Teachers' salaries should be based on their students' academic performance
The remuneration of teachers should not be tied to the academic achievements of their students. I disagree with this proposition for several reasons. Firstly, it is important to recognize that student performance is influenced by various factors beyond the quality of teaching. High-performing students may excel due to external factors such as private tutoring, personal motivation, or even individual hygiene practices. Conversely, low-performing students may face challenges unrelated to the teaching methods employed.
Secondly, students naturally possess diverse abilities and aptitudes, making it unlikely that their test or exam results will consistently reflect the effectiveness of their teachers. Factors such as student motivation, diligence, and personal circumstances can significantly impact academic performance. Therefore, it would be unfair and impractical to evaluate a teacher's salary solely based on their students' achievements.
While linking teachers' salaries to student performance might theoretically incentivize educators to invest more effort in teaching, it could also lead to unintended consequences. For instance, it may encourage unethical practices like examination malpractice, as teachers' financial rewards would be contingent on their students' outcomes. Moreover, it would be challenging to accurately gauge a student's true abilities and progress if external pressures heavily influence their performance.
In conclusion, it is not advisable to establish teachers' salaries based on the academic performance of their students. Student achievements are not always indicative of the effectiveness of teaching methods employed in schools, and such an approach could have unintended negative consequences. Other comprehensive evaluation methods that consider a broader range of factors should be employed to assess and reward teachers appropriately.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-07-15 | sepnkycehmqcodjefl | 62 | view |
| 2023-10-26 | Oladelejnrr | 66 | view |
| 2023-10-26 | Oladelejnrr | 50 | view |
| 2023-10-24 | raghavchauhan619 | 62 | view |
| 2023-10-04 | sahil nain | 50 | view |
- To understand the most important characteristics of a society one must study its major cities 33
- Government should place a few if any restrictions on scientific research and development 50
- The drawbacks to the use of nuclear power mean that it is not a long term solution to the problem of meeting eve increasing energy needs 83
- Technological advancement has made our lives easier and more convenient but it has also brought about significant ethical challenges To what extent should ethical considerations shape the development and use of technology 50
- The drawbacks to the use of nuclear power mean that it is not a long term solution to the problem of meeting ever increasing energy needs 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 366, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'teachers'' or 'teacher's'?
Suggestion: teachers'; teacher's
...be unfair and impractical to evaluate a teachers salary solely based on their students a...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 393, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a student' or simply 'students'?
Suggestion: a student; students
...ould be challenging to accurately gauge a students true abilities and progress if external...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, conversely, first, firstly, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, while, for instance, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 19.5258426966 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 3.0 11.3162921348 27% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 33.0505617978 57% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 58.6224719101 49% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1630.0 2235.4752809 73% => OK
No of words: 258.0 442.535393258 58% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.31782945736 5.05705443957 125% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.00778971557 4.55969084622 88% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.39459656811 2.79657885939 121% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 215.323595506 72% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.596899224806 0.4932671777 121% => OK
syllable_count: 504.9 704.065955056 72% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 2.0 1.59117977528 126% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.38483146067 23% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 20.2370786517 69% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.7994252826 60.3974514979 58% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 116.428571429 118.986275619 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4285714286 23.4991977007 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.21428571429 5.21951772744 177% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.539652461732 0.243740707755 221% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.179025966041 0.0831039109588 215% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.133079849895 0.0758088955206 176% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.332419084289 0.150359130593 221% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.027707416188 0.0667264976115 42% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.6 14.1392134831 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 19.37 48.8420337079 40% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.1743820225 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 19.38 12.1639044944 159% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.89 8.38706741573 130% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 100.480337079 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.