Performance related pay for teaches
Comments
-
4kicks wrote: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":
Which sounds good in theory, but as I have already said, in practice, the budget being set in advance means that teachers will effectively be competing for bonuses. That wasn't my only reason - I also feel that it's a system which is open to abuse and misuse, such as heads rewarding their favourite staff, or using the bonus system as a sweetener to keep teachers who teach shortage subjects, rather than the best teachers in non-shortage subjects. So although it might feasibly work in an ideal world, I wouldn't want to see it put into practice in state schools.
In the private language schools I used to teach in, it was an entirely different kettle of fish. If the school had a better reputation, we would get more students, which would mean more teaching hours for me. I therefore had an incentive to help some of my more inexperienced/unqualified colleagues.4kicks wrote: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.)
Unlikely. Thinking back to my school days, there is no way you could say that the teachers were all of a similar quality. I had some fantastic ones and some utterly useless ones.4kicks wrote:Also the whole idea that the only people who should be on PRP are those who can bring in incremental revenue etc.
That wasn't actually what I was suggesting.0 -
I would worry about principle and practice, special needs, especially for SLD, probably add most value, classics teachers at AS level the least added value. That simply reflects improvement over incoming baseline. League tables reflect benchmarking, not performance. Until you work out what needs to be measured the metrics for judging performance will always be:
1. Controversial
2. Liable to drive organisations to follow the metric not improve performance.0 -
I do agree, but dont accept that as a good rationale for having no accountability for performace apart from the extremes, "dead mans shoes" promotions and firing. Nor do I believe the "this system is open to abuse so we will do nothing", those thing are excuses, not reasons.
No budgets are ever "fixed". We did a lot of work on imporving South African civil servants, expecially teachers, performance post Apartheid (actually with the guy who now runs wiggle!) and the key factor to improving performance was recognising, and compensating, higher performers.Fitter....healthier....more productive.....0 -
4kicks wrote: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?
Right.
What part of mine was horsesh!t?
Don't see anything I said that particuarly disagrees with what you said, though maybe I can infer you think teaching performance is measurable?0 -
Not my comment but i infer that 4kicks has detailed knowledge of current teaching practice in the UK as do I. And is therefore fully aware that teaching performance is measurable in a variety of ways and has been measured for a number of years and will continue to be so in that prescriptive way that is thought (wrongly in my opinion) to give best results. Missus has given that 'now stfu' kind of look ... So i better had!0
-
Actually Ive been a school governor but now run hotels!
@mr admin. Disagee with your statement "Performance related pay only works where performance is easy to measure in a black & white way." When one is in a situation where performance is easy to measure - eg direct sales forces - then usually you don't need performance related pay criteria, just a straight commission. One of the positives of instigating differentiated pay (and I do agree with your statement "Teaching quality is not easy to measure correctly. At all.") is it can serve as a forcing mechanism for both front line staff, managers and, god forbid, Ofstead, to quantify and qualify what they are trying to achieve.Fitter....healthier....more productive.....0 -
I've been subject to "performance management" for virtually the whole of my career in IT. The frameworks have changed over the years as companies seek to "improve" it. It still sucks though - always has. It is petty, arbitrary, overly subjective and can be shockingly demotivating for many staff.4kicks wrote: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?
I've never been on the wrong side of it either. I still think the process stinks to high heaven though.
After speaking to my wife who is a teacher of 16 years I'd have to say that the system she is exposed to sucks as well. Again she has not suffered as a result of it, but has serious misgivings about its usefulness.
Performance management makes one tragic assumption and this is why it fails. It makes the assumption that management are competent, honest and impartial enough to follow the process as it has been designed. Invariably they are not.You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
4kicks wrote:Actually Ive been a school governor but now run hotels!
@mr admin. Disagee with your statement "Performance related pay only works where performance is easy to measure in a black & white way." When one is in a situation where performance is easy to measure - eg direct sales forces - then usually you don't need performance related pay criteria, just a straight commission. One of the positives of instigating differentiated pay (and I do agree with your statement "Teaching quality is not easy to measure correctly. At all.") is it can serve as a forcing mechanism for both front line staff, managers and, god forbid, Ofstead, to quantify and qualify what they are trying to achieve.
Surely a significant problem is that qualitative achievements are very difficult to measure and many 'successes' in education are qualitative and not about better grades. You end up having to use quantitative measures as a proxy for those successes.0 -
Agree with both the above points, its difficult (but not impossible) to set qualitative proxies but many things in education are indeed quantifiable (you need to get x% of your year 3 class to a year 4 reading level by the end of this year). Also agree any performance management system is definitely open to abuse. But I think the benefits of having SOME level of performance review and compensation outweigh the undoubted pitfalls.
