Michael Gove - wrong again: Performance-related pay in schools is crap

Noble, I am now convinced you are one of my colleagues. Always last lesson before lunch with yr 9.

I don't have anything against prp. Prior to teaching I worked in the public and the civil sector but there I had tangible results for my performance (was supposed to do x things, did x things, good girl have a patriae etc)
I share a class with 2 other teachers. One just does past papers, no traditional teaching, more tutoring. One does one paper, I do another. How do we divvy the results? What if one of us explains in a way only half the class understands buy another shows the other half?
What if there is a bereavement, an assault, a divorce, a bad night's sleep?
I don't have the solution but teachers cannot be treated the same as companies for profit.

Also, I know which colleagues I wouldn't have wanted to teach me, but that doesn't mean they aren't just as good a teacher as I try to be and they deserve whatever money they have earned, i really don't see it as a competition with them.

Look, being paid more for working extra hard and being an awesome teacher isn't what most teachers are after. Every teacher I know would take a reduction in workload over a pay rise without even thinking about it.
There are plenty of things stopping teachers from reaching their optimum level of performance, but a lack of performance-related financial incentive is not one of them. Paying 'great teachers' more and weaker teachers less would be divisive, demoralising and unhelpful. We need all the teachers we've got, even the less-than-outstanding ones.

noblegiraffe

I agree and add that schools should not be made to work as a business.

flowery

Its probably been asked but what is your definition of a "good" teacher?

I can tell you which ones motivate some lower ability pupil
I can tell you which ones get good results from SEND pupils
I can tell you which teachers have good relationships with 'difficult' pupils
I can tell you who gets "good" results year in and year out
I can tell you which teacher has a class that sits in silence and another where the teacher allows discussion
I can tell you who takes extra curricular classes/areas
I can tell you some of the teachers that get "good" lesson obs and those that get "outstanding" (although none of that matters anymore)

And I can tell you those that don't.
But most of all I can tell you that most teachers do a range of the above and lots of different things besides.

But very little of it gets taken in to account for PRP

DH runs an engineering consultancy with outcomes for projects. They make their money by designing in the time allocated and not costing the company money by poor design and ongoing issues with clients. High quality design and speedy resolution of design problems is key. In order to make money there are challenges such constant design revisions by clients, continual cost cutting by clients who drive down budgets and the need to keep clients on side so the business is profitable is hardly precision! It’s dicey and takes a lot of business acumen and always has been difficult. The staff have a stake in the success of the company. Via the pay deal it means staff buy into what drives the company and they can earn highly.

When teachers are reviewed, not every single aspect of their work is reviewed. Only their targets. Often 3. (Well in my school anyway). It’s the same with DHs engineers. They are set targets and their work and contribution on projects is reviewed. Not every single aspect of their work is reviewed. However, if they have caused problems by getting something wrong that has to be redesigned (at great cost to the company) it would definitely mean no PRP!

flowery
What criteria do you use to judge teacher performance?

Loads of jobs don't have PRP :honest!

Time served is no way to judge quality of teaching. We saw many teachers in the past who were well paid due to length of service but were truly awful. At least some method of rewarding quality should be agreed to prevent this and it’s the only way forward.

I would love to know what jobs teachers get when they leave teaching. How do they avoid PRP in another career?

I think it should be disregarded flowery. Because those fabulous teachers top being financially rewarded at some point anyway!

None of the advocates I have to say have bitten on the fact that my school does not have it, and is very high performing... so it seems perfectly reasonable to suggest if we can do it they all can ?

Surely it's easier to measure in a job as precise as engineering bubbles?

”The success level of any result achieved is a complex product of the pupil's effort, the pupil's background and ability, the behaviour and motivation of the other kids in the class, the pupil's interest and aptitude for that subject, parental support, the pupil's attendance,
continuity of staff, the pupil's performance in the exam on the day etc etc etc.”

Oh absolutely. But to me that indicates a problem with the criteria being used to measure teachers. Surely you would agree that there are some fabulous teachers and some not-so-fabulous? Should that be disregarded? Or can/should the criteria used to measure them be changed?

That statement is exactly what happens in many decent grad jobs. People subject themselves to PRP and it’s normal. If they do not continue to teach, other equivalent jobs will invariably be subject to PRP so what choice is there?

All DHs engineering professionals have PRP. As in teaching, it’s a relatively small percentage of pay and there is usually a standard increase too. People have to earn their enhanced pay. Their work quality and output is measured along with a number of other factors. Their contribution to the company is valued and it results in better pay. It has never caused problems and if anyone leaves, they will probably find PRP elsewhere. I had PRP in local government in 1990. Teachers have come very late into this. Kicking and screaming!

