We need to get rid of performance-related pay for teachers

I don't think it's fair to have PRP that is based so much on the behaviour of other people and not in your control

If you're a teacher I hope they are in your control PickleFish, or at least certainly under your influence.

Your first point (erroneously) assumes that the targets are fair and realistic

They are fair and realistic in our school. And the vast majority of teachers meet them and get their pay progression.

As for basing a teacher's pay progression on how many of their pupils go to after-school activities... I don't even know where to begin with that

Well don't come and work at our school then. We have a rich extra-curricular offering and teachers encourage students in their form groups to make the most of it, rather than shrug their shoulders and not give a sh*t. Some clubs are specifically designed to encourage certain groups of students to participate.

we need to have enough decent teachers in classrooms. And we don't.

I sat in on all the interview lessons for all the applicants for the physics and chemistry jobs in our school last year. Every qualified applicant was interviewed. Every sample lesson was utter shit. I mean utter shit. None of the candidates was recruited. One was teaching from a 1970s textbook and using out-of-date technical words. One couldn't write chemical formulae correctly on the board.

All of them were currently working as teachers (albeit on supply) in local schools.

Of the last ten teachers to leave our department, five have left the UK state education sector completely. Only one of them has retired at a 'normal' age.

If we want there to actually be enough teachers to teach our children, teaching needs to be a more attractive job. People are voting with their feet. You can compare the pay and conditions of teaching favourably or unfavourably with the private sector until the cows come home, but ultimately we need to have enough decent teachers in classrooms. And we don't.

To be fair, my DH's performance is also affected by factors beyond his control. The economy for a start.

No, but you can measure them by how much progress their students are making against their targets, or by whether a more than x% of their form-group are encouraged to do after-school activities, or by whether they contributed to the extra-curricular life of the school by running a club, whether they organised a school outing, or various other more reasonable measures.

What a lot of crap. Your first point (erroneously) assumes that the targets are fair and realistic, and also ignores things which happen in a child's home-life which affect their ability to hit targets.

As for basing a teacher's pay progression on how many of their pupils go to after-school activities... I don't even know where to begin with that.

Neither should teachers' pay progression be based on doing things which are outside their contracted hours.

Your are right TheFallenMadonna.

I am on M6 but am part time and don't have tutor responsbilities. I don't want to go through threshold and would have difficulty justifying the application due to my position in the school.

So, no incentive to take on anything extra or go the extra mile. As long as I don't pass a 'floor' that puts me into capability territory, nothing changes.

Hardly inspiring 'performance related pay'.

Kazzyhoward, thanks for the info. TBH, I live in a very wealthy part of the country where wages are really high (lots of tech firms), so I don't know what salaries are like elsewhere.

The problem for teachers is that that 'automatic' progression up to £32,000 has now gone. Many schools are in absolutely dire financial situations, and it's all too easy to put a halt on progression if targets aren't rigidly met.

Likewise, Heads know that teachers of certain subjects can more-or-less name their price and will simply go elsewhere if they are denied their progression each year. I doubt there are many physics teachers who don't go from, say, M3 to M4 automatically in a year. If they even suspect it could happen, they'll jump ship (or threaten to). It's a great game of call-my-bluff. Trust me, I've seen it happen with our former head of physics, who knew his targets were pretty much irrelevant as the head was never going to deny him his progression point despite missing his A level targets by a mile. How the hell is that contributing to raising standards.

Now I'm not for one second saying that a rigorous target setting and appraisal system is a bad thing. I'm also not saying that performance related pay is wholly a bad thing. I do think that shoe-horning performance related pay into the old rigid pay point system is somewhat problematic.

Just to say again. It is not PRP. It is performance related progression up a payscale. When you reach the top, no progression, however fabulous you are.

How do you measure which is the "best" teacher?

Running a very small accountancy practice is not equivalent to the job of a secondary head. And headship is not just about experience anyway. Most teachers with that experience do not make (or seek) headship.

Why would teachers be any different from anyone else? Every job I’ve ever had has an element of performance related pay. The best get paid most. Seems right and proper.

What is M6 worth anyway - £32,000? How does that compare to, say, an IT graduate with 6 years' experience or an accountant

Normal "accountants", i.e. those who are workers rather than managers/partners, will be on similar wages outside the city firms, i.e. typically £25k-£35k) Managers (maybe 10 years experience i.e. equivalent to say department heads) will be on £40k-£50k. I've recently had a recruitment firm send me details of an experienced qualified accountant looking to relocate to my town with salary expectation of £27.5k. Outside the city firms, I'd say that accountant wages are very similar to teachers. I run my own very small practice and I earn about £50k (35 years experience) which I'd compare to being a headteacher after that length of experience, so actually quite a bit less (not to mention pension etc).

I agree.