Sometimes you can see an argument by realizing how patently absurd the inverse statement is, e.g.; " I dont think we should compensate the higher performing teachers more, and its not important to have our schools setting clear goals of what they want to achieve this year".Fitter....healthier....more productive.....0 -
I think a lot of people are missing the point here. The fact is that teachers ALREADY have a form of performance related pay, in that they can apply for pay rises above the usual pay scale on the basis of their performance. The proposal is for something much more directly related to the metrics of student performance - the difference between where any student "ought" to be in terms of skills, knowledge and understanding, and where they actually are.0
-
These conversations always make my head ache because people seem to miss point spectacularly. Performance related pay is not simply about paying by hard results (e.g., exam results, pupil progress) - other people have made this point well. Every head teacher knows that they have some staff who are better teachers, some who work harder and go the extra mile - if they can't tell the difference they shouldn't be doing the job. Performance related pay means that Heads can give extra pay to those who give more. That is simply fair. Little Onion argues that pay scales already deliver this. Well not really - pay scales are a ratchet, once you go up it is very hard to come down. Some teachers get a pay scale then go stale, cruise and no longer deserve the extra pay - I have seen Heads wrestling with these problems, senior teachers who are hoovering up staffing budget without delivering. That's why it is better to make the decisions annually for excellent work in that year.
Most jobs in the private sector can't be measured simply. Most jobs in the private sector require collaboration between colleagues. Most jobs in the private sector have a reward system that gives extra pay to people who have given more. I see no reason why that isn't applicable to teaching.
Oh FWIW I was a school governor for 9 years, chair of finance so I have seen a bit of this.0 -
Jedster is right about not going down from upper pay scale.
To me, the question is: what hard, empirical evidence is there that performance related pay for teachers, particularly payment by results, improves student education? I don't want a comparison with the private sector, or arguments about what is fair, or anecdotes - I want proper large scale analyses of school systems.
If anyone can link to a study that shows that this is the case, then I would welcome it. Most studies I have seen show that it has no positive impact, or that in some cases a negative one. I'll dig some links out when I have time.0 -
Most bonus structures ensure that managers have control and therefore compliance. The head teacher may know who are the best and worst teachers however there is also a host of other reasons that they may manipulate the criteria to achieve a higher than warranted bonus for an individual and hence worse than deserved bonus for another individual. Maybe they play golf with them or are close friends for example. I have seen this in all engineering companies that I have worked in and even taken part in the game myself when it suited me. For every individual getting more there is usually someone else getting less. The performance aspect of this for teachers is likely to be harder to make black and white compared to anything other than X% of profit style systems where money is the clear metric.0
-
PRP and a bonus are used to influence people's performance by setting attainable goals and targets. Given the department of educations and OFSTED's reputation of setting and measuring unachieveable targets based on a non real world view of teaching this is unlikely to achieve anything. It is a bit like telling a sprinter they get a million pounds each time they break 10 seconds in the 100m and chaining them to a lamppost just before the race starts.0
-
There was a big South African study done post apartheid. Ill see if I can find something about it in the public domainThe Little Onion wrote:Jedster is right about not going down from upper pay scale.
To me, the question is: what hard, empirical evidence is there that performance related pay for teachers, particularly payment by results, improves student education? I don't want a comparison with the private sector, or arguments about what is fair, or anecdotes - I want proper large scale analyses of school systems.
If anyone can link to a study that shows that this is the case, then I would welcome it. Most studies I have seen show that it has no positive impact, or that in some cases a negative one. I'll dig some links out when I have time.Fitter....healthier....more productive.....0 -
This is a more "globalized" synthesis of the work done in South Africa. It makes the point that you need many things to drive performance in schools, but attributes 25% of the success of high performing school systems to incentives. Doesn't sound like a lot but its double the next biggest performance driver.
http://www.mckinsey.com/client_service/ ... final.ashx
Refer to pages 56, 65 and various others.Fitter....healthier....more productive.....0 -
Firstly, you can't compare countries like South Africa or regions like Eastern Europe, where teachers are poorly paid, with the UK. Pay isn't as much of an issue over here, whereas in poorer parts of the world, a bonus would be a much greater incentive. A bonus scheme might also allow teachers to spend more time on lesson planning, etc. When I was teaching in Slovakia and Hungary, most of my colleagues were school teachers who came into our language school to teach in the evenings. Most of their colleagues would, once the school day was finished, start going to their wealthier pupils' houses to give private lessons. This was the only way they could make ends meet, so a bonus scheme would make a much greater impact in poorer countries. You'd need to compare the UK to other nations with a similar economy and culture.
