Teachers' salaries should be based on the academic performance of their students.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing an

If you think of a teacher as a professional with the corresponding skills providing his services to a set of customers, his clients are the students (and their parents), his product is his teaching ability, and his only appraisal parameter is the usefulness of his product to his clients. That is, if a parent or a student had to decide what the teacher has to be paid for the services he provides, it would depend on the academic performance of the student. This in fact is the modus operandi at various private schools, and almost all coaching and grooming institutes today. Parents and / or students are willing to pay huge sums of money to institutes who promise and have a history of providing education and training that ensure accessibility to pinnacles of success.

Often, it is the pressure (of maintaining the brand image in case of the institutes; of having the most return on investment in case of students / parents) that keeps the goal in mind of both the parties involved, resulting in them working in a complimentary fashion to achieve the same target.

But what about state-run schools? The teachers have a fixed compensation, almost always lower when compared to private institutes. The tuition fees paid by the students is also small, even null in some cases. With a big risk out of the equation, it takes a huge amount of an only scarcely available motivation and dedication in either of the parties to bring a comparable result on the table.

It can be argued that the motivation and dedication expressed by those belonging to the second kind is more pure, is reflective of a higher quality, and worth magnitudes more than the success of the first kind. But at the same time it is very scarce, and in the face of an ever-rising amounts of competition, dying very fast.

In historic times, the only wealth of a teacher was his knowledge. It was his source of wisdom, as well as his bread. Teaching was not considered a profession, but a duty on part of the knowledge one possessed. Often considered a higher state of both the mind and soul. But the number of willing seekers of knowledge in those times was nothing compared to even the well endowed of today. With ambitious plans like 'Right to (free) Education' bills, the government bodies are making leaps and bounds spreading the awareness for the need of education. But if the most important link in the existing chain holding the lantern of education, the teachers, are so weakly motivated, the advancement will be of no discernible value.

The implementation of the suggestion would no wonder be a difficult task, given how deep the existing attitude has spread it's roots. Most of the teachers at the state-run facilities have the life-long insurance for a regular pay-check. The bonus offered in recognition of any real efforts have such a small practical value, yet require such a herculian effort, that most, if not all, choose and stay in their comfort zones. If no steps are taken to ensure that the goals of all the parties involved are aligned, any valuable success would still remain a scarcity.

Some may argue that it would result in the commercialisation of the most fundamental of their rights, where students and their success would be treated as commodities. But to remain with the old ways would be to follow the agrarian economic system in the wake of an industrial level demand.