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?

"Imagine you work your butt off to improve your teaching, you pull out the stops to do the best job you can and yet your colleague does the bare minimum, trundles along not making any effort to improve, does put themselves out in any way for colleagues or pupils. Are you happy they get the same payrise as you? Is that fair? Does strike me as at all fair. I wouldn't be happy about it."

But we don't want people who are mostly motivated by greed to become teachers.

If you work your arse off as a teacher and do the best job you can, you will get promoted while your lazy colleague stays where she is.

Plus some people actually take pride in their work, particularly people (like teachers) who do an important job.

Clearly someone like you can't imagine being motivated by pride in your work, but it's a big motivator.

I thought my art teacher was amazing.

she was actually irratic, lost coursework and pretty much left us to it.

she was a shockingly terrible teacher.

same with re: I hated my re teacher (as an athiest in a Catholic school) but she was passionate, tailored her methods to suit, inspired debate while covering the curriculum and I got my only A* at gcse

Students generally do not recognise the truely good teachers at the time.

"CEO keeps ploughing on with the big plan."

Of course, because presumably his "performance" will be "measured" based on achieving it.

It boils my blood the waste of talent (of teachers and pupils) that this kind of philistinism causes.

Then clearly in that case Ofsted made a mistake - one example doesn't prove anything

Ofsted are the observation experts, it's what they do. If they grade a piss-poor teacher as outstanding, then what does that say about the reliability of their methods?

The BBC article I linked to is a good discussion of why lesson observation gradings should be treated with caution.

Join - don't be silly. You can take pride in you work and still be irritated that you obvious efforts are not recognised with a better pay rise. It isn't the money but the recognition that a pay rise represents. A pat on the back and knowing you have done the job well is enough for you, is it? Clearly it isn't for the teachers who are striking.

i work in a complex environment where there's performance related pay - i'm sure many people do in the private sector. If targets can be set and monitored for what i do I don't see why they can't for teachers. And some of these jobs are important too, staffed by people who have pride in their work.

if teachers are so important (and i agree they are) then its crucial that good ones are rewarded and poorly performing ones sorted out.

mrsd - my son had over 6 science teachers one year - the intial one was on LT sick and they just had a continous stream of supply teachers. His science has never recovered.

Ofsted are (apparently) human too and some inspectors are worse at their jobs than others, just like some teachers. It really doesn't mean that all monitoring is a bad idea. One example is not data, is it? Besides Ofsted assessment is not the same as monitoring carried out but a member of the SLT who knows you and the children you teach.

Maybe I was just an awesomely intuitive and intelligent 10 year old, who knows? Probably not, though, so I'm gonna have to plump for some of my teachers not being so great

I think unfortunately people get measured performance wise at work, even our cleaner does, it's the way of employment now as money gets tighter and people want value for what they pay. It can be fair, it can be unfair, but overall it's the best system we have at the moment. You can't just argue that it's not perfect so we just shouldn't bother doing it at all, can you? And let shit teachers carry on being shit? Because that's what it's aimed at, although no one seems to want to say that out loud, teachers who are excellent (the majority, by the way) shouldn't need to worry anymore than anyone else does at a review.

BigBoobiedBertha - most of the teachers I know would be happy to keep their current pay and have their excellent performance recognised with a little less micromanagement and bureaucracy between inspections.

One of the best teachers I ever observed was also the worst. Fantastic with a very mixed ability A level chemistry class; disaster with bottom set yr 9. How would you measure his performance?

Aside from the enormous difficulties in evaluating teaching "performance", it's not even clear that performance related pay 'works' in other sectors. Even in business.

I know that performance related pay seems intuitive: reward achievement with greater pay, punish lack of improvement with lower pay = productivity increases all round. But there's really no evidence that this works in practise. It seems to fail partly because it places a lot of pressure on short term goals and long term gains begin to crumble in the face of immediate targets. It's also very damaging to institutional cultures.

Besides, even if there was compelling evidence that it does increase productivity, or results, there's the fact that it would incentivise competitive attitudes between teachers and schools. If we want standards to improve for all pupils, then it makes sense for best practise to be shared, and for excellent teachers to mentor, support and coach others. But if your pay is going to depend on outperforming colleagues, then you are more likely to keep effective strategies and techniques to yourself. That's not a healthy teaching or learning environment.

There are ways performance related pay could be implemented fairly and honestly.

Teachers are striking because they have no faith that that will happen.

Eg- the scenarios described eloquently above are far more likely than a fair system.

The poster who said (I paraphrase) because we've been around the block enough, to know that this is a back door to paying us less. Is spot on.

