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?

The question is how you recognise a great teacher over a good one and where the cut-off is. Ask Ofsted how to deliver an outstanding lesson and they can't tell you.

Also, I think care needs to be taken to ensure a 'great' teacher isn't one who runs loads of extra-curricular activities and school trips, because then a 'great' teacher is unlikely to be a part-time female teacher with childcare responsibilities. Pay rises should be accessible to all.

Recognising a shit teacher is easier.

It depends how you define performance, but of course teachers can and should be subject to reward based on performance

Performance can be value add, which can be a lot easier with kids from deprived areas than bright and achieving kids.

It could be the overall attainment of the school

It could be review/ observation by the head teacher (and if a HT doesn't know which are the capable and performing teachers and which are less good then they shouldn't be in the role)

It could be 360degree feedback

It could be employment rates of pupils 2 years after leaving school

I am not saying that current definition of performance, or current application of the scheme is correct, but fundamentally is it workable to have defined success measures for teachers and differentiate their reward accordingly? Yes.

Not read full thread, so apologies, but did you know that performance related pay does not actually improve performance in any sector?
It is an instrument of intimidation, and far from improving employee output, it merely fosters an atmosphere of paranoia and stress.
FGS, leave teacher be and let them teach.

I disagree that PRP is never motivational, I my previous job our bonus was paid in the form of shares if company profits, IME it was very motivational.

"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."

This is so sad. One of my friends, also a career changer, became a teacher three years ago. When she decided to do this everyone who knew her said "well, finally! That is what you should be doing!". She is really dedicated, highly intelligent, creative, full of energy, has immaculate grammar and genuinely cares about her kids. She talks about them a lot, and spends time coming up with ways to help the ones who are not progressing.
She is exactly the kind of teacher you want your kids to have.
Three years in she is so demoralised she is thinking about quitting.
Is this really the best outcome for schools and children? To test and prod and mistrust and review and underpay the staff until they crack?

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.

So would you be happy for your pay to be based on what others around you did, not what you did?

Oh and no selection criteria and no way to fire anyone not pulling their weight, you have the team you are lumped with?

So someone comes in with a drug problem and unable to write, falls asleep at their desk and then does not appear for 2 weeks and your pay is based on their performance?

And you can't say, "well the other 25 all did very well" because your pay is based on the performance of the entire group.

That is how performance related pay would work for teachers.

I taught a girl who arrived in the UK aged 14 with no English (I didn't teach her until she was 16), she passed 10 GCSEs A-C (no A8 at the time) the one GCSE she had a D grade in was English Language. That means that by all current measures she gave the school no 'points', the school had failed her.

Let me repeat, in 2 years a school had managed to get a student from knowing no English to 10 GCSEs yet was marked as a failure. Would you accept that in industry?

There seems to be a genuine problem with primary school teachers and morale, I know quite a few in RL and they all seem overworked and stressed.

IME secondary teaching was a great career move for me, much happier, less stressed and more time with my children. I think it is destructive and inaccurate to say nobody in their right mind would be a teacher.

You only have to look in the threads that ask who loves their job, always packed with teachers.

I don't think PRP would rely on the whole group. You can set a qualifier to your target related to attendance. If PRP was related to pupil performance or progression it is rarely 100% anyway, this is not PRP being in appropriate but poor target setting.

I my previous career by bonus often relied on people I would never meet buying something, or people working beneath me, whom I may only briefly meet, managing to sell something. It is quite rare that your performance is not affected by someone else, in any sector.

There's a problem with morale in secondary too, Aris, I know plenty of overworked and wanting to quit teachers, at a few different schools.

My school has certainly been hit hard by budget cuts, increase in teaching time, larger class sizes, less support for SEN, teacher and TA redundancies. Then you have the curriculum meddling and pay and pensions issues. I'm genuinely surprised if that you think secondary teachers are relatively content, we've just been on strike!

I know a head who I expected to be in favour of this. He is not, not on principle but on the reality of implementation.

Heads, heads of dept can, of course, spot a good teacher but they won't be allowed to base pay on their professional judgements, Gove wouldn't trust them to do that.

Even if he did, not having some kind of tick box criteria would leave the system open to claims of favoritism and so, in view of the Head I know, PRP will become a time consuming exercise for managers and teachers alike but essentially no different from the current threshold system in terms of recognising skill / talent.

Apparently if Gove wants to improve teaching he should give all heads leeway to fire up to 5 teachers as currently is v hard to remove bad teachers. Don't think this would be anymore popular with teachers than PRP though!

I think teachers have issues with Gove, but I don't experience the depths of morale from the teachers I work with or know socially that I sense from some teaches on here or the primary teachers I know.

I know very few secondary teachers who want to quit, most primary school teachers seem to thinking of leaving

It has already been made much easier to get rid of bad teachers.

Has your school not faced budget cuts, Aris? I think my school lost nearly 100k and will be losing more from sixth form in the near future.

It would be astonishing if that did not affect morale.

Staff turnover at my leafy middle-class outstanding school has certainly gone up. Early retirement, leaving teaching, moving abroad rather than jobs in other schools.

We have faced cuts, but staff aren't leaving teaching because of them.

I think morale is rock bottom in secondary too. There is so much mistrust. Not in the school necessarily, but in the general system.

I would be unhappy with prp based on sxam results for several reasons. As a non core but academic subject we definitely come second in terms of accessing support, intervention time and money. Pupils definitely prioritise core subjects and have more curriculum time. They arrive at secondary having no real background in our subjects, yet our targets on no lower. Not a level playing field. I completely see how it is important to the pupils to gain Maths and English but it is problematic for prp.

Aris, how have the cuts affected your school? Redundancies, class sizes, teaching time, support?

Again that is not about PRP but unrealistic targets.

Fewer TAs, smaller budgets, larger class sizes.

Any redundancies? If so, did those teachers leave teaching or successfully find other teaching jobs?

No redundancies, because of growth we have taken on staff.

Yes it is. But there's no trust or belief that targets will be made more realistic.

Yes it is. But there's no trust or belief that targets will be made more realistic.

Please explain how I will be assessed. All the kids I teach have been severely abused or neglected. A lot have targets of A* from their KS2 results, but I will feel a huge sense of achievement if they get a C. I presume this means I will never get a pay rise. I work at least double my paid hours, am on call 24hrs for them and love my job. If Mr Gove would like to come and work with me for a week I think he might learn that teaching is not an exact science. Last night I was working with Social Services at 9pm trying to find a foster home for a child due to sit GCSEs this year. She was predicted to get all As before her family life went very wrong. I don't do my job for money but for the kids. I do though have a mortgage and family and bills to pay.

I found this on Facebook which explains it nicely. Apologies if it has been posted already as I haven't read the entire 9 pages.

"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)."

The problem is, performance management targets (which you have to meet to move up the pay scale) HAVE to be measurable - ie. grades and performance of your students. That is pretty much the only measurable thing available to assess your targets. And as everyone else has explained, if you've got a bottom set or several EAL students who don't know much English vs. a teacher who has top set predicted all A* - who do you think will move up the pay scale!?