Readers know that I'm frustrated by the tendency of reformers to turn reasonable discussions about issues like teacher evaluation and pay into polarizing crusades. Too often, this yields "reform" victories that look a lot like crude mandates, and then cements these into statute. The Obama administration is hugely guilty on this count, as it has--in a move I deem patently illegal--required states to adopt Duncan-blessed evaluation systems in order to get an NCLB waiver. Sec. Duncan's latest bout of muscle-flexing threats (most recently with Arizona) has only aggravated my concerns.

Lord knows I endorse differentiated pay, rigorous evaluation, and tough-minded personnel management, but I don't think anyone really knows the "right" way to do this--and I'm pretty sure that the answer is going to vary across school systems. I think the folks who ought to dictate teacher evaluation and pay are the leaders who have to hire, support, and manage teachers; that's district (or potentially school) leaders, not state legislators or board members. To my mind, the point of knocking down anachronistic state statutes and policies governing tenure and pay is not so that reformers can prescribe their new formulas, but so that educational leaders can craft better strategies for their schools and systems. (If those folks choose not to act, that's where accountability, markets, and elections come in.)

Click here to continue reading.