With this understatement Tuesday, Charlotte-Mecklenburg school board member Rhonda Lennon summed up the fiasco that CMS's pay-for-performance plan had become: "We got off on the wrong foot."

They did indeed. So at Tuesday's school board meeting, CMS officials changed course. Gone are the monikers "pay-for-performance plan" and "merit pay." The new appellation is the "talent effectiveness project."

We trust this is more than a name change. CMS didn't just get off on the wrong foot with its pay-for-performance approach.

Officials ticked off a whole lot of folks - many CMS supporters - by labeling critics as being afraid of change, developing dozens of new student tests for teacher assessments and pushing a revision in state law that would renege on a pledge to let educators have a say on a new pay system. Most important, CMS leaders never made a cogent case that a pay-for-performance plan using high-stakes tests as a primary gauge would be a fair and accurate way to assess teachers. Such teacher pay-for-performance plans have mostly failed elsewhere.

For months, teachers, parents and students have wildly opposed such a plan. Many attended school board meetings armed with signs and occasional boos.

Even some school board members were concerned Tuesday that the changes might be more semantics than real. So school leaders should not be surprised that some in the public will see smoke and mirrors too.

Still, the change in focus we heard was encouraging. Human resources chief Dan Habrat said the new plan will focus more on using assessment tools - not simply or primarily test scores - to help teachers improve their performance, not as a way to set their pay. He said assessment data will be used to "understand the most effective way to teach each individual student."

That is the wisest use of such data. We hope CMS sticks to that use for it. It is also a good way to avoid the test manipulation scandals that have hit Atlanta, Philadelphia and other places. Such problems are often the result of the singular focus on tests in judging academic success.

CMS was on target in pushing for a pay system that well-compensates teachers who are highly effective and clearly boost student achievement. CMS' system - the current state teacher pay plan - doesn't do that. The result? CMS pays its top teachers only marginally more than its least effective teachers. Too often, top teachers are actually paid less than the poor ones. That's wrong. The pay system needs to change. But basing teacher pay primarily on test scores - scores influenced by home environments and other factors teachers have no control over - is wrong too.

We have no illusions that CMS officials are giving up on pay for performance. But a focus on truly boosting "talent effectiveness," using training, support and assessments to help them succeed in elevating student learning, could be a better use of their time.