Secondly, IF my quick glance at that PDF has given me a fair impression of the document, then it seems to be based on the premise that international league tables are a fair way of assessing educational outcomes. That's bollox. Absolute bollox. I've taught enough East Asians, for example, to know that they are very, very good at passing tests, but their education systems leave them struggling to use their knowledge in the real world.0 -
My wife is a teacher and quite frankly it's a ridiculous profession. The amount of bureaucracy and inspection from the government and OFSTED is mind boggling...not to mention the bloody parents.
It's not unusual for her to work 60+ hours a week, she goes to work at 7.30, leaves at 5.30, eats dinner and marks till 9-10 every night. Sunday's and sometimes whole weekends are lost to working depending on the time of year (Great for my cycling
). All the Government care about is figures to publish. The performance pay is based around levels and attainment but teaching is so much more than that. It is about helping children grow into adults but you're not rewarded (and in fact penalised ) by doing anything that doesn't contribute to good exam grades. Helping a child grow in confidence and make friends? Forget it... teach children other skills outside of the curriculum? Hogwash!
This government have done a lot to pee off teachers and set the education system back in its drive to post improved numbers for political gain.
I must tell my wife to quit and do something else almost every week and I can't wait for the day she finally listens...unfortunately she is absolutely committed to her job and loves helping children learn and grow. She sure as hell doesn't do it for the money and seeing some of the states her and other teachers are in emotionally sometimes she doesn't do it for an easy life.
It's just getting worse and worse.
If anyone is thinking about being a teacher...don't.0 -
Only 60 hours a week... Lightweight! My missus is exactly the same and teaches for exactly the same reason. She even wants to go on teaching beyond her retirement age too. Good job there are people like them in the system to try and do their best for the kids
Please dont blame the current situaution on 'this government'. It is the fault of successive governments of either persuasion and imho the last lot were a blooming sight worse. At least there is a clearly identifiable plan now even if you dont agree with it.0 -
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.
Perhaps you are onto something Arran. Explains why a C can be achieved with a mark of less than 34%
http://www.scotsman.com/news/education/higher-maths-exam-pass-mark-lowered-to-33-8-1-38489510 -
The bigger the organisation, the tougher it is to measure performance, especially in an job where the value add isn't monetary.
People get arse ache when someone gets paid more than them if it's performance related, so you need to be explicit about what metrics are being assessed to determine performance related pay.
I don't think anyone has come up with a good way to measure value add in education in a discreet way which could, in turn, lead to effective performance related pay. So far we have exam results. That incentivises teaching kids to pass exams. Not ideal.
Though, I would also suggest, those who move into teaching probably aren't hugely motivated by big financial incentives. Otherwise, why did they go into teaching?0 -
Are our kids tough enough. BBC2 last night. a three parter trying to see if Chinese teaching methods would work in our schools, given Chinese children are far ahead of British children.
Having watched the first part last night I don't hold out much hope, and it's not directly down to the teachers ability. To me it appears mainly down to the difference in our two countries culture so the Chinese method won't work with the attitude of (some) British youngsters.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Are our kids tough enough. BBC2 last night. a three parter trying to see if Chinese teaching methods would work in our schools, given Chinese children are far ahead of British children.
Having watched the first part last night I don't hold out much hope, and it's not directly down to the teachers ability. To me it appears mainly down to the difference in our two countries culture so the Chinese method won't work with the attitude of (some) British youngsters.
I read the review in the paper, will have to catch up on TV.
Not a total shock is it that the biggest differences between China and Uk seem to be respect for teachers and discipline.0 -
I've been teaching high school for over 15 years. 12 of those years at one of the worst government schools in NSW. The major problem with performance based salary is that it creates competition between staff members. You will always have teachers of varying ability and anything that creates a competitive environment discourages the more able teachers from helping the less able. It's much easier to stand out as successful if those around you are failing.
It depends how objectives are structured, if all objectives are personal then it will breed a culture of "me, me, me". Where I work we have global/organisational objectives, business objectives (ie personal) and behavioural objectives. The more senior you are, the higher the weighting of the organisational objectives. Do it like this, and people have an incentive to make the school work as a whole as well as demonstrate their contribution.
It all hangs on how objectives are defined, and how pay/bonus is linked to these objectives.WyndyMilla Massive Attack | Rourke 953 | Condor Italia 531 Pro | Boardman CX Pro | DT Swiss RR440 Tubeless Wheels
Find me on Strava0 -
Are our kids tough enough. BBC2 last night. a three parter trying to see if Chinese teaching methods would work in our schools, given Chinese children are far ahead of British children.
Having watched the first part last night I don't hold out much hope, and it's not directly down to the teachers ability. To me it appears mainly down to the difference in our two countries culture so the Chinese method won't work with the attitude of (some) British youngsters.
I read the review in the paper, will have to catch up on TV.
Not a total shock is it that the biggest differences between China and Uk seem to be respect for teachers and discipline.
