Performance related pay for teaches

Frank the tank

How the chuff does that work, it surely cannot be a fair system, hence IMO, it's bo11ocks.

arran77

Like say £100 for each student that gets an A*, £90 for an A, £80 for a B etc etc????

Wouldn't work like you say as you would find all the teachers wanting to teach in the more capable schools and it would just be a downward spiral.

From what I gather its all the 'non teaching' shite which the teachers have a problem with nowadays so surely its a case of work to rule? Do the hours you are contracted to do and the work you are contracted to do and feck all else, simple.

Mikey23

Performance targets and evidence that those targets have been achieved in the classroom to the benefit of the pupils... Is that so much of a problem?

arran77

Those targets would have to be bench marked though wouldn't they as we all know that standards are wildly different across the country but in principle I guess it would work so why not, most other sectors will have some sort of performance related pay, why should teaching be any different?

Stevo_666

There is a case in favour of it, as some people who have been through the education system can't even spell 'teachers' correctly

finchy

arran77 wrote:

Those targets would have to be bench marked though wouldn't they as we all know that standards are wildly different across the country but in principle I guess it would work so why not, most other sectors will have some sort of performance related pay, why should teaching be any different?

The difference between teaching and working in the private sector is that better performance from teachers won't bring more money into the school - they'll still get the same amount per pupil - whereas better performance in the private sector will mean that the company gets the money to pay these bonuses. What you'd end up with is a situation in which teachers are basically pitted against each other, in which case, why would they cooperate? This would be particularly disastrous for younger teachers who might need the guidance of more experienced colleagues. Seeing as the average age of the teacher in this country is far lower than the OPEC average (due to the fact that not enough people are daft enough to stay in the profession for more than a few years), it could have a really negative impact on teacher performance.

pinno

How can educarion be subject to corporate ideology? It is time we took education out of political hands?

Daz555

Impossible to measure the performance of a teacher.

You might somehow (not sure how tho) measure the exam grades in comparison to their peers but what about the other skills - like say a teacher who through their support and guidance has likely prevent a young girl from killing herself?

sloppyschleckonds

Daz555 wrote:

Impossible to measure the performance of a teacher.

You might somehow (not sure how tho) measure the exam grades in comparison to their peers but what about the other skills - like say a teacher who through their support and guidance has likely prevent a young girl from killing herself?

Surely all a teacher would be expected to do is refer any child to a trained professional to help.

All the teachers I know never signed up to saving children's lives.

kajjal

Performance related pay only works if you can influence your performance. Teachers work in a rigid, bureaucratic dictatorship working 60- 70 hours a week including evening and weekends. They also work during their holidays. It is not suitable for teachers.

johnny25

It's not just teachers.

The Tory f**kwits are looking to bring this madness to the NHS (nurses), Police (non ACPO ranks), GP's, Paramedics et al.

graham.

johnny25 wrote:

It's not just teachers.

The Tory f**kwits are looking to bring this madness to the NHS (nurses), Police (non ACPO ranks), GP's, Paramedics et al.

But not MPs of course.

fatsmoker

Stupid, stupid, stupid idea. They'd have to start putting any kid who's even slightly behind into special needs classes to keep their class at the expected level to achieve a good performance.

The Little Onion

Teachers are already measured in terms of performance, and have sort-of performance related pay (they can apply for pay raises on an upper pay scale worth up to £6k a year on top of standard salary if they can demonstrate certain performance measures - these are decided locally by headteachers, rather than national standards).

Performance can be measured by teachers by demonstrating pupil progress against a benchmark for each individual pupil. The benchmark for high schools is based on a index that measures a pupil's socio-economic background, their performance at primary school, and a few other things that I forget. Therefore you can measure the target grade for a pupil against what they actually achieve. It goes without saying that this is a crude measure that is easy to manipulate (e.g. primary schools have an incentive to over-rate the ability of the pupils that they send to high schools, which then lowers the perceived performance of these pupils when they hit high school), and it annoys teachers no end when education secretaries take the measures too seriously.

What is bizarre is that the international evidence (and I mean massive large-n statistical studies) suggests that the type of performance related pay being proposed by Gove actually lowers attainment, by introducing a series of perverse incentives. It is another nail in the coffin in the idea of education being about producing well rounded, critical thinking pupils with a broad range of knowledge and skills and abilities, rather than a sausage production line of people being really good at sitting exams.

