The imparting of knowledge in formal learning institutions are done through teachers. They, a coterie of qualified professionals trained in the art of disseminating knowledge, have a major influence on a student's life. A teacher can make the most boring of subjects interesting through a well-thought out teaching plan and interesting charisma, so can it be the other way around. Hellen Keller found her way back into life through a dedicated and caring teacher. However in view of the statement tying teachers' salaries to their students' academic performance, I fundamentally tend to disagree with the speaker's assertions due to reasons stated below.
The first reason of my belief is that there is a lack of a standard academic performance test in place. The question that will definitely arise is what is the best method or test to gauge a student's academic performance. If we were to go by tests carried out by respective schools, we will be certain that the standard would differ and thus there would not be a standard gauging scheme. The tests that abound today are mostly aptitude test, for instance the SAT (scholastic aptitude test) which primarily measures the students' grasp on vocabulary, reading comprehension and mathematical prowess. It is a foregone conclusion that academia does also include Geography, History, Science etc and there are no standardized tests out there for them as of yet. The next problem that would arise is what about the group of students who are taking a minority subject, say for example anthropology? The judging scheme would thus be different since it does not take into account the entire schooling population but rather, involve only a small minority group. Would the assessment be any different since a smaller number of sample size is affected? My first point of the lack of standard gauging tests thus hinges on these argument which clearly show it would be unwise and untenable to tie the teacher's salary to the students' performance.
In addition to that, if a teacher's salary were to be based on students' academic performance, this would bring about a biased way of giving of marks. We have to be largely aware of the fact that students' test papers are graded by teachers, and if a teacher receives a higher salary were the student to perform well, needless to say there would be many unscrupulous individuals who would accord their students higher marks to their own benefit. Critics might argue that assessment of a particular class of students can be done by a different teacher, but I foresee a system that would be plagued with corruption and bribery. What if the class teacher bribes another teacher, or what if the teacher intentionally gives bad grades because they know that it would affect the class teacher (who might be someone they do not favor)? Many what-ifs might take place which would ultimately jeopardize and challenge the education system. In light of that, I think that the statement is not valid and sound.
Furthermore the statement can only hold true assuming that all teachers get students who have the same level of intelligence, commitment, determination etc. Teachers who are teaching better performing classes would most definitely have the upper hand since their students would do better compared to students of other classes. Even if we were to base it on the percentage of improvement of a student's grade, we have to similarly take into account that each individual is different. In a poor performing class, the improvement ratio of a student willing to learn and another who is not concerned with academia would definitely yield different percentages. So the validity of the statement essentially falls back on a student, for he/her through his attitude can affect the teacher's salary, which sounds outright fallacious.
In a nutshell, based on all the reasons provided, I find myself disagreeing with the writer's assertions. As of now, the lack of a standardized test and the many variable factors that are in place would not make this plan an appropriate one.