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?

PlatinumStart - there are other ways to measure performance (as noble giraffe describes) but every government of the past 30 years (and probably more) always ends up trying to define the performance of schools and teachers by looking at the examination grades achieved by pupils.

How would you assess teacher performance in a fair and accurate way, across the whole country, that could be linked to pay?

flowery Fri 18-Oct-13 09:34:39
""Because for teachers performance can only be measured through the achievements of the children they teach"

I completely disagree with that, and I think Headteachers appraising the performance of their staff ought to be capable of assessing how well teachers are performing with a bit more nuance than that.

Lots of jobs are appraised without concrete data to rely on."

The problem is that the kind of situation I outlined means that the headteacher also has an interest in nudging out underperformers: his pay will also be performance related according to pretty much the same criteria.

In dd's case, the headteacher was the one who was most eager for us to leave the school. The teachers were afraid to ask him for help to support dd and wanted me to speak to him instead. Being extra supportive of a difficult child who might affect the statistics negatively would not count towards any teacher's performance bonus here: unlike a commercial situation where more contracts means more money and kudos all round, retaining "difficult" children benefits nobody. And by difficult I mean e.g. the child who might need a life-saving operation, or the child who might need therapy once a week.

Teachers themselves know which of their colleagues are good - they know who is excellent, but with poor 'results' because of difficult cohort, and who are the poor performers, again regardless of cohort, and that most of them are fine.

Difficulty in finding the metric to capture what is known in every staff room is a barrier to implementation, not a reason to object to the principle.

Yes, I'd like to see the excellent rewarded, and the incompetent dealt with and this could be done through the pay scale.

After all, other professions, like medicine have excellence awards which bring additional payments. And those work irrespective of crude outcome results (for the excellent take the harder cases and have an inherently higher risk of poor outcome).

I can understand why in practice a teacher could end up being deemed to be not performing well because of unfair criteria.

However, there certainly is a problem of teachers who don't care how well their students do and are just sitting, coasting and waiting for their pay cheques. Just like in any job I suppose. I do think that something should be done about these teachers but in practice I don't know how you could assess their work fairly.

As others have said, there are some serious issues with any measure of performance. No measure could possibly take into account all of the different types of essential learning that teachers are responsible for on top of subject knowledge (e.g. attendance, behaviour, concentration, social skills, creativity, initiative, coping skills, self esteem, confidence, acquisition of English as a second language, etc), especially when inclusion policies and our unequal society mean that you simply can't compare schools or even classes within a school on a like-for-like basis. It's not just unfair to the teachers - it's damaging to the education of children who need support with vital things that don't fall within the scope of formal assessment.

More importantly, we have a catch-22 system with assessment of education standards in this country. Option one: give children and teachers fixed grade boundaries to work towards, so the government can gauge whether the education system is improving by looking at whether the proportion of children hitting the higher grades increases over time (which inevitably gives rise to criticisms of "grade inflation"). Option two: crack down on "grade inflation" by introducing a system of moving goalposts, whereby only a set proportion of children achieve each grade and results therefore show where each student fell within the national cohort (in which case, comparing year-on-year results will only tell you where the most prosperous fortunate children live, rather than where the best teachers are and how the education system is performing overall).

Of course, it's just about feasible that both sets of data could be collected and analysed, but it still wouldn't give any reflection of the "whole education", and I'm sure that teachers would be somewhat uncomfortable about teaching to two different mark schemes when one holds a vested interest for them but is of no relevance to the child. Plus, where would all of the extra analysis money come from, and couldn't it be put to better use in another aspect of the education system?

I agree with wherearemysocks - teachers recognise this proposal as yet another example of politicians taking away a modestly-sized carrot and replacing it with a dirty great stick.

When I was teaching my good results were partly due to my own effort and skills, but a large part of it was due to the whole atmosphere and behaviour within the school which was down to colleagues. How could you fairly apportion that ?

And then, what about specialist schools? Often the most wonderful, dedicated teachers who put so much in, work with children with additional needs. It is not an easy job.

How would you measure their performance?

I, like Cory, have a DC with health issues. For one particular subject she ought to (based on KS2 SATS, MidYis testing in Y7, and any other prediction method used to set targets) get an A, B at the very worst. She's currently working at a D, and is unlikely to get much better than that, because of her health issues and the way this subject is partly assessed. And that's despite the class teacher working his socks off to get her through, with lunchtime sessions, after school sessions and one to one mentoring. How on earth can you assess his performance as my DCs teacher based on what he's doing rather than what she's achieving?

Or what about the DC in that class who regularly "is off sick today", some genuinely, some because of MH issues, and a lot because they just don't fancy school that day. Top set DC, ought to be getting A/B but won't because they're not there enough. How do you asses the teacher's performance in that case?

I think it's the definition of performance that is the issue. It can only easily be measured by hard end points- exams passed/levels achieved etc ( and with the abolition of NC levels who defines achievement?)

And is it just academic achievement of pupils? In which case the grammars will be ££££ in and the " sink estate " comp will not attract any good teachers at all ( when really the best teachers should be there).

But then again LOL measure " progress" by current measure and the poor grammar teachers will be loosing out dreadfully- at the moment a kid who is measured againc NC levels may well arrive at a grammar in yr 7 at level 6 and get A* in year 11. THat is probably " under performing" in terms of year on year progress but there just isn't a "higher target measure" at year 11 without subverting the system and doing A levels early etc

Even asking staff and the headteacher to do the assessments wouldn't work, way too difficult to do a subjective assessment and different staff may have different ideas about which methods are 'right' and of course which methods are right would depend on the group of children they were teaching anyway.