I suggest that anyone wanting to make a comment about markets, performance related pay and the private sector in education should go to Chile and see the horrendous mess that all of these have brought to the country. It is truly scary, yet that is seemingly our future under either a tory or a labour government. Gove is an utter t**t, and Hunt isn't much better/different.

pottssteve

As a professional teacher with over 20 years of experience I can't argue with anything in the Little Onion's post!

I left the UK to teach overseas in 2003 and am very glad that I did.

Frank the tank

Stevo 666 wrote:

There is a case in favour of it, as some people who have been through the education system can't even spell 'teachers' correctly

I just noticed that when I logged on, and though OH FCUK! some smart @rse will pick up on that straight away.

Frank the tank

A most glaring example of how stupid it is.

My year at school were very good footballers and won league and cups many. The year below were not so gifted and despite being taught/coached by the same PE teacher couldn't win a raffle. The same would apply to academia, you can't polish a turd no matter how gifted you are.

pottssteve

Frank the tank wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

There is a case in favour of it, as some people who have been through the education system can't even spell 'teachers' correctly

I just noticed that when I logged on, and though OH FCUK! some smart @rse will pick up on that straight away.

Your spelling's awful. You can't spell fuck either!

Jez mon

The Little Onion wrote:

Teachers are already measured in terms of performance, and have sort-of performance related pay (they can apply for pay raises on an upper pay scale worth up to £6k a year on top of standard salary if they can demonstrate certain performance measures - these are decided locally by headteachers, rather than national standards).

Performance can be measured by teachers by demonstrating pupil progress against a benchmark for each individual pupil. The benchmark for high schools is based on a index that measures a pupil's socio-economic background, their performance at primary school, and a few other things that I forget. Therefore you can measure the target grade for a pupil against what they actually achieve. It goes without saying that this is a crude measure that is easy to manipulate (e.g. primary schools have an incentive to over-rate the ability of the pupils that they send to high schools, which then lowers the perceived performance of these pupils when they hit high school), and it annoys teachers no end when education secretaries take the measures too seriously.

What is bizarre is that the international evidence (and I mean massive large-n statistical studies) suggests that the type of performance related pay being proposed by Gove actually lowers attainment, by introducing a series of perverse incentives. It is another nail in the coffin in the idea of education being about producing well rounded, critical thinking pupils with a broad range of knowledge and skills and abilities, rather than a sausage production line of people being really good at sitting exams.

I suggest that anyone wanting to make a comment about markets, performance related pay and the private sector in education should go to Chile and see the horrendous mess that all of these have brought to the country. It is truly scary, yet that is seemingly our future under either a tory or a labour government. Gove is an utter t**t, and Hunt isn't much better/different.

Shhh a well balanced and thoughtful argument has no place here!

Clearly both sides have turned education into a political football, this distills it into a league table of exam results which puts all kind of pressures onto everyone to improve every year. The only ones who get done over are the youth, who are left with qualifications that the older generation don't respect...

What's truly galling is that education isn't hard to conduct research into, it's something that every developed country in the world has. If they wanted to, the political parties could look at other countries education systems and see what works and what doesn't, rather than try and apply their own narrow minded political ideologies to it. (I'm not saying I'd know where to start properly with this, but it must be a more sensible approach than trying to apply whatever the Daily Mail says about education as political policy)

drlodge

Performance related pay for Teachers is certainly achievable, just not necessarily linked to the performance of the students. It all comes down to the objectives that are agreed with the Teachers, could be things like planning, covering the cirruculum and others things teachers are supposed to do.

florerider

There is nothing so bad a politician can't make worse.

rick_chasey

Performance related pay only works where performance is easy to measure in a black & white way.

Teaching quality is not easy to measure correctly. At all. And success is certainly not binary.

Bozman

It would never work in primary schools.
You can get an outstanding school full of outstanding teachers but every now and again you'll get a shite year with an extra large number of numpties, that school could have consistently outstanding results but they know that when that dodgy year hits year six that school will plummet down the league tables.
The school can't do squat about it because they don't have the man power, a lot of the kids with learning difficulties require one to one tuition and the schools just don't have the budget to cope with that.

Stevo_666

Frank the tank wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

There is a case in favour of it, as some people who have been through the education system can't even spell 'teachers' correctly

I just noticed that when I logged on, and though OH FCUK! some smart @rse will pick up on that straight away.

