contain a high proportion of students who either do not speak the native language or speak it poorly as a second language. Due to the harsh circumstances, these students unsurprisingly on average perform below their peers. Thus, punishing the teachers for poorly performing students is not fair to the teachers, and that action would possibly result in good teachers transfering to better areas. With only the average and poor teachers remaining, the student performance would continue to decline and would serve as a negative feedback loop resulting in terrible teachers and poorly educated students. Thus the policy would not be very effective at improving teacher quality at those schools.
While the policy attempts to improve teacher quality, it fails to provide a method to improve quality for all students.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 22, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'teachers'' or 'teacher's'?
Suggestion: teachers'; teacher's
The idea of basing a teachers salary on how their students perform on...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 975, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
... teachers and poorly educated students. Thus the policy would not be very effective ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, second, so, thus, while, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.5258426966 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.4196629213 177% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 33.0505617978 103% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 58.6224719101 99% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2516.0 2235.4752809 113% => OK
No of words: 461.0 442.535393258 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.45770065076 5.05705443957 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63367139033 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71618336841 2.79657885939 97% => OK
Unique words: 215.0 215.323595506 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.466377440347 0.4932671777 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 764.1 704.065955056 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.4169850094 60.3974514979 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 139.777777778 118.986275619 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.6111111111 23.4991977007 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.05555555556 5.21951772744 59% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.257604524632 0.243740707755 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.110190265146 0.0831039109588 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0601502581698 0.0758088955206 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.168191396693 0.150359130593 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0890945779772 0.0667264976115 134% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.1 14.1392134831 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.8420337079 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.1743820225 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.68 12.1639044944 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.75 8.38706741573 104% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 100.480337079 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.