I have in the past worked in many civil service roles when performance appraisal has been brought in - every time it has caused anxiety, and for EVERY job EVERYONE has said- how can MY performance be measured, results depend on so many variables - not just me, "customers", colleagues, but department wide etc, etc, etc.....

ultimately performance related pay has been implemented, ultimately fears have been assuaged and people have just got on with it - WHY?

Because you will find that performance is actually MEASURED as an individual thing - Every year/term - whatever would be appropriate in the situation, an individual Performance appraisal is done with immediate management, a set of targets - SPECIFIC to the person concerned - are set for the next time defined period, the targets, means of attaining them, and the measurable criteria are set AND AGREED - so you have to perform well to your individual plan...

The system works... people start setting realistic, achievable, measurable targets and see where their strengths are and where their weaknesses can be targeted with training or additional input from management...

You should always have some targets which are mainstream and required by all, some which are to be striven for.... the way you complete your personal objectives is measurable and determines a "grade" - usually something like.... unsatisfactory, requires a little work, satisfactory, performing above expected, outstanding..

I can understand the anxiety about PRP but in every case (3 different departments) I have encountered it has made a difference in the workplace.

Incidentally, if pay were to be linked to results, which targets would teachers be measured against? FFT target grades for students are revised each year when the latest results are analysed. I remember one particular year in which I was issued new targets for my Y11 class after they had sat their GCSE.

And with the huge shake-up in GCSEs and A-levels imminent, how can realistic targets be set and worked towards for a syllabus that has yet to be written? In maths we start preparing for GCSE in Y7. When there was coursework, the kids did coursework style projects. Now that it's about functional maths, the kids do more extended problem-solving. The kids who hit the new GCSEs unseen in Y10 are going to be at a major disadvantage compared to those who sit it a few years later. Results will improve in those following years, not because the teachers are getting better, but because they are becoming more familiar with the new requirements.

What about those English teachers who have kids working towards their targets, speaking and listening grades in the bank, only to have Gove decide that they don't count midway through the course. How can you plan for a political move like that?

Because it would undoubtedly be linked to the performance of the teachers class each year and this doesn't work. Both my parents were teachers probably would still be if it wasn't so financially disastrous for a school to hire older teachers. It is no longer the best teacher hired a lot of the time, but the younger cheaper ones!
Over the years I can remember them talking about classes they had had, how some times you get a class with lots of bright students who do really well and then you would also get the opposite with a class who were less intelligent, interspersed with classes who were the average mix.

I think that if they changed the current system for budgets so that each school could hire the teachers they wanted rather than what they could afford that in itself would help!

you would get children who wanted to do gcses and may get an ok grade who are pushed down a vocational route so as not to affext grades.

it already happens

I agree with all the references to HOW do you measure success fairly, consistently across all depts and in all types of school. But also be aware there is only so much money in the pot. What if truly 75% deserved a pay rise? Realistically the cash wouldn't be there so targets have to be manipulated to ensure that doesn't happen. Also what about all the 'goodwill' school's rely on; sport, duke of Edinburgh, musicals, concerts, overnight trips, clubs? We can't be measured or rewarded for them, so whats the point in providing them? Time would be better spent trying to force child a b or c to meet or probably excel their target grade whether they want bto or not !

I am a teacher and I do not object to performance related pay as principle. Children's education is incredibly important and teaching should be monitored. The methods use to monitor good teachings are questionable though!

What worries me is it being abused by headteachers who use it to get rid of teachers whose faces don't fit. There is also the question of schools having tight budgets so therefore some headteachers will keep teacher salaries down by setting unreachable targets.

Because most teachers won't be able to afford to teach lower-ability groups.

Have you ever taught a child who is being neglected by their parents and barely gets enough to eat? Or one whose mum is in prison and dad is long gone so they are sharing a box room with two siblings in their grandparents tiny flat? Or one who is recovering from being molested by a relative, or is dealing with a terminally ill sibling, or watching their mum being beaten by dad, or whose parent is alcoholic?

My DH has had children with all those problems and more in his classes in the past few years. He treats them with love and kindness, makes them feel safe, and tries to give them the best education they can manage in their circumstances. He would fail miserably if performance related pay was brought in based on those children and have to leave the job. Those children would lose an amazing teacher simply because he can't get a child in terrible circumstances from a D to a C. It will be the most vulnerable children who suffer because of this.

Surely you can link it to actual progress,not hard and no harder than in other sectors.

My dp works in IT.They have hard and easier projects which they get judged on and paid accordingly.He can't just demand the easy project with the best team. He has to get on with what he is given alongside moving goal posts,unrealistic targets etc.

In business, better performance probably leads to greater profit, which means there is more money to pay people.
However, in teaching, there is no more money, so heads and governing bodies might well see it as a cost-cutting opportunity.

MadeofStarDust wrote "The system works... people start setting realistic, achievable, measurable targets and see where their strengths are and where their weaknesses can be targeted with training or additional input from management..."

Do you actually think that doesn't happen in schools already? Wanting to perform at your best doesn't have to relate to pay.

I'm not a teacher but I do work in education and feel really strongly about this on principle. I don't believe that paying some teachers more than others based on a measurement against a set of criteria would lead to excellence in education.

I still really want all those who support performance related pay to answer my original question - would you apply this to medicine? Or perhaps social work?

Yes, Retropear, because children are just like computers, aren't they?

I don't agree with performance related pay for teachers. But wanted to point out that many adult trainers are already monitored on the performance of their adult students. This isn't new territory. Lots of people on performance related pay are measured on things that they have only partial control over.