There is no evidence that merit pay, that is money, produces superior performance. In the Commonwealth public service, merit pay for executives is said to have led to everyone getting a bonus. Teachers are not recognