Of course it make sense...Industry has been doing this for years...
Set goals (Mutual)....track progress....then reward, or NOT reward..

No because a majority of them are incompetent.

NVgrf...I'd go to your school any day !

"Isn’t it reasonable to argue, however, that without proper guidance, those front-line instructors may struggle to get optimum results from students?".... Greg; I hope you are not insinuating here that administrators instruct teachers how to teach. In my experience, a high percentage of teachers who move on to administrative levels did so because they were ineffective classroom teachers. Top teachers generally remain in the classroom where they have success and satisfaction in their jobs, and feel they can benefit students the most. The highest salary levels should begin with teachers and move downward from there in the direction of those who have the least student contact.

Gregg.. Really now.
.
Here you go again.. Blogging about and soliciting comments on news items that have been covered in the Gazette online multiple times, each time with many comments..
.
This topic has been ridden into the sunset by the commenters here.
.
Two or three articles with comment sections have answered your question of today

In past years, teachers unions negotiated raises for the teachers...and the administrators were soon after also given that same percent of raises. The teachers fought tooth and nail against ANY kind of perforance evaluation tied to raises. I suspect the admins also quietly fought it.
Today with no union negotiations, I think the school board is wise to start with the admins, polish that system, and then make it required teachers also.

The pay plan makes sense not only for administrators, but also for teachers. Pay increases should be based on performance not merely time on the job. That's how it works where I'm employed.