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?

Chibi - no job should make you hate yourself. Anyway, it's not you, it's the appalling system you've been enduring.

Oh I see. That is what you mean by big data.

Yes possibly. But as teachers have been saying for years GCSEs are not a reliable way of measuring education.

Performance related pay has the potential to measure so much more and target inefficiencies as well as incompetence, demonstrate good and effective practices and then enable incompetence very quickly to be turned into competence and effectiveness with specific and clear feedback given regularly.

I honestly think that good teachers should be welcoming the chance to demonstrate how well they are doing and their potential to feed into whole-school policy or even national policy, and developing teachers should be welcoming the chance to receive clear information on how to increase their effectiveness as teachers and perform better and everyone in the teaching professional can feel the relief of having a good evidence base for refuting the next whimsical idea someone in government has about how we should teach our kids as they would first have to produce the data evidence from a trial/pathfinder to demonstrate it's improvement on current practice.

families

How many civil servants left during the training?

Many prospective teachers leave during the training, many leave in the first year, many leave after 3 then 5 years.

I went to Performance Management training last week (I'm a Governor of two schools). An Ofsted Inspector was one of our trainers and I specifically asked him if performance was assessed on process or outcome. He said 'outcome every time'.

That is why I don't feel that Performance Related Pay is geared to reward the best teachers. Those teachers who put their heart and soul into supporting the child who was predicted As at GCSE, was in danger of flunking because their life fell apart by the death of their mother, but scraped a C because the teacher dedicated themselves to pulling that child through.

Now, to be fair, the system of PM is meant to be about more than raw data. It is meant to be about more than 'results', but that relies on SLT to actually spend time finding ways of defining 'impact.'

The impact measures have to be reliable, robust and repeatable - teachers can appeal their performance ratings. It is bound to be safer to use quantifiable results rather than measurable results, and safer to set quantifiable objectives rather than measurable objectives.

Blimey talk, what a school!

Though that is not data about unqualified teachers, it is a judgement about a school. (just to be clear, I don't think unqualified teachers are a good idea at all, but that is my opinion only as I haven't seen any data to support my opinion, though it seems common sense).

starlight - yes teachers voiced concerns but for years 'good practice' was about jumping through a prescribed GCSE hoop.

Schools will attempt to work, improve progress within certain boundaries. Those boundaries are changing literally every week. So with this constant flux, and rewriting of what performance/progress is how on earth can teacher's pay be feasibly or fairly linked to this ephemeral idea of performance?

Starlight
Though that is not data about unqualified teachers
Well unqualified teachers are illegal in LEA and Academy state schools and private schools are selective and Ofsted has just said that it wants qualified teachers so that data ain't gonna come in. Ever.

And should teachers be penalised when Gove announces that the work they have been doing for the last three terms is worthless?
As he has just done with the current year 11's English tests .....

As a trainee (2nd career) teacher, I see nothing wrong with performance related pay as long as it is carefully implemented. A matrix of progression coupled with headmaster's judgment and maybe peer assessment could be used. At the end of the day we all know great teachers who ought to be given enhanced rewards and it already happens in the private sector, free schools and academies. It is not about recognising a* grades but talented teachers who go the extra mile.

I'm a maths teacher, not a child psychologist, nor a social worker. I don't think it is up to me to come up with strategies for dealing with an emotionally disturbed child, or one with sen, who I see for 50 minutes at a time, 3 or 4 times a week. I will, however, happily take advice from experts, and those who have an overview of their entire education.

And if I find something that works, or triggers a meltdown, of course I will repeat it, or report it to the people whose job it is to keep records.

'I don't think it is up to me to come up with strategies for dealing with an emotionally disturbed child, or one with sen, who I see for 50 minutes at a time, 3 or 4 times a week.'

I find that shocking.

Of course it is up to you. You are a teacher and your roll is to teach ALL of the children presented to you in your class, not just a select few that don't have any difficulties or barriers to overcome. Why should that child not have access to an education when they are already disadvantaged?

alistron Then from what you say teachers shouldn't be against performance related pay, but against unfair or ridiculous implementation.

I can understand that. I can even agree with that.

I can't however agree that we should fight against performance-related pay on the basis of likely poor implementation. We should find out why it might be poorly implemented and fight against that because in all likeliness whatever it is will be affecting performance currently and already be the weakness in the system.

At least with concrete criteria we have something to argue with and refine.

Yes, but the only way to spot teachers who go the extra mile is to survey the parents and children too.

The look of horror on the HT face when we suggested we surveyed the pupils about teachers performance was wonderful.

Trouble is everyone knows who the totally useless teachers are, some are young and inexperienced, but often they are quite senior. Doing the bare minimum for years doesn't trigger any kind of capability investigation and it probably doesn't much affect PRP.

'And should teachers be penalised when Gove announces that the work they have been doing for the last three terms is worthless?
As he has just done with the current year 11's English tests .....'

Absolutely not. But why would they be?

Surely a good teacher is still a better teacher than a bad teacher whatever they are dealing with?

The head of DCs school has just changed her job title and given herself a £20,000 + pay rise. All other staff pay is frozen.
Its an academy.

Crap heads of dept. can still give themselves good sets and get better behaviour out of bad ones than a NQT.

Finding a reason to mark them down on PRP criteria is probably impossible even when the parents and DCs all tick the good do better box.

Could do better

Talk Would that be possible with PRP?

presumably your talking about the internal politics etc star?

To the poster that got offended about SEN LA staff? Are you an SEN LA member of staff?

If so, do you REALLY rate your colleagues?

Because ime, parents don't, and neither do teachers for the most part.

'Finding a reason to mark them down on PRP criteria is probably impossible even when the parents and DCs all tick the good do better box.'

why?

If they are better teachers than the NQT they would deserve that aspect. If they are crap HofD then that is where they should fail.

she's the head.
she determines the criteria
there is no LA or other oversight to stop her

Lots of academy heads get nice big bonuses and pay rises. Shame it doesn't filter down.

Good grief!

Is it justified in your opinion?

Or are there children with unfulfilled statements sharing their TAs with officially unsupported children with SN who the HT claims cannot be funded?

Starlight
For somebody who says they used to work in education you seem very out of touch with the current issues.
Academy heads and lack of governance oversight has been all over the press for months
and the ofsted report I linked has been all over the news for a week.
Had you seriously not already realised these problems?

DP is a dept head. He's on UPS3 and has been for 4 years. Since then his pay has not increased. Despite his performance exceeding school set targets year on year, meeting national targets and being judged outstanding by OFSTED. In the new pay and conditions shake up he'll (from sept 14) be on the leadership payscale - same salary but he'll 'lose' the 191 days/1265 hours protection of his current contract and be expected to work more directed hours for the same money.

He earns a decent salary - I'm not disputing that. But no matter how much he works, what hoops he jumps through, or how he performs it never translates into a fiscal reward.