To not understand why teachers should object to performance related pay?

[Dolcelatte]

After all, it happens in most other sectors, so why should teachers be any different. I am not trying to be controversial and there will undoubtedly be others with a better understanding of the issues. However, I don't understand the objections in principle. Why shouldn't remuneration be dependent upon performance?

Our greatest debate is the one that noble has highlighted, concerning how to recognize those that run extra curricular activities whilst acknowledging that not all can.

You are SLT and have a much reduced teaching commitment, right, Aris? Are most of the people around you also on reduced timetables?

Most of the people around me are full time chalk face teachers subject to the whims of SLT. I expect that makes a difference.

I don't doubt it makes a difference and I often acknowledge that. I have not been a member of SLT that long , although because I spotted that it gave me much more time and flexibility with my work it was something I aimed for very quickly.

I do have stuff to do in my line management time though, I am not just filing my nails and checking facebook.

Most of my friends who are teachers are not SLT and because I have a teach first background I have friends who are still teaching in some quite tough schools which form quite a contrast to where I am now.

I only went into teaching because I checked with friends who were already teachers and most had a similar view of it as I do now.

People who run a lunch club at my school get a free lunch that day, Aris.

I wouldn't have a problem with a payment for running a club, a similar separate contract we have for doing a lunch duty, however I would have a problem with a pay rise, if you see what I mean.

I do have stuff to do in my line management time though, I am not just filing my nails and checking facebook.

Yes, but one hour of teaching generates work, one hour of line management time actually completes it.

Ours get a free lunch every day in return for doing a duty.

I am limited in the number of clubs I can run because I am on duty every lunchtime and have commitments after school three nights a week. I also insist on being able to leave school once a week by 4pm. However I would feel uncomfortable receiving a direct payment for a club but would be happy for that to be considered amongst other things when making a PRP decision.

I moved on to SLT in September. I teach fewer hours than last year, when I was head of a core subject, but work more. I am teaching an extra 5 hours a fortnight covering for an absent colleague mind you...

I take that on board, although because my responsibility area is students behaviour and welfare , one hour of work can often create more work, as I unearth issues. But I take your point that an hour of teaching often creates two or three hours of work.

Or in Primary where you still have a full teaching timetable when you are on SLT

To my disappointment I realized that my hours did not reduce when I became SLT, but I did have more control over my hours and workload. I think that lack of control can create stress.

I do find that I never manage to mark or plan during the school day, or often whilst I am at school full stop. But yes I have less marking and tweeking of lessons to do at home.

I would never teach in a primary school , far too lazy to do that.

We can get £10 for a duty instead of a week's worth of lunches, a club gets you one lunch.

I'm limited in the number of clubs I can do to zero. I'm 0.6 working 5 days a week on a two week timetable so have various afternoons off which are different each week. A payment for clubs that stops if you stop doing a club, fine. A pensionable pay-rise that I effectively can't access because of the crappy nature of my timetable, not fine. I'm already penalised enough for being part time.

I think the whole PRP thing is just another symptom of how each successive government seems to go to war against teachers. They get the blame for all societies ills, which is just crazy.
Every time a government decides to change the system, bring in more testing, more "accountability" more tick boxes, the children suffer, because the teachers simply have less time to actually teach as they are so busy trying to meet "targets".
No one stays in teaching for a doss. Anyone who went into teaching thinking it was going to be an easy life would soon realise it is not, and they would get out.
The teachers who want to be there, and want to make a difference should be given the benefit of the doubt and supported, not scrutinised and mistrusted over and over.
I don't care if my childs school is "outstanding"(in fact I chose a "good" school over an outstanding one, because I think that what schools have to do to become outstanding is not always in the interests of the children.
I don't care about SATS, I don't care about charts and data. All I care about is that 30 kids in a class are engaged, feel that it is safe to try and fail, and gain the confidence to do their best.
It is not actually all that important what you learn in primary school imo. What is important is that you develop life skills, and a love of learning, and that you learn how to learn.
I am so lucky that my son goes to a school that recognizes this, and he loves school, as do all his friends. This is down to the enthusiasm and passion of the teaching staff, and the head, all of whom work as a team and share the same goal. I would hate to see that attitude demolished by yet more reviewing, paperwork and stress.

Haven't had time to read the whole thread, but would like to quickly point out that established older teachers, usually head of department, often refuse to teach certain students because they will bring down their average.

Once you link pay to performance I can only see this increasing. All the difficult and weaker students will run the risk of being lumped together and dumped on an unsuspecting NQT who will struggle to get to the end of horrible year. Or was that just my school?

