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?

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

There's no maybe about it.

Few things are more depressing than people insisting that the increasing ubiquity of bad ideas (that have been shown to be bad ideas) is some kind of inevitable "progress".

I do not want my children's teachers paid in this way. I want them to be paid well and supported to do their (important, interesting, creative) job as well as they can, and with as much discretion as possible.

So who observes the OFSTED inspectors?

I believe they are kind of human and so subject to prejudice.

JoinYourPlayfellows I'm agreeing with you, please don't bite me! PRP definitely hasn't made the NHS a better organisation and it only works for me because I'm in an IT support role in research, not in a clinical role. That means setting targets in terms of personal development is easy for me, and because I work in a close, harmonious team with excellent line management, PRP = getting a lot of training paid for and my time freed up for it. In the wider NHS I don't believe in PRP at all, again because the variables are so difficult to measure. I think PRP should be used less, not more.

My children's teachers are passionate, constantly go above and beyond the call of duty and increadibly capable, and I very much do not want their work reduced to a bunch of numbers.

Well, I didn't really mean the maybe. I was going for a bit of Socratic method more than anything else.

PRP is just a terrible idea. Especially in something where the outcomes are actually about other people's lives.

The idea that teachers simply come in good or bad is also silly, because a 'good' teacher for one subject or class or school may not be right for other subject, classes and schools. It can all come down to individual personalities and not be about 'quality' in anyway.

Teachers are not just technicians charged with delivering pre-specified outcomes. Despite what politicians and such like are determined to think. They build relationships with people and communities and adapt to complex and ever changing circumstances.

"So, Flowery, you think they should introduce more paperwork into schools?"

No, I'm quite certain I didn't say that.

Teachers already have objectives.
Teachers already have their performance appraised, and not just in relation to data.

It's not going to be the kind of PRP where you get x amount for each widget you make/sell, or x amount for each child who achieves x grade. It's going to be about whether a HT/Governing Body feel the individual teacher has achieved his/her objectives, is performing well against the Teachers Standards and deserves a payrise.

I don't think the issue is about how performance is assessed. I think the real concern is not trusting those making the decision to do so fairly. Which may be a valid concern, of course.

But the model assume that you can actually set the objectives in advance and then assess performance against them. It's just bureaucratic and instrumental nonsense that ignores what teaching actually should be like.

But it would, inevitably, mean more paperwork. There is already too much of this.

I don't agree with PRP. I think if you work hard and are recognised as being good at your job then that opens up the prospect of promotion.

As it is teachers' pay isn't just one flat rate. There are scales dependent on things like experience.

"Pay me according to how well I mark my books, and I will mark the shit out of my books."

It's funny because it's true.

"I think if you work hard and are recognised as being good at your job then that opens up the prospect of promotion."

Not every good teacher can be promoted, especially in a small school, and promotion isn't necessarily the best thing for everyone anyway. Lots of people get promoted because they are good at job x, but then promotion removes them from that and puts them into job y.

"As it is teachers' pay isn't just one flat rate. There are scales dependent on things like experience."

But that's the whole point really isn't it? To get away from automatically being paid more if you sit there longer, the concept where you have adequate teachers who have been teaching for ages but are nothing special but get paid loads more than teachers who may not have been doing it as long but do an exception job, going above and beyond etc etc

I'm withholding judgement myself on the new system, but I do have an aversion to any form of salary structure which rewards someone for sitting there for longer than someone else.

In the same way that I would advise someone recruiting for a post not to seek x years experience in the ad, but to seek x type of experience, because someone could have 15 years experience of doing a mediocre job, whereas someone could have 3 years experience of doing a fantastic job.

I don't know how well the new system for teachers will work, so I am withholding judgement as I say. I do understand that teachers and others have concerns about it and why. I am going to have involvement in it in our school and it will be interesting to see how it works.

It is subjective and teachers whose face fits with the HT will be favoured over others.

I agree that SMART targeting for individual teachers on individual targets based on individual circumstances for specific cohorts of pupils would mean fair pay. Targeting should be pupil centric and concentrate on the improvemnt of the class as a whole and maybe even individual students.

Would HT do this properly? Maybe not, but this is a different discussion.

Should this be applied to medicine and social work? Sure why not. If the performance can be measured then why not measure it. I dont think pay for doctors should be decided on how may patients die though...

There's really nothing wrong with the principle of PRP (and for teachers this is only about pay progression), but equally nothing wrong with having concerns about poor or unfair application of any such scheme. I'm a school governor (and an HR Director) and have been working closely with the headteacher and senior team at our school to ensure that the pay and appraisal process is transparent and reasonable. Making it work in the best interests of all concerned should be the focus.

That's the point I think. It isn't the PRP that is the problem it is the lack of trust/faith that teachers have in their H of D and HT. That is quite alarming. You don't have to like your boss but you do have to respect their professional abilities if you are going to work together properly surely?

The HT were I am a governor said last week that she had been setting targets and was quite shocked at how poorly the PRP was really understood by classroom teachers. They had little idea how their pay was worked out. These are clearly intelligent people who are good at their jobs but they didn't know how PRP works. That is probably a failing of the HT and it probably be something we address as governors when we do her PM. but it is also a failing on the unions. You have to wonder how the teachers can have been on strike yesterday without fully understanding the issue they were striking about.

