That seems to be the core of the argument of the article. In particular, it seems to drive at saying we need to be able to have more variation in teacher pay in order to attract the best talent, particularly in the STEM areas.
Studies have been done (Kohn cites one in "The Folly Of Merit Pay") that show more teachers are driven out of teaching by the unintended negative consequences of performance-based pay than are attracted to it by the prospect of more money.
It's not hard to see why. Every performance measurement scheme we have today, from federal, state, and municipal school grading to "value-added" schemes, has produced a nightmare of standardized testing and teach-the-test regimes that have crowded out experiments from curricula.
You don't have to agree with Alfie Kohn to recognize the problem. Saying "we need to compensate the best teachers to incentivize them" is like saying "we need cars that consume far less gasoline". It's the "how" that's the question.
You don't have to agree with Alfie Kohn to recognize the problem.
You also don't have to disagree with Alfie Kohn about his ideas on "performance pay" to think that it makes sense in the New York City job market to pay a math teacher more than, say, a social studies teacher. To get a decent math teacher at all probably requires a salary sufficient to draw a math-knowledgeable person away from private-sector opportunities.
Studies have been done (Kohn cites one in "The Folly Of Merit Pay") that show more teachers are driven out of teaching by the unintended negative consequences of performance-based pay than are attracted to it by the prospect of more money.
That certainly makes sense, but the question addressed in this article was not quantity but quality. Which one attracts a higher caliber of teacher (for whichever definition of higher caliber is being used at the moment)?
