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?

This is a post I saw from a friend if a friend on Facebook. Explained it for me

"Trying hard to think of a way to explain to average parent (is there such a thing??) the reason why performance related pay can't be applied to classrooms. How about this initial idea:

You have 3 children... Government minister (who is not a parent) says they must all sleep through the night every night or you can't have your child benefit any more.
If Child one begins to sleep through for 6 hours a night from the age of 6 months old, the next must show an improvement (as your parenting methods should be better by then - you have more experience). So Child 2 must sleep through for 7 hours from 4 months old and Child three must do better again... EVERY subsequent child must improve, or you lose your benefits. No consideration will be made for house moves, illness, bereavements, lost teddies...

You will also be observed by 'experts' (many of whom are not parents) on a regular basis and graded on your parenting. If you don't meet their standards, which change regularly, you won't get any child support. If your child doesn't improve or also shows signs of being a picky eater, you may risk capability procedures (social service involvement as a final resort)."

Kid says "I am not going to do it. I hate you and this subject"

You cajole, you ring home, you meet parents/carers etc. if a teenager has decided they will screw up their GCSEs, you have to take the financial hit????

I want a pay increase of ooh, 1500% and I will require 4 times as much homework from your DC - this models the British Gas approach.......

p.s. In the past school governors have had to find the money to fund automatic progression through the pay scales. So they'll set the budget as they've always done. Maybe spend a bit less... The exception will be those few teachers who can progress to the higher pay scale, I can see that some schools will only be able to fund a certain amount of those. But the teaching standards re that are very clear, higher pay scale teachers will be working bloody hard and contributing a lot to the school and the other staff. That to me is the same as any private company, they can only fund so many managers and expert staff who would train and support others.

Hoochycoo - much more eloquently expressed than me

I can't help but wonder PRP relates best when in an environment where your performance is making money for your organisation.

If everyone in a school performs above their target, where does the money come from? Won't the school have then buggered their financial targets?

Schools are not actually a business. We don't make money. We shouldn't be paid according to how well our students perform academically, because, quite frankly, there is more to a person's development than their academic attainment.

hoochycoo and changeforthebetter: you are both very eloquent

In principle I have no issue with PRP for teachers . Common sense says it would need to be linked to the appraisal process rather than simply to results alone .

"We shouldn't be paid according to how well our students perform academically, because, quite frankly, there is more to a person's development than their academic attainment."

Why do so many people seem to think pay rises will be based on the academic achievement of the children? I think people should give more credit to those who appraise teachers rather than assuming they are incapable of doing it properly and can't be trusted to be fair or understand all the nuances and challenges involved in teaching.

aroom I think some teachers will choose not to move to the upper pay scale as there is a clear (ish) requirement to prove 'sustained and substantial' benefit to the whole school. This takes commitment and time. If teachers on the upper pay scale don't achieve this target, they will be put on capability.

Teachers on the upper pay scale at the moment can also choose to drop to the regular pay scale. We already have a teacher who has done this as she hasn't the time to commit to extra projects due to her family commitments (i.e. her life).

Many teachers won't have the time or the inclination to do the extra work which will be helpful for schools' budgets!

flowery I'd like to think teachers wouldn't be judged solely on that. But I have seen it in some environments and i suspect in schools that are very results-driven this is open to abuse.

ipad I hadn't thought of that.

I didn't move on to the upper pay scale the first year that I could , because I did not want the extra responsibility .

I also set myself challenging targets even when not meeting those targets could have meant no threshold payment.

I also don't think teaching has to be a selfless vocation . Why is it so wrong to be motivated by money , if you do your job properly ?

Teaching is not my vocation , I wanted to work less and have more time with my family. If we relied on my wages I suspect PRP would be a huge motivator . I am still a great teacher.

You would be one of the great CHEAP teachers then, aristbottle!

We shouldn't be paid according to how well our students perform academically, because, quite frankly, there is more to a person's development than their academic attainment.

But that's the problem, isn't it? Gove values academic attainment at the expense of all other development. So he will reward it.

The way he feels he is motivating his teachers speaks volumes about what kind of teacher he would be and what he sees your role as. He doesn't value pastoral care. Instead he prefers to kick everyone over and reward the ones who get up. He doesn't want teachers to help every child achieve. He wants survival of the fittest.