I don't think it's fair to have PRP that is based so much on the behaviour of other people and not in your control. I'd possibly agree that targets such as running a club etc could be rewarded, but again that's the teacher's effort, not the performance of how it turns out/attendance.

it's not that I object to the fact of teacher's being measured, exactly, but more that I don't think it is ultimately good for the pupils. I think it leads to a huge emphasis on exams and marks, so that lessons become nothing but preparing for exams and learning exactly what's on the syllabus and exactly how the mark scheme works, rather than a broader education. Everyone ends up stressed and under pressure, and it leads to all sorts of game playing about which exams to enter pupils for to gain the maximum marks for the school, etc, rather than what might be best for a student's education more generally. Clubs that are measured on % of pupils attending might end up becoming populist, and leaving no room for more niche subjects that might be very enriching, but not so superficially exciting and attractive. Schools end up being compared on too many measured in league tables, which again leads to games-playing with data of all sorts, trying to get the right statistics in any way possible, and this then leads to all sort of problems with admissions, catchments, popular schools, and so forth.

In short, I think you can't treat education in such a quantitative way, and that doing so is part of a much bigger picture of what is wrong; we need to change what we value about education.

Of course it is difficult, because there are good teacher and bad ones, and ones that will put no effort in if not incentivised in some way, and it is hard to know how to do that when what defines 'good' is so nebulous. But I think what is needed is a cultural shift generally, that values teaching, teachers, education in a broad sense, rather than just more pressure for result defined in very specific, quantitative ways.

There are lots of shortages in many areas of engineering and construction. Nearly every employer will have some form of performance related pay. Not every employer has a good pension scheme. There are always swings and roundabouts but I think professionals have to be subject to performance scrutiny and as we are all paying for teachers, it is reasonable that performance is measured. Those teachers who leave and go into other jobs will be subject to performance related pay and often as a much bigger percentage of salary. They may well have to pay more for inferior pensions. So if they accept prp in their new jobs, why not in teaching? Regressing to old ways will not keep teachers. There are many other ways to do that.

You can't measure how good a teacher is by the grades their dc achieve

No, but you can measure them by how much progress their students are making against their targets, or by whether a more than x% of their form-group are encouraged to do after-school activities, or by whether they contributed to the extra-curricular life of the school by running a club, whether they organised a school outing, or various other more reasonable measures. It's not rocket science. So long as the objectives are reasonable and agreed at the start of the year with senior leaders who have a good relationship with the staff then it can be made to work.

I disagree. I agree that measurement and evaluation techniques need to be flexible and take into account factors like selection. However, I think that schools should be rewarding good teachers as opposed to those who just do their time. A lack of meritocracy in pay scales is equally discouraging to new entrants while also having the pitfall of discouraging existing teachers from putting in extra effort because there is not point.

shit starting salaries

The minimum starting salary in all parts of the UK is just over £22k. That's not exactly "shit"

Of course you are right. It should never have been introduced in the first place. You can't measure how good a teacher is by the grades their dc achieve. It's just the same as measuring a school's worth by %s getting certain grades or levels at GCSE or SATS - completely floored and dreamed up by someone who knows nothing about schools, about demograph, and about inclusion. It just forces schools to not offer places to those children who have needs that mean they can't ever achieve the government's "norm".
Sorry slight tangent, but I've been reminded of it again this week, and it's from the same stable.

the 10% bonus and share-save scheme, plus the paid-for Christmas party.

You're several years out of date. The recession has hit everywhere, and nobody has a paid-for Christmas party these days, not least because the tax man would class it as a taxable benefit.

And in my experience most people in share-save schemes find they're not worth much if anything by the time they mature.

And are those sectors experiencing a critical recruitment and retention crisis

There's a crisis in some subjects and not in others. If we advertise arts, humanities or PE roles we can take our pick from a strong field. If we advertise for maths we're struggling. Computer Science and Physics are impossible.

But the pay structure doesn't allow for any variation in pay between different subjects, and presumably arts and humanities teachers would cry foul if they found themselves being paid less then their peers in the STEM departments.

I am at the top of UPS. No PRP. No bonus.

Sadly noble I think you're likely to face a barrage of 'that's what they do in the private sector' arguments and only those who work in teaching are likely to get where you are coming from.

I'm just waiting for all the other 'benefits' of working in the private sector - the 10% bonus and share-save scheme, plus the paid-for Christmas party.

Sadly, too many aspects of modern working practice have become a race to the bottom. Next we'll be told we shoudln't be entitled to any sick pay either.

What is M6 worth anyway - £32,000? How does that compare to, say, an IT graduate with 6 years' experience or an accountant
A lot of IT graduates are paid less than that. It's a wide ranging profession, with lots of badly paid support roles. The people who get paid the most are self-employed or else have particularly sought-after skills. Of course the best graduates are snapped up by the biggest-name firms and tend to do well (if they toe the line, work like maniacs and meet their objectives).

Similarly with accountants - if you're employed by a big-name firm then your salary will start high and shoot up (till you die of boredom or have a nervous breakdown and leave to do something else), but there are many other routes into accountancy and they don't start off or even reach anywhere near £32k.

But it isn't linked to inflation. It is capped.