But under the system suggested above a decision is made on a whole set of factors , not just the running of a club. So whilst you might not "pick up points " for that you might for other things .

FWIW I am little uncomfortable with PRP being used to make teachers do things which are beyond their contacted duties. I can also think of teachers who run clubs, and might be praised for doing so, who would probably benefit from spending more time refining their basic teaching skills or marking their books.

Yes, pay and pay rises should be for contracted duties only. Because that is what you are paid to do. How can pay be linked to voluntary activities? That makes them effectively part of your contract. If I did a load of extra-curricular stuff and was awarded a pay rise and shut down the clubs the next day, what would you do?

I work at a secondary as a TA. I know at least 2 superb teachers who have not been given a pay rise fur to PRP. They are amazing to work with and always strive for the kids. But the criteria used by management is humanly impossible to attain- we suspect because it is a handy way of keeping salaries and therefore costs down. It has nothing to do with the actual capabilities of the teachers themselves.

• due to PRP!!! Tsk tsk!

Thank you for all of the interesting comments and, having read them, I do feel that I understand the issues better. For what it's worth, my view is that PRP is a useful tool for measuring performance and setting goals for career progression, as long as it utilised along side an appraisal system, which is as fair and transparent as it can be.

However, I do agree that a system of PRP can be open to abuse and/or to 'manage out' individuals whose faces don't fit. Inevitably, there needs to be a degree of trust between the parties carrying out and being subject to appraisal, and the appraisal will be subject to a number of subjective judgments. It is also a consensual process and, done properly, can be helpful to everyone involved.

In principle, though, I don't consider that teachers should be immune from appraisal/PRP because they work for a non profit making organisation. I consider that tax payers are entitled to expect value for money just as shareholders of a company.

The comments on this thread confirm my perception of the teaching profession, ie that there are a large number of extremely dedicated teachers who are doing a brilliant job, but there are some who have lost their enthusiasm and have become a bit 'jobsworth'.

In most other sectors it is expected that staff will take place in activities which are not specifically part of the contract and to work beyond the contracted hours. For those working in my sector,the law, this is completely routine. I am not saying that it is right, just that this is life in the real world.

If by contracted hours, you mean directed hours, then all teachers work beyond them.

And we have had appraisals for as long as I have been teaching (15 years).

That in itself is not new.

I do hope that it is not me that you are suggesting is 'jobsworth' for not wanting participation in voluntary activities which, due to the crappy nature of my part time timetable I can't participate in to form part of an assessment as to whether I deserve a pay rise.

Being a part-timer I already can't apply for any promotions so am stuck as a foot-soldier.

I am not saying that it is right, just that this is life in the real world.

Let's all trample each other in the race to the bottom! Yay!

I'm lucky (& good) enough to have reached top of upr scale. That means on top of a full teaching timetable (43/50 lesson & 21 different classes), I lead on several school wide improvements, mentor etc. In the past few years for example, I have achieved all my performance management targets except one: repeatedly, year after year. Which one? Pupil results. Even when all my GCSE group achieved an A-C bar 2 students who got a D and believe me those 2 worked their socks off to do that. 50% of same group got A/A. But I failed cos the target was set even higher by management who don't allow you to negotiate this. (Based on FFT higher ie FFT top 20%). This means I do not pass overall as you cannot pass without this one.
Secondly, and forgive me if someone's pointed this out already, heads are NOT getting any extra money to reward excellence. If they give a raise they have to cut costs elsewhere. If all staff were outstanding then the head could simply not afford to reward excellence. So practically speaking what can they do?

For 'lost their enthusiasm' read 'on their knees under relentless battering from the Government'.

I work in the private sector now and PRP is common place and on the whole works well.

I have also,worked in the public sector and know that similar systems can also work, but there is so much fear and scare-mongering about PRP. The Unions don't help either, as they object to everything.

For those who are against PRP, I would be interested to hear how we should reward the very best teachers and what should happen to the very worst? How do you differentiate? As an ex Chair of Govenors, we knew exactly who the crap teachers were and those who were letting the kids down, but you try sacking them, once the Unions were involved. It could take up to a year and the crap teacher would still get their annual incremental pay rise and the kids would suffer a whole year of sub-standard teaching.

Funnily enough, I now work in a very large private sector organisation and I have to employ 6 functional skills tutors to bring people's maths and English up to scratch, due to our education system (including teachers) who have let these people down.

I am not against teachers, the good ones do an amazing job. My sister is a teacher and she is for PRP, as she has seen so many crap teachers get away with underperforming for years and nothing is done.