Only skimmed - I can't say I'm averse to performance related pay, but I agree it's very difficult to measure! I don't agree that you should just keep going up a pay scale because you've been there a long time.

In my previous job, I used to have a bonus, and at the start of every year I would sit down with my manager and set myself objectives - professional and personal, and these were what I was judged against (along with some the company set). I think there must be a way to make this work for teachers in some form.

"It is subjective and teachers whose face fits with the HT will be favoured over others"

The thing is it would be wrong for a pay system to be designed around the lowest common denominator. A HR who is unable to assess teachers fairly and objectively is not a good HT, in the same way as managers in the private sector who give payrises to those they like rather than those who do a good job are poor managers.

But it's not giving HTs much credit to assume this problem will be widespread, and it's not a reason for not doing it either.

I was just thinking about your pay being dependent on performance in a set of targets that you have set for yourself. It's not encouraging an honest appraisal of your strengths and weaknesses, is it?

At my school, the only chance you have of getting time to observe other teachers or go on a training course (and that chance is slim even then due to money) is if it forms part of your performance management target. So, I know I'm crap at group work, or teaching a particular topic at A-level. I set my target as 'get better at group work/teaching mechanics' (obviously SMARTed up) and I might just get some support in improving my group work/mechanics. Or I, knowing the school, might not.

What teacher is going to set a target that they honestly know is a weakness of theirs, bearing in mind that they may get no support in achieving it and their pay rise depends on it?

I'd suggest safe, achievable targets rather than useful, challenging ones. Wouldn't you?

PRP is a load of bollocks. Its a phrase to con the stupid but basically its other meaning is cost cutting or pay freeze or no payrise or excuse for a shittily low payrise.

I have worked for 3 different companies that brought in PRP after I started working for them. Call me cynical but dont think its any coincidence that my quarterly and annual appraisals all dropped from excellent and excelling requirements/targets to average and maintaining! Infact in all 3 companies (huge international ones) I only ever met a few people who ever got a decent appraisal and pay rise ever again after PRP was introduced.

I along with many others challenged and appealed these decisions and it all comes down to a matter of opinion - like how someone else wants to measure success. Yes I could proove my sales exceeded all previous years including the years my appraisal was outstanding but then they would claim my operfornace had dropped in something not as easily measurable such as performance in customer service, relating to collegues and being a team player/woking well alone etc etc.

Only people who should ever be happy with PRP are the ones needing to pay the staff - its an easy get out clause!

Sorry if this has been said before on this thread, but it is very hard to measure exactly WHO has had the most impact on a pupil. Was it the teacher in the year before who put in a lot of work on the student and the rewards are only being reaped in the following year but the new teacher gets the "pay" benefit. What if that child has had lots of private tuition - who gets the credit? It is not as simple as a lot of people seem to think and therefore, it will not work and it will not make a measureable difference to pupil progress.

"PRP is a load of bollocks." That's your experience Home. It can be a useful tool if applied properly, and isn't the sole determinant of pay - school PRP is about progression, not baseline salary.

"Has one of our husband's easier projects ever been raped?"

No but he's dealt with cancer,miscarriage and mental illness amongst other issues within his team.

Yes, it has been said before on this thread and some of us have pointed out that there are other ways of meaduring performance other than looking a plain pupil progress.

Just off the top of my head as somebody who is involved in a junior school, you could have teaching performance based on class room monitoring, something to do with the implementation of curriculum changes of a particular subject (making sure all your colleagues are aware of changes/developments, have access to the right resources etc), taking extra courses fir your role (eg a new SENCO doing some training).

I also think that whilst pepole are moaning about not getting support, they are forgetting that their targets will feed into the HT's performance management, the RAP/SIP and how the HT and the school are measured as a whole. It is not in the best interests of the HTs not to support reasonable goals and to offer support. If some teachers still don't trust this to happen then the issue is the leadership of the school and their relationships within the school, not PRP itself.

I thought the effectiveness of PFP had largely only been found to relate to purely mechanical tasks, where speed of achievement without loss of quality could be gained via financial incentive. Otherwise it's efficacy had been generally dismissed, other than to manipulate remuneration. Incentivising quality of output and productivity rely on a wide spectrum of motivations and a huge element of trust in the integrity of the system. I know someone who supplies a big box of doughnuts on Friday if the weekly targets are met!

blissx - this is no different to private sector.....who for example, can show they have made the most impact on bringing in that big deal? A lot of jobs involve teamwork. This is about setting mutually agreable and realistic objectives between a teacher and their head - i can't believe there are none in teaching - if that pupil has improved over a year then i would be amazed if that teacher has had no effect - if that is feasible it would surely bring into question the value of teaching?

And I do agree with the person who said that this can be a means to reduce pay. my pay increases have gone down dramatically since we only get a performance pay increase - because the increases overall have been less and this has happened everywhere in private sector. But why should teaching be different

After 6 years teaching, automatically going up the pay scale stops anyway, apart from whatever the government decides to put up salaries by (so nothing, during the pay freeze).

Why should teaching be different? Because it doesn't run on a commercial basis, for a start. Because schools don't make bit profits to be divvied up amongst their staff in bonuses. Because we want to encourage good teachers and good schools to SHARE examples of good practise and support each other, not withhold assistance from 'competitors'.

Also because there's no evidence that prp works in the private sector. But a great deal of evidence that it doesn't work.