Teachers are 'regulated' ultimately by someone with no qualifications/experience or apparently basic humanity. This does not lead to confidence that they system will reward good teachers.

It is also basic economics that if performance related pay is brought in. But the budget not increased then SOME teachers will see a drop in salary.

That certainty next to complete lack of faith in the govt's ability to implement a fair system, fairly obviously leads to a strike.

dreamingofsun - I agree - all sorts of jobs in the public and private sector are subjected to PRP nowadays - I'm sure everyone thinks their job is important and targets unmeasurable to start with..

there is soooo much whining about targets and what not - related to the SCHOOL's targets - not people trying to work out HOW the system will work for them as individuals - the point of PRP is it removes all the variables and makes you responsible for your objectives through your performance - these are not things that are imposed.. PRP is based on a set of AGREED objectives...

PRP is coming - be ready for it

The main issue with PRP in teaching is that there has to be trust in a few things that should be simple:

• that the assessment framework should take all the variables into account, including the less tangible ones
• that the criteria should be fairly applied
• that the criteria should be clearly defined

Under this government I am not surprised that the trust isn't there, and I don't blame teachers one bit for resisting PRP in the present circumstances.

Yes, all the research on performance reated pay shows it doesn't work.

Yes all staff have to have their performance monitored and evaluated. But any decent head is going to know who the good and bad teachers are.

Stardust I am performance managed (though I am at the top of my NHS pay scale there are incentives available in terms of extra A/L). My objectives are indeed agreed with my line manager, through annual appraisal and quarterly review. It works very, very well.

However, in teaching at present the only people agreeing anything would be Messrs Gove et al, and that is the problem. Restore the trust first, then we can think about PPR.

But Bertha, there isn't any evidence or research to show that Ofsted's judgements are valid and should be trusted. You can't write my example off as a rogue inspector making a bad call when there isn't any evidence at all to suggest that subjective assessments of teachers based on 20 minute drop-ins are in fact reliable.

And SLT use the same methods as Ofsted. SLT's mere presence in the room changes the whole atmosphere as it is. Kids who normally piss around behave immaculately, good kids are too intimidated to answer questions and sit there effectively mute. It's an entirely artificial situation.

"I think unfortunately people get measured performance wise at work, even our cleaner does, it's the way of employment now as money gets tighter and people want value for what they pay. It can be fair, it can be unfair, but overall it's the best system we have at the moment. You can't just argue that it's not perfect so we just shouldn't bother doing it at all, can you?"

I can and do argue that we shouldn't bother doing it because

1 it doesn't work, and has been shown repeatedly not to work
2 it creates perverse incentives
3 it destroys institutional cultures

Just because lots of people are doing something doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Just because people are treating employees badly and throwing their weight around while there is pressure on jobs doesn't mean those people are getting "value for money".

On what basis are you claiming that this system is the "best we have at the moment"?

When many management experts say that it is far better to do nothing?

I agree that this government should be scrutinised as to what system they put in place, Gove is an idiot whether it comes to education OR business, so he's untrustworthy and may go for something unsuitable. But PRP is how the country is going for everything, and with a decent method of it I don't really see a problem with it.

As I said though, this is all theory and Gove is still rubbish and probably WILL implement the wrong one, so I'm not anti-strike, just anti-extremes!

"I am performance managed (though I am at the top of my NHS pay scale there are incentives available in terms of extra A/L). My objectives are indeed agreed with my line manager, through annual appraisal and quarterly review. It works very, very well."

Well, you're hardly disinterested in that assessment, are you?

It apparently works very, very well FOR YOU.

But does it actually make the NHS a better organisation?

I doubt it.

So will this be more exams for kids? When they start a class than when they leave the class?!
Like they need that pressure

This thread should have stopped after ontheothersides 1st post. Said all that needed to be said!

Look at league tables. Judge a school on how many A*-C it gets, and immediately you get game playing and schools going to major lengths to improve that measure at the expense of other things.

The minute you incentivise some measurement, that measure will be distorted and other things will fall by the wayside.

Pay me according to how well I mark my books, and I will mark the shit out of my books. Screw extra-curricular activities, planning unusual lessons, making cool resources; I'm marking!

Maybe PRP is actually the wrong direction to be going for every job in this country...

I would have to resign if I thought my (evil) line manager had any say over my pay. It's bad enough that she sits there with a smile on her face while being overtly discriminatory towards me (e.g. Telling I'm a burden to my colleagues because I have a disability, when I am bloody always doing them favours and getting no credit for it). I'd get paid nothing if she had her way!