That's why PRP won't work long term. Whatever he says now, the goalposts will move.

I predict that to won't be long before teachers have to show improvement just to keep their jobs.

This is going forward here in Victoria, au. The government has designated that only 80 % max can progress up the scale in any year. This is to "make teachers raise their game". The problem comes when 100% DO reach their targets. Apparently a 20% saving must still occur. A further problem is that teachers who "fail" their targets and don't get a pay raise are, by definition, not good enough, so ripe for capability procedures.

If a principal says all their staff have been assessed as meeting targets, they will fail theirs because they have not identified the 20% failures.

None of this is about raising standards, but saving money.

It's colossally stupid, and I predict will fall flat on its arse at the first tribunal, but not before it's damaged lives.

This is the logic of PRP, and hoping that "sensible" targets will be set is optimistic. I think the UK politicians are as venal, short-sighted and money-grubbing as those here in Victoria.

I agree with the principle but it could never work in practice as it's too hard to define success. I was successful in school and got 12 good gcse passes but I think the school could have pushed me to get 12 great gcse passes. Why should my teacher be rewarded for me being bright enough to coast through school? My friend dropped out of school but has gone back to college and is doing really well. If a teacher at her school could've got her through exams and getting a handful of C grades, surely that's more success and deserves more reward? But then who measures that? You'd need to know the circumstances if every kid in every school which isn't gonna happen!

I'd prefer performance related pay for politicians!

Echt!! I have thought about you! I will pm you.

Nope, maybe I won't, it isn't working.

echt percentage failure is shit. Just that. Shit and unfair.

Our failures will be more subtle as HT are setting the criteria. One headteacher's criteria may be very different to another's. Criteria in one part of the country (or county!) may be very different to another. Appraisal methods may vary. 'Sustained an substantial' effect on the school is always debatable (by the unions).

I also worry about teachers going for jobs in other schools, as criteria will vary. Will prp (and schools deciding pay increments) lead to stagnation?

Wow I was going to give this thread a wide berth as couldn't cope with a load of teacher bashing but it is so refreshing to see so many people understanding the issues involved in this and being supportive.

Its a shame Gove and co have no respect for the profession and are intent on ruining the education system in this country. Performance related pay is only one of so many problems in education at the moment. At the end of the day, yes teachers don't want performance related pay - if performance is judged on pupil progress solely, as you just can't do that fairly. One of the important things to remember though, as others have said, is that if it goes ahead it will negatively impact the pupils. No teacher wants that, we care about the pupils we teach and know that even if on paper a child may not be hitting their ridiculously inflated target levels, they may be learning and developing into well rounded young people. I just wish the media would realise this so parent's and pupils could get on board and work with us to try and stand up to people in power who know fuck all about education and just want to privatise it to save some cash.

Hear hear miss
I will be cc-ing Gove my resignation letter in February as I will be referring to his handling of the education system.

(Not that it will matter a jot to him.)

Because starting salaries for teachers aren't that great for graduate, professional jobs and I expect that the current 'guaranteed' pay rise is something to aim for.

What many people don't realise is that, in the public sector, the 'rate for the job' is at the top of the pay scale, ie you don't get paid properly for a particular job until you have been doing it for several years.

The starting salary for teachers outside London is less than £22k, which is terrible for what is required. How many people would stick at that, with no hope of a pay rise? They would hardly even pay off anything towards their student loans!

Surely all parents want good people teaching their children, and if the pay doesn't reflect the responsibility and commitment required, the good people will go off to where they can earn a lot more?

My performance management targets already include one requiring positive value added for a class of my choosing. That is why I think pay rises will be linked to pupil performance, in my school at least.

I think that is standard, one target relating to pupil performance and one taking a more personal nature.

No sorry I didn't read the whole thread before posting..I posted a thought while the 4yo was jabbering in my ear and I found it hard to concentrate. But Sorry to anyone I offended with my question. I was just wondering why the system couldn't just reward great teachers without depending on pupil results. But that was apparently a stupid thing to say. Thanks

It wasn't a stupid thing to say at all, I agree with you to am extent.