peer review of teacher pay

I also have a question about merit pay based on peer review, although from a different angle.

I'm trying to figure out why there is such an adherence to basing teacher evaluations on other teachers opinions. I don't know of any business where one's peers are the source of one's pay raises. In the real world, how a job is done is measured by how well the employee meets objective standards. In sales, it is a quota. In accounting, it is getting statements out on time and accurately. In engineering, it is producing robust designs that stand up in practice.

So why isn't teaching subject to the same critique? There are measures that can be objectively set. There are customers who can be asked for their satisfaction for the product being produced. Supervisors (otherwise known as administrators) are well schooled in observing teaching, and providing feedback.

So why does this proposal reject all these, and instead rely on the subjective opinions of other teachers? I agree with the commenter above: for a teacher to do this effectively, he must leave his classroom to observe a selection of teachers. Otherwise, the evaluation is based on hearsay and popularity. I could tell you right now which teachers would get the biggest pay raises, based on their peers. I don't think they would be the same teachers getting high marks from parents, students, and administrators.

I would suspect that peer review would be preferred by the teacher's union. It would maintain the illusion that the union is about professional standards, when in fact it is about getting the most pay for the least amount of work.