To think keeping teachers' pay low shouldn't be hailed as a positive in an OFSTED report?

[thinkingmakesitso]

I am looking for a new job and always check the OFSTED report of any schools I consider, though I obviously don't take it as gospel and would do other research as well - I think I know how to 'read' them, iyswim.

Anyway, one I saw last night has left me so angry. The school is good and all aspects of teachers' work are praised. The school takes in pupils who are well below average at KS3, so the achievements made are all the more hard won. It then goes on to praise the fact that teachers have a 'score card' to monitor their performance, and praises the fact that performance management is rigorous and pay progression only takes place in exceptional circumstances.

AIBU to think this is no way to treat professionals - a 'score card' ffs? I am at the top of the upper pay spine anyway, so would not be eligible for pay progression, but no way am I carrying a score card, and I would fear my pay being put down due to factors beyond my control. How is a school which, reading between the lines, and knowing the area as I do, needs to attract excellent teachers to do so if that is how they treat their staff? Surely they should be doing all they can to attract staff? Well, they are- this isn't mentioned on TES, of course, but who on earth would want to go there once they know about it?

Why are teachers not valued by this government? Well, I know the answer, but just wanted to rant. .

Well I got 40% target grade in the end.
And anyway that didn't even matter... Because the target grades were only 2 levels of progress and they said that was a mistake, they should have made 4. So my targets were all bollocks.

Sorry, humpty, I would never criticise the teachers that I know and I agree that it's a phenomenally hard job for increasingly little recompense, either financially or being valued.

But I was 'taught' by some seriously shit, uninterested teachers in my 'crap comp' in the '80s, and it would be disingenuous to pretend that they weren't.

In regard to the topic of this thread, I absolutely agree about the degradation of a score card and the inherent problems of performance related pay in sectors where you are not entirely in control of the outcome.

Surely performance is about what you do, not what others achieve? So providing interventions (even if the child doesn't take them up) is actually performing?

70-80% getting target grades seems about reasonable though

Does it? What about class sizes? I have an A Level group of 5 students. Just one not getting their target grade would stop me achieving that.

Another reason why putting blanket numbered targets on all teachers does not work is that Pupils do not have the same teacher year on year though. What if the teacher in Year 9 put in all the ground work with a pupil and enabled them to achieve better results in Year 10, but they had another teacher in Year 10 who didn't have to work as hard with that pupil as a result. Who would get the credit? The teacher in Year 9 or the one in Year 10? (This can work both ways obviously)

Look, no one is saying teachers should not be monitored, (we always have been) just that the new methods and PRP 'targets' that have been creeping in are crazy and in addition, OFSTED should not be using this as a part of their assessment.

Problem is, it isn't going to change I fear. Partly because some people will always deride teachers for speaking out, yet wouldn't have that opinion if a Doctor, Nurse, Firefighter, Police Officer etc. said the same thing. Teaching is a dirty word to some people.

I agree with that, but then results aren't just GCSE and A level results, are they? No one is advocating that only y11, y12 and y13 students count but obviously there's less leeway with these students as their work is externally marked.
P

It often feels like Ofsted is saying only students with external exams count, so Y11, Y12 and Y13. In my local authority, teachers haven't had a pay rise, of any sort, for over 3 years so effectively they have had a pay cut.
We were told that, nationally, teachers would have a 1% pay rise last September, it didn't happen. We were then told it would be in our January salaries backdated to September, it still hasn't happened.
Ofsted should be about the quality of teaching and learning, safeguarding and governance, not pay progression!

I agree, but I suspect it's the 'rigorous monitoring' and 'relentless drive for excellence' they are praising!

Mygrandchildren- you should have got your 1% and if not you need to contact your Union.

I have no doubt we will get it, no-one in the authority has had it, but the local authority are having massive problems with a new finance system and then to cap it off the central IT system has been hacked. It was on the national news last night, we are not a big city authority and I cannot understand why we'd get hacked unless it was some very clever computer teachers upset about their 1%!

No the are'nt just about passing exams Dreamonastar, I agree but that's the problem we are talking about-the 'targets' that have been forced upon teachers are not achievable targets that take into account different schools/areas/pupils/ages/abilities etc. They are blanket results based on data that has been largely made up (talking FFT/Alps amongst other things) and are fixed.
Secondary teachers have exam results targets forced on them, as well as having KS3 students needing to go up three or four sub levels each year and I'm sure Primary teachers have the same.

*they aren't

"Sally so the teacher who has top set should get paid more than the one who has bottom set? That's fine by you?"

"Don't be ridiculous. That's not what I said.
Both sets will be improved by good teachers. The expectation of results will be different in the two sets. "

HAHAHAHAHA.

People don't want teachers to teach to the exam.

But posters want teachers to be paid by exam results.

Only an idiot can't see what will happen/is happening.

Do people want teachers to be paid by exam results?

That's not what's coming over to me.

Most people on here are saying that the current prp set up is correct. If that is the case then they are saying that you should only get paid if children pass the exam.

Nobody is saying that teachers shouldn't be monitored.

Seems to be in favour of performance management rather than prp to me.

The teachers' pay system for England and Wales was last changed in the 1980s. To change it could be difficult in terms of employment relations and cost, so governments haven't.

Unless the school is an academy though it should comply with the national pay system: if receiving pay progression is "exceptional" even with good performance, that sounds inconsistent with the arrangements and could be challenged.

Yanbu, they do not get paid enough for the type of work they do and what is expected of them! I think boasting about keeping MP pay low would be much better.

The teachers' pay system was changed approx 4 years ago.

I don't think percentage targets should have a place on an appraisal form.

I think targets for appraisal should be measurable and realistically achievable, otherwise what is the point.

When I was in the private sector, my annual performance review would be sitting down with my boss and justifying why I deserved a pay rise. I could show figures, targets, projects, anything I liked. Reducing the value of a teacher to the test scores is devaluing the teacher and making children in to percentage points.

The other aspect of teaching is that more experienced teachers will often get the more challenging students, at least in the primary level. I'm one of the more senior staff at my school, and hold a masters in special education, so I get quite a few students with severe behavioural or educational needs. The new teacher in the room next to me gets a fairly straightforward cohort to ease them in to teaching (which is fair enough), but they will have a much better chance of getting all of their students to the required level of progress in the year, whereas I've got some where getting through the door of the classroom is considered a success and their progress cannot be measured by any test score. Fortunately I'm not in the UK system, so there is more scope for me to progress based on my actual performance, not how they score on the the test.

The essential pay system of many years' increments up pay scales wasn't changed, just the basis for pay progression to the "upper pay scale"?

The point isn't that people shouldn't be assessed. The point is that either Ofsted or this school are proud of keeping their wages low. That's short-sighted and no way to run anything.

Duckdeamon, the pay increments on the main pay scale always used to be automatic but now they are dependant on appraisal.

Duckdeamon
"The essential pay system of many years' increments up pay scales wasn't changed"

Actually it has, and in most schools you have to meet your % passing the exam before they will progress you up the pay scale.

Teachers pay changed dramatically in 2014. There are no national pay scales anymore. Every school decides their own based on a minimum and maximum. And they decide what classes as performance related. A Head has the discretion to deny pay progression to someone who has passed all their appraisal targets.

I think the key is discretion there isn't it