Students, teachers are more than just test scores

Whenever I hear about the Utah Legislature trying to impose performance pay on teachers, I think about old-time printers. In a Legislature where naive ideas are abundant, this one soars into the stratosphere of absurdity.

Years ago, typesetters were paid according to the "ems" of type they assembled. The lower case "m" is basically a square letter, and so by measuring output in terms of ems, employers could theoretically pay on performance, whether the typesetter worked with very small type, such as footnotes, or large type, such as headlines. The typesetter who set 100 inches of 6-point type (1,200 ems) was paid the same as the typesetter who set 200 inches of 12-point type (1,200 ems). But the theory never worked. First, small type was more difficult to set, especially for older, less nimble fingers. Second, large type offered technical problems related to line length and spacing. In practice, then, apprentices were usually assigned small type or large type projects, while the old hands took care of straight matter — line after line of moderate-size type. As a result, old-timers often doubled the em output of apprentices. Eventually, unions and the invention of typesetting machines shifted the pay scale to a more equitable hourly rate.

We pay teachers to teach. Some teach math, some teach English, some teach science, some teach gym, and some teach all of the above. But all teachers teach children. The common denominator is children, not subject matter.

How do you measure the worth of a child? What is the universal "em" of child development?

Naive legislators think they know the answer: Give the child a learning test. If the child performs well on the test, then the child is worth something. If the child does not perform well, then the child is worthless. Moreover, the child's teacher is also worthless. After all, thoughtless lawmakers reason, we hired the teacher to teach subject matter, and if the child did not learn the subject matter, then it must be the teacher's fault. Never mind that the child may have become a better person during the year, thanks to the influence of a good teacher. The character of the child doesn't count, only the quantity of subject matter learned.

That's like paying a typesetter only for the number of times he fishes the letter "g" out of the job case. Never mind other letters that make a word or sentence.

The whole of a child is much, much more than the sum of his or her test scores. And the worth of a teacher is much, much more than can be determined by student test score data. In fact, the least important thing a teacher does is teach subject matter.