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?

You aren't competing with you colleagues though. What you get has no impact at all on what your colleagues get.

I hit all my targets last year in the private sector, worked hard!

however we didnt get a payrise or bonus due to performance across the business and overall not hitting targets

its shit and probably I can imagine what would happen to teachers too. I wouldnt trust this government as far as I could throw them as they are private sector bitches.

anyhoo phew needed that

until we see what they woukd actually propose in regards to how they would measure performance and award said payrises without bias we will have to wait

could be a case of failing schools not getting payrises despite some amazing teachers iyswim? that's what woukd worry me

PRP is already being implemented. Our HT was setting targets last week. This is a done deal.

School budgets are worked out on head count, not how well you are doing so the point about failing schools not having the cash isn't an issues either, unless the headcount falls dramatically in the budget setting period. Teachers PRP. is independent of how well the school is doing too. The HT's performance management is another story.

"You aren't competing with you colleagues though. What you get has no impact at all on what your colleagues get"

Of course it does. PLP is relational. And the whole point of PLP in private companies is to drive productivity by incentivising competition. It doesn't work though.

BigBoobiedBertha - is that to say that smaller schools (i.e. rural schools) won't be able to afford good teachers?

And are teachers paid for from the same pot as everything else that a school needs to run? If so, surely recognising the good work of an all-round excellent teaching staff would result in important maintenance/repairs being delayed, valuable but non-compulsory learning resources not being bought, etc...? (Or, more likely, an undeserved pay freeze and blot on the records of teachers who have achieved exactly - albeit slightly subjectively - what they promised to.)

No it isn't, your objectives are your own - the ones you agree with the HT. Your colleague's performance is irrelevant unless you are a team leader and your objectives are tied into your leadership abilities. If you are a middle manager, surely part of your objectives should reflect how well you manage? If you have a problem team member than their failure is not your failure so long as you have done what you can to improve things and you have managed the situation as well as you can.

Again since the HT is in a different position and the achievements and failures of the whole teaching staff do reflect on them, it would be reasonable to expect that they would be supporting you in such a situation.

It's very different in schools to working in an office. I could easily go days without talking to a departmental colleague. I wouldn't say that my line manager really 'manages' me. I do my job, we have occasional team meetings where policies are discussed and decisions disseminated, but mostly it's just me and the kids.

BigBoobiedBertha - was your reply directed at me? I can't tell because the bit about objectives doesn't answer my question or HeadsDownThumbsUp's objection.

I want to know whether the budget for paying teaching staff comes out of the same pot as the budget for paying for all of the other essentials that schools need (e.g. maintenance, new learning aids, TAs, etc). If so, PRP is clearly relational, and it will obviously present a problem for schools with small budgets (i.e. village schools etc) and those with a high "burn rate" for equipment etc (i.e. schools with poor discipline, where lots of essential stuff gets nicked or broken), which may not be able to afford to recognise exceptional teachers with the pay they deserve.

I have a friend who used to be the pub bore on the subject of PRP for teachers. Then, just after he had been made redundant, we lost an experienced teacher to cancer. We were in a spot, 6 weeks before exams and we needed someone who could cover during the run up to exams. This being an FE college, there is no absolute requirement for a PGCE (or wasn't at that time) and given my friend's specialism (in IT) fit the bill exactly and given he is very articulate and has quite a presence, I drunkenly rang him on Sunday night and suggested he cover as a stop gap.

He had a chat with the boss, we wrote lesson plans, prepared materials, put in a very experienced TA and held his hand as much as possible. We also rearranged the teachers so he was given the calmest, most dedicated group of A level students.

He lasted 2 weeks. 7 years down the track he is still traumatised by his experience and has become strangely silent on the subject of PRP.

slug - i doubt that anyone could do my job without training, or experience. don't see why that means i shouldn't have PRP. Its the case for a lot of management and skilled jobs (that you can't just be catapulted into them and be successful)......still don't understand why teachers think they should be different to everyone else though

I might be completely naive and haven't rtft but why can't they be assessed on their performance by their head of department and paid bonuses according to how well they're teaching? That's how most jobs work...

The problem arises when a HT says 'you're great, doing a grand job, thanks. I'd love you give you a pay rise under performance related scheme, however, if I do I won't be able to fix the roof/buy new playground equipment/get a set of shared books for classes etc'

What teacher is going to say 'screw them give me the money!'

