Here's the problem: how do you define student performance? Are we going based on grades? Because that leads to a system that's easily gamed without significant

Here's the problem: how do you define student performance? Are we going based on grades? Because that leads to a system that's easily gamed without significant results. I was a B-and-C student in high school because I thought a lot of the stuff I was learning was crap. In the classes I did like, I'd deliberately take risks with what I did and that kept my grade from staying an A+. Is that a failure? The best teachers I had very often didn't give me As, because they were the teachers I'd really strain myself for - and for me, straining was trying to solve answers in a unique way rather than churning out generic A crap. The other option is that you monitor students for achievement. Again, it's hard. Is that based on money? Personal student happiness? Again, depending on what the metric is, teachers will game it. Go for money and English teachers will start encouraging students to do something more worthwhile than write and study English for a living. If you make it "how many students get a college degree" then you're diluting the college pool further and you're neglecting students who're interested in vocational school and in working on their own rather than continuing education. The best solution is to remove metric and go by the opinions of experienced people. Good administrators know good teachers when they see them. Good teachers always go by their own formula. If the system effectively removes restriction amongst teachers, then you'll see an increase in student performance, and suddenly paying teachers more is worth it. The problem is that teaching is an act of creativity; it's an art as much as anything is. Formula kills teaching. The minute you make something mandatory it's dead to kids. The problem is, formula feels safer, but it never works.