Also what self respecting professional does not appeal against a pay decision if it’s blatantly wrong and just accepts a SLT member saying not to bother? Why haven’t teachers taken SLT/Governors to task over the quality of the performance policy? Are teacher governors silent on the subject? As some schools do get it right, it seems perfectly reasonable to suggest they all can.

”Presumably also there aren't any staff who are bullied by SLT or their line managers in your MAT?”

I don’t know. I very much hope not and I would be very surprised, but I don’t know. I suppose my only way of knowing that would be if there was a grievance, or similar, or a problem indicated in our staff survey, neither of which is the case at the moment.

”Thing is, people can come on here and say ‘oh our system is very fair’ but it’s not going to convince me that it’s a good idea because I’ve seen too many examples (some I’ve read on here) of where it’s based on pupil data which renders it instantly unfair, and I know personally of cases where it has been appallingly misused. The gender pay gap also makes me deeply suspicious - closer in LA schools than academies.”

I’m certain you are right about all those things. I’m sure in places it’s misused, based on unfair criteria, and perhaps creates or deepens a gender pay gap as you say. I do what I can to make sure we pay staff fairly in our very small MAT, but obviously where there is discretion involved, there is potential for discrepancies and unfairness.

If it’s purely time served, it’s fair in that it’s completely transparent and everyone knows what pay is based on. I suppose it feels odd to me the idea of paying people on that basis, and not reflecting performance at all. Culturally ingrained I suppose! I have also only been involved with schools since 2013 so it’’s always been PRP for me.

I would have been demotivated if, come pay review time, I got the same percentage increase as a poor performer. Interesting that the teachers on here wouldn’t feel demotivated in those circumstances.

I think you just don't understand what teaching is like, how teachers feel about it, or how subjective judgments are about whether a teacher is good or not. You can't easily measure a teacher's 'productivity'. They don't make quantifiable sales or bring in clients or big deals. The success level of any result achieved is a complex product of the pupil's effort, the pupil's background and ability, the behaviour and motivation of the other kids in the class, the pupil's interest and aptitude for that subject, parental support, the pupil's attendance,
continuity of staff, the pupil's performance in the exam on the day etc etc etc.

The effort and performance of the teacher is just one cog in that machine, and not even the most important one. I've taught classes who could have got As and A*s with minimal teacher input. I've taught other classes who could have had the best teacher in the world and still wouldn't have given a monkey's or made an effort. And yet the kids' results are all that teachers are judged on.

I just thinking teaching isn't competitive. We don't compete against each other (well, some do, but it isn't the norm) We support each other and help each other out if we are any good. (obviously your Italian HOD was a bit shit but I bet he would have made sure he would have done well for himself under PRP and possibly would have sabotaged others : he does sound the type ! May not have been male, of course!)

It certainly isn't a line that is trotted out to recruit teachers ' come to us for an excellent salary package and performance related pay bonuses for high performers'. Too many teachers could be made to feel anxious by that statement.

I only know the system as a pupil some years ago. What PP have said about outside factors was true. I did French and Italian A levels. I had a great French teacher, new to the school. Any good Alevel results PRP would (at least partly) reflect the quality of her teaching.

For Italian I had a teacher who was rubbish at motivating, setting or marking work. They were Head of languages.
I got an Italian tutor, who had done oral examining at my school for a number of years, which was lucky as the Italian teacher said they never left any copies of the orals for use future years. I (through tutor) provided copies for the three of us doing Italian. I also shared other things so the three of us learnt together. For that teacher to get PRP in our good results would be incredibly unfair. (I presume an enterprising French teacher kept the oral papers which were always left or that my great teacher went out of her way to get some for us all.)

Presumably also there aren't any staff who are bullied by SLT or their line managers in your MAT? This is not as rare as you might think. The easiest way of bullying someone would be to suggest their performance was below par (and to find ways to 'prove ' it). In my school that has led to some nasty situations , but thankfully not ones as awful as having pay withheld. But I do know my union has been involved in huge numbers of cases on this matter.

”I’ve known teachers to look for other jobs after stupid pay decisions rather than appeal. Nothing like not feeling valued. And the rest of the staff pass the story around, reducing morale and increasing fear of performance management.”

Yes absolutely. If we had a retention problem I’d certainly be looking at whether that was a factor. We do a staff survey annually which isn’t indicating a problem at the moment.

”I wonder how many part time teachers go up two points on the scale?”

In our MAT? I can think of several part timers who I know are thought very highly of, so probably them although I don’t know off the top of my head.

PRP is in STPCD as something that can be applied, isn't it, rather than has to be?

I do believe when it was first introduced, unions advised against it, and still don't support it. We followed union guidelines at my place and nearly all the local schools also don't apply it.

I have served my time, anyway, so am 'at the top' so it's a moot point , but I would feel uncomfortable with the culture.