I'm not unhappy with PRP and appraisal. I think it should hold leaders (and I am one) to account as much as teachers. As a line manager, I am accountable for the results in my departments as much as the HoDs, and classroom teachers. They're going to get all the support I can give them!

I might be completely naive and haven't rtft

So what's the point in posting then?

Have you read this thread Katese11?

pumpkitty - you budget in much the same way most organisations do. so you have one budget for maintenance and another for pay. works in private sector, so don't see why public sector managers can budget....in fact i imagine they do.

my issue with PRP is that it is often based on one observation. If this person has an issue with you personally (unrelated to your teaching) then they know they have the power to affect your pay. Immature and unprofessional but definitely possible.

Sorry, haven't read whole thread...

I have no particular issue with prp as long as the HT is reasonable, and takes into account the fact that we work with children (who aren't totally predictable!)

My gripe is that all schools are having to set their own pay criteria for movement up the pay spine (with incremental grade boundaries decided by the HT and governors).

I think this is open to abuse, and that an unscrupulous HT could:
a) keep staff on lower pay by setting unreasonable targets, or
b) insist on a 100% success rate in meeting targets before an increment is awarded.

There seem to be more and more of these factory produced automaton HTs around, who are obsessed with data and can talk the Ofsted talk.

If I am judged fairly according to how well I do my job overall - great. Although I don't know how that could be assessed accurately.

If I am judged according to the progress of my students, well that's a different matter. I teach SEN in a mainstream school, so the students (a significant number EBD) are simply not going to make the same progress because I have to spend a large amount of time gaining their trust so that they will settle enough to do the expected work.

I think it's far too open to abuse. Maybe all PRP is, I don't know, but it does give me the shivers. I don't think my pay will go down, because I'm good at my job, but I doubt I'll see a payrise.

PRP works fine in theory on an individual basis i.e., objectives are set that are a mix of hard/soft achievable/stretch targets yadda yadda yadda.
The crunch comes to the point at the end of year when the money has to be found to pay everyone.

In the private sector, the assumption is that if the majority of employees have achieved their targets, then there is extra money available. But, invariably there isn't enough extra money to give everyone something. So:

1. Umbrella targets get set relating to profit that need to be met before anyone gets anything.
2. All of a sudden, only those who "exceed" rather than achieve targets get money
3. Bonuses are awarded as one-off lump sums that aren't pensionable. and the list of creative variations goes on and on.
4. Powerful managers (i.e., those with influence) can always swing something for someone that they want to reward. All systems can be manipulated.

I had PRP for 16 years and despite always hitting or exceeding targets, only once got a pensionable salary increase and once got a lump sum. Its a mechanism to pay the top-earners whilst chucking just enough hope and the odd small reward to those of us lower down the food chain. IN the end, I regarded it as a lottery win and had no expectations of reward being actually linked to my performance despite the tortuous hours spent on objectives and interim reviews and progress updates for both myself and my teams members.

Schools can not generate additional income. All the teachers in a school can theoretically meet or even exceed targets but, as an ex-school governor, I can tell you that there will be no money to pay them all. And certainly not as salary increases.

And then there all the arguments already made by previous posters as well. My DH, a passionate and committed job-changer primary school teacher, has just decided to bow out. After 10 years he's a broken man. I fear for my kids - no-one in their right minds would sign up to teach right now - its a horrible, horrible time to be a teacher.

YANBU of course teachers should be paid according to their performance with those who do it well being rewarded.

utreas Do you think that the people judging your performance should set the criteria for pay progression?

Staff costs tend to take up about 82-85% of a school's budget, so other budget areas tend not to have a significant impact. A failing school will be one with a smaller roll, so less money. However, failing LA schools aren't left to fail these days, the staff bring about improvement or end up working in an academy. Turn the school round, the pupils will come, the money will follow.
Just as an aside - any parents who are eligible for Free School Meals - register even if you don't want them. You will add £900 to your school's budget, and it will be used to help the pupils. (Schools and governors are strictly accountable for that).
Teachers should end up with one target related to the progress of the pupils they teach. That's progress, not attainment. This means that even if they are teaching children who won't manage the national expected levels, as long as they are all progressing to the best of their ability and being challenged, a teacher can still meet their target.
As a school governor my opinion is that times are tough all round, and teachers shouldn't be somehow protected from that. I think that the principles behind this are good, let's wait and see how it pans out.

"it's a horrible, horrible time to be a teacher"

This .