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?

Wuldric, your team consists of Adults who are already skilled in the job that they of and can get themselves signed off sick if they are not handling an event.

Compare that to a teenage girl, who thinks she is going through a crisis etc, they are no where near the same situation.

We would need bigger investment in Pastoral Care, children's MH services etc, to ensure that everything is on place that is put of the teachers control.

Children cannot enter into contracts for a good reason, we already recognise in law the effect if immaturity Oban individual and their behaviour/choices.

Adults have to abide by their employment contract, different situation completely.

but maybe they are.

why do i feel likei am doing everything wrong? why oh why indeed.

my students reach their incredibly high targets. i make a contribution to the wider school community. i am putting in a lot of work. it isn't good enough.

i am really thinking of leaving. don't all rush to tell me it will be no great loss, i already feel that anyway.

'who is teaching my lessons while i am shadowing this child in an attempt to anticipate and prevent meltdowns? am i following them around at break,or lunch? in the toilets? on the school bus?'

Why would you be following this child around? Are they or aren't they your responsibility during lunch/break whatever?

If they are your responsibility then you ARE responsible for their meltdowns or lack of. If not then whose responsibility ARE they? and itn't is perfectly fair that that person receives a dip in pay for not being any good at their job.

"Where is the person responsible for this child? Why haven't they identified this child's difficulty, addressed it and ensured that it doesn't happen enough to prevent an increase in engagement and participation in the child's education?"

Do tell us how we fix emotional problems that easy, then we can move onto physical ones.

everyone is my responsibility, always, and i am failing failing failing

i am 10+ years into my career and and i am working harder, better, faster than i ever have and it is not enough. it will never be enough

i think i will feel relieved when i am put on capability, just a matter of when i guess

i just hope i don't feel too destroyed by the time i get there

Starlight I think you are being wholly unrealistic as to what is and isn't within a teacher's sphere of responsibility. And that's the polite way of putting it.

"You have apportioned 'fault' to the child, for 'not wanting to leave the classroom'. "

I haven't apportioned 'fault' to the child. This could happen for any reason and sometimes no reason.

It can be blood sugar dropping or too much stimulus (noise, movement, lights flashing).

Saying that teachers are responsible for and for the lack of meltdowns shows a lack of understanding on your part.

"Why would you be following this child around? Are they or aren't they your responsibility during lunch/break whatever?

If they are your responsibility then you ARE responsible for their meltdowns or lack of. If not then whose responsibility ARE they? and itn't is perfectly fair that that person receives a dip in pay for not being any good at their job."

Starlight, I am beginning to wonder if you have ever mixed with famines with a range if issues or problems, or evenly Human Teenagers, tbh.

Are parents responsible for their toddlers tantrums, we are human, that means that we express our emotions in a non positive way at times and it has a knock on effect on other areas and other people.

Adults do not take their problems into work, children do.

The LA has a duty to educate a child, the patent needs to ensure that the child at least attends school, attending isn't the same as engaging.

That is where the problem lies, the reason that the child isn't engaging can be outside if the teachers hands (and sometimes the parents), there isn't easy answers.

The starting point shouldn't be WRP for teachers, especially after a cut in services for children and disadvantaged families, as well as in MH/Disabilities.

The school I just left was rife with bullying from SMT. The head was nuts. This would be a nightmare under him. Thank god I quit teaching. I used to love it but the job nearly killed me. And I know I was good at it so it's a bloody waste but I wasn't going to sacrifice my health for it.

'Starlight I think you are being wholly unrealistic as to what is and isn't within a teacher's sphere of responsibility. And that's the polite way of putting it.'

Of course you do. I suspect you also think that performance related pay is also wholly unrealistic, but that is because of the context and culture within which teachers currently work plus the extreme defensiveness they have developed as a result of being continuously criticised and blamed for all of societies ills. I absolutely don't blame teachers for being resistant to changes of any kind, as solidarity and joint-eye-rolling is probably all they have to prop up their self-esteem.

However, a teacher's responsibility to a child with SN is to ensure they are properly supported, not dismissed in a corridor with shrug and an insistence that there is nothing they could do.

solidarity and joint-eye-rolling is probably all they have to prop up their self-esteem.

Wow, patronising much?

'Do tell us how we fix emotional problems that easy,'

Are you seriously asking this?

You can't 'fix' emotional problems, but you can improve outcomes for child with emotional problems, and you can prove this with good data.

The first meltdown you might not be able to prevent, but the occurrence of them should diminish and you should be able to demonstrate this, if the child is your responsibility when they happen.

"solidarity and joint-eye-rolling is probably all they have to prop up their self-esteem."

can you clarify what you mean by this? it seems confontational. i want to believe you are motivated by a desire for children to thrive, but posts like this make it seem as though you just want to slag off teachers and delight in their misery.

'It can be blood sugar dropping or too much stimulus (noise, movement, lights flashing).

Saying that teachers are responsible for and for the lack of meltdowns shows a lack of understanding on your part.'

Really? So whose responsibility is it that the child has dropped blood sugar, too much noise/movement/lights flashing?

Surely not the childs?

can you provide a link to a case study where good data improved outcomes for a child with emotional problems?

that would be very helpful, because i am not sure which data you are referring to here

Starlight

Teachers where already on a form of PRP, its the adjustments and lack of criteria that is worrying.

"a teacher's responsibility to a child with SN is to ensure they are properly supported, not dismissed in a corridor with shrug and an insistence that there is nothing they could do."

What do you suggest the teacher should do?

Not everything has to be someone's FAULT, Starlight.

how do i control someone else's blood sugar?

are you being serious?

I'm frustrated Chibi by such rigid thinking and one or two rude comments. I'm sorry if my tone was patronising.

I do however believe that teachers have been treated appallingly and do not blame them for being resistant to whatever the latest government imposed often ill-thought-through idea is.

However I do think that we have reached a bit of an impasse now where teachers will throw out the baby with the bath water in an attempt to cling on to the status quo just in case things get worse.

Chibi, how would you produce good outcomes for a child with emotional problems? Or would you just not?

If you did, how would you demonstrate that this is what you did? How would you identify what helped and what didn't in order to do more of the former and less of the latter?