state Department of Agriculture, his employer. “It took five

state Department of Agriculture, his employer. “It took five years to put it together,” with the department “totally revamped in the process.” he said.

Under the department's modified merit pay system, employees were rewarded for superior performance through a restructured salary scale and now received yearly evaluations, according to Updike.

No Evaluations Now

Eastham interjected that in January, 1960, during visits to classrooms, he spoke with all teachers at both the elementary and high schools (except for two who were absent due to illness). “They said they weren't being evaluated—all except for four or five out of 60 some teachers.”

Acknowledging that merit pay is a topic “dear to Mr. Eastham’s heart," superintendent Robert Estabrook said he still would have to differ with the Wakefield representative since he believed “education still to be more art than science.’*

He challenged whether Eastham's resolution calling for merit pay to be considered after a “joint determination by the board and superintendent that an effective and fair evaluation system in in place” could really be considered openended.

It’s one thing to put an evaluation »yU—i with the goal of improving instruction and judge the system with that goal in mind. It’s another thing to assume a system developed with that goal is adequate to serve as the basis for merit pay, Estabrook maintained.

“I don’t personally see the need for connecting the two (evaluation and merit pay),” the superintendent said. He noted that the board can consider “any point on any topic at any time" and questioned whether the stipulation that the board will consider merit pay by budget time in 1964 should be part of a resolution on setting up evaluation proceedings.

As for merit pay itself, Estabrook maintained that “we’re not at that stage of maturity in measuring