(Continued from Page 1) evaluation procedures to merit pay

(Continued from Page 1) evaluation procedures to merit pay from budget time in 1983 to budget time in 1984. In explanation, he maintained that the evaluation system should be operating for a year in order to allow time to iron out any problems before making it the basis of merit pay.

Consider—Not Adopt

In the most significant, amendment to his original resolution, Eastham proposed that the board CONSIDER adopting a differentiated pay scale prior to staring budget work in 1984. The resolution submitted at the October meeting stipulated that the board would implement merit pay before drawing up the 1983 budget.

“This resolution does not commit the board to implementing merit pay. It only commits the board to putting merit pay—as measured by the new evaluation system—on the agenda by 1984 for full discussion,” the Wakefield representative emphasized.

Eastham added that with the merit pay proposal, he is attempting to halt the erosion of confidence in public schools and stop the exodus of students leaving for private schools. Each board member in turn reacted to Eastham’s resolution.

“Merit pay is a wonderful |dea but l can see how it cowtd haa whoi* mtem can of worms,” Nelson Lane remarked. “This is an openended resolution...It only commits us to a direction.”

He added that he knew of companies that had tried merit pay and abandoned the idea as well as companies that were just beginning differentiated pay programs.

New board member Randall Updike agreed that Eastham’s "well worded resolution” only points the board in the direction of merit pay. He gave his unqualified support to instituting evaluation procedures but stopped short of doing the same for differentiated pay. “The biggest drawback is the evaluation...Can it be done fairly?"

Updike reported that merit pay had been tried by the