I used to tutor a lot of Asian kids and they told me that the Far Eastern education systems are pretty brutal. A school day is 8-10 hours at least and then the vast majority (in cities at least) are sent off for further private studies with tutors or after-school classes for another couple of hours. The problem is that while this turns out students who are good at passing exams, that's not the same as being able to apply knowledge in the real world outside the school/university gates, which is why quite a few Asian countries (including China) are reforming their education system to provide a more relaxed, enjoyable learning culture which favours independent thinking and learning.0 -
Are our kids tough enough. BBC2 last night. a three parter trying to see if Chinese teaching methods would work in our schools, given Chinese children are far ahead of British children.
Having watched the first part last night I don't hold out much hope, and it's not directly down to the teachers ability. To me it appears mainly down to the difference in our two countries culture so the Chinese method won't work with the attitude of (some) British youngsters.
I read the review in the paper, will have to catch up on TV.
Not a total shock is it that the biggest differences between China and Uk seem to be respect for teachers and discipline.
I used to tutor a lot of Asian kids and they told me that the Far Eastern education systems are pretty brutal. A school day is 8-10 hours at least and then the vast majority (in cities at least) are sent off for further private studies with tutors or after-school classes for another couple of hours. The problem is that while this turns out students who are good at passing exams, that's not the same as being able to apply knowledge in the real world outside the school/university gates, which is why quite a few Asian countries (including China) are reforming their education system to provide a more relaxed, enjoyable learning culture which favours independent thinking and learning.
I teach a lot of Chinese teenagers now who are hoping to go onto UK universities via our foundation year. They are all great at rote learning facts for exams, but most are very poor at applying skills in self-directed projects and assessments.
When people bemoan the current generation, look back at yourself and your mates at school. Even some of the worst behaved of my mates now have successful careers.0 -
“It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones. ” To whit, people dont like change.
All of the objections raised above have been encountered, and typically solved, in the private sector;
"Not directly liked to a financial performance" - most jobs aren't, and you NEED to have, for any job, an upfront definition agreed by the employee and line management of what success looks like. Again, if head teachers arent able to encapsulate and identify good talent, then they shouldnt be in the job.
"Will encourage negative competition between teachers" - thats why you define a part of the compensation based on over all school performance
"Will drive teachers away from poorer performing schools" - no, because the agreed goals are about improvement, not absolute levels. Teaching is easy in this respect as you have pretty good measures.
"Will result in grade inflation" - agree, this is a unique one for schools but it cant get any worse, and having a competitive element will at least prevent a universal across the board "improvement"
"Teachers aren't motivated by money" - indeed, but many people like to be acknowledged they are doing a good job. Small performance incentives work as well as large ones, curiously.
"Will get rid of good talent" - Dont see why encouraging the better performers should make them leave, surely its more demotivating
"Time consuming": Perhaps, but most organizations take about a DAY to do performance reviews, including 360 degree feedback, my guess is teaching management will spend more time now trying to address deficient performance without any kind of remedy short of termination which is a very blunt, drastic tool
"Doesn't work in large organizations". Im sorry. but WTF??? I mean REALLY, WTF??? Its true I have only personal experience working or consulting for about 10 of the fortune 100 companies, but they all have it.
Once again, Id like to repeat a survey of how may people who are rubbishing the idea actually worked across a number of organizations which do have PRP (not just one company where "My boss had it in for me"...)Fitter....healthier....more productive.....0 -
PRP is a minefield in any job, teaching more than most. Let's just make two observations:
1. Everyone in and around a school actually knows who the good teachers are: it's just that it's all based entirely on criteria that are very subjective and hard to quantify. My own hunch is that teachers who are good at playing the system, looking the part and doing the paperwork (i.e. not me) would wind up gaining the most from PRP.
2. Quite a few posters in this thread have rendered themselves totally ineligble to comment on anything to do with education by their inability to use apostrophes correctly. Dock all the English teachers' pay!0 -
[quote="cyd190468"
Perhaps you should also ask if there is anyone who has worked in education where performance based pay turned out to be a good thing? Most of the time discussions grind to a halt as no-one can determine what is a good indicator of teacher performance. South Korean school get great results academically for example but the resulting student stress is a becoming major health issue.[/quote]
Indeed, not a bad way of looking at it, but, I suspect, a much smaller sample pool for the UK, but I do KNOW that good quality head teachers (= managers) can define what makes a good teacher in their environment; the risk, and it is a huge one, is the process becomes so standardized, bureaucratic and time consuming as to be worthless.
The issue of child stress is, Id suggest, entirely independent of whether they have good teachers or not, although I grand I know much less about Psychology than I do about business incentives.Fitter....healthier....more productive.....0
