If the objective of educators is to educate, logic dictates that their compensation would be fairly based on testing to determine how much the students have learned. The higher the test scores (assuming the test scores are developed fairly) the higher the compensation.
While that might seem logical, it doesn’t mean it’s right. This would be fair if all students were starting at the same level and had the same resources available to them
If students entering one school can barely read while students at another school start off at a reading level two grades about their real grade, should the teacher be evaluated based on a general level of reading at the end of the school year? Is that really an accurate way to evaluate the teacher?
If the majority of the students at one school have Internet access at home while the majority of the students at another school don’t have Internet Access at home, wouldn’t that affect their learning? If so, shouldn’t that be factored into the evaluation?
Does the socio/economic situation in a school district affect learning? Do resources affect learning? Are there other factors?
Once you start thinking of all of the things that are affecting learning it, it should make you rethink the logic of some of the arguments for merit based compensation using standard metrics.
In looking at your own industry, are you using metrics that maybe aren’t fairly representing the real issues?
Just something to think about.
Have a great day!