I couldn’t agree more, except I believe the teachers’ unions are far from silent. They’re working very hard in the halls of power to see that RttT is reduced to nothing more than a mechanism to pump more money down the same old failed process. The objective is not for better outcomes for more kids, but rather more teachers employed at higher salaries. They aren’t the same thing.

I very much like the idea of rewarding teachers for effectiveness, but there are two challenges in that statement.

One is in defining ‘effectiveness.’ Can that be measured simply with test scores? Do test scores measure the effectiveness of the current teacher, or prior teachers? Which is the harder task, raising scores by 20% for low performing kids or 2% for high performing kids?

The other is determining ‘reward.’ If a reward is something that will motivate higher performance, is money the only thing which should be considered? I came from the high-tech business world, made up of true geek engineers and Big-Man-On-Campus sales folks. The BMOCs were unquestionably motivated by money, and were dead sure everyone else was too – if they were normal at least.

The truth is that true geek engineers don’t care as much about money as they do having interesting and cool projects to work on. So offering them early completion bonuses achieves nothing. However, telling them that as soon as the current project is finished, they can start the design of a new starship, would put them on a 24/7 work schedule. Especially if you said they if they take too long wrapping up the current project, the starship project would be given to a different group, and that this group would have to do some necessary maintenance of the payroll system.

What kinds of stuff would motivate a teacher to take it up a notch? I don’t know. But whatever it is – that’s where the money should go.