You can always count on me Frank

4kicks

Rick Chasey wrote:

Performance related pay only works where performance is easy to measure in a black & white way.

Teaching quality is not easy to measure correctly. At all. And success is certainly not binary.

With the utmost respect, that statement is a pile of smelly horse doo doo.

Firstly its NOT performance related pay, its (incremental) incentives for good performance and meeting pre-agreed goals year on year.

The aim is to acknowledge teachers better who try harder and do better. Simple

Of course you're not going to get into a circumstance where all teachers will be ranked against each other on an absolute scale, all you are trying to do is to use Heads of Department, Headteachers and even peer groups to take a look at how an individual teacher has done in a year relative to goals, which contain both tangible and intangible elements, to rate them as Excellent, good, OK, poor or in need of remedial assistance.

But this is a Rashomon effect. Views totally depend on your own experiences. A quick straw poll - how many of those posting here who have HAD performance assessments of any kind (and lets perhaps filter out the outliers who've been fired after a performance review shall we, on the basis that it probably would have happened anyway?) think this is a bad idea?

How many of those who've NEVER had peer and goal reviews (most public servants, Im guessing) think its a good one?

finchy

4kicks wrote:

A quick straw poll - how many of those posting here who have HAD performance assessments of any kind (and lets perhaps filter out the outliers who've been fired after a performance review shall we, on the basis that it probably would have happened anyway?) think this is a bad idea?

Yes, I've been given bonuses following performance reviews. I think it's a bad idea for the reasons I outlined in my post above and other reasons.

Mikey23

Former civil servant here who had performance related pay for many years...

Married to a teacher who has performance related pay.

Now working in social care and guess what, PRP again. I dont think there is anyone i know who doesnt have their pay linked to their performance in one form or another. Probably not ideal but a fact of life

Couldnt have stated the case any better than 4kicks. I would humbly suggest that those who think that it cant apply to teaching have little idea what they are talking about and have probably never set foot in a classroom...

4kicks

johnfinch wrote:

4kicks wrote:

A quick straw poll - how many of those posting here who have HAD performance assessments of any kind (and lets perhaps filter out the outliers who've been fired after a performance review shall we, on the basis that it probably would have happened anyway?) think this is a bad idea?

Yes, I've been given bonuses following performance reviews. I think it's a bad idea for the reasons I outlined in my post above and other reasons.

I didnt address your previous post because I feel its misguided as to how performance incentives can and should work. PRP doesnt mean forced ranking, never has done, statistically of course you will get a gaussian distribution around the average but its not a zero sum game "I win, therefore you loose": In addition, the higher probability is you will get higher performing SCHOOLS hence the likelihood is the teachers peer group will be at a similar level of performance (dont want to get into my past experience but Ive been in a couple of turnaround of both private and public sector businesses where its true.)

Also the whole idea that the only people who should be on PRP are those who can bring in incremental revenue (public vs private school teachers) isnt backed up by the vast majority of cases in the private sector, Id say well over 90% of people in MOST businesses have little or no ability to drive revenue, (apart from messing up so badly they casue a failure in the business model). To Mikey23s point above, I ddnt realise that many public sector people already had PRP so my sweeping generalization of "public vs private" was too general and I stand corrected. But IM still right!

Mikey23

@bozman ... It can and does work in primary schools. Every child is baselined. It aint about outstanding results, its about moving each child from point a to point b. prescriptive and measurable. Even 'an extra large number of numpties' are deserving and capable of being taught and this is down to the skill of the teaching staff. I think you are confusing performance related issues with ofsted inspections...

tangled_metal

Someone did educational research is easy, just look at other countries. Isn't that a complete minefield? The countries shooting up the tables in terms of education standards are Asian countries. You can't emulate that here for cultural reasons. Take China. They have a view, part of their culture, where you sacrifice your present for your future. The example is grandparents hand their life savings over to pay for private schooling on top of state schooling for their grandkids. Those kids start the school early then rush home straight after and if their family can afford it they go to evening schools until late evenings. It is very common for kids to work from.7am until midnight!
In the UK we'll never be comparable to systems based in cultures totally different to our culture. We value education a lot less it seems, especially the kids themselves. Did you actually want to be at school?

mamba80

until there is some means of addressing the std of parenting in this country (and I don't know how!!!) PRP will never raise standards.
fwiw I ve had plenty of exp in PRP and unfortunately, it falls down on the quality of the managers accessing it.
there are just too many variables in the classroom.