To the Editor:

I’ve never had a problem with the idea of merit pay for teachers, just the way that it is too often distributed. In many institutions, monetary rewards are the outcome of obedience to administrators rather than excellence in teaching and scholarship.

With academic leadership increasingly falling into the hands of politically appointed micromanagers rather than serious well-qualified educators, this problem will only continue, posing a threat to academic excellence.

If administrators, trustees and legislative overseers are willing to acknowledge that they may not be the most competent arbiters of academic “merit,” then a meritocracy may be able to work.

In an environment where petty martinets are in a position to make decisions about merit, excellence will be sacrificed at the altar of subservience. This is not good for education, or for the future of a well-educated America.

Stuart Ewen
New York, June 18, 2007

Use this article:

Stearns, Peter N. “Goals in History Teaching.” In Learning and reasoning in history, edited by James F. Voss and Mario Carretero. London ; Portland, OR: Woburn Press, 1998
alongside the introduction to the 1994 history standards. His critique of the standards is quite interesting (and from inside the discipline as opposed to from a political standpoint) and would provoke a solid conversation.
Funny line: “A colleague who recommended, tongue in cheek, that the responsibility for defending Western values be given for the next ten years to biology courses, to let history off the hook, was not entirely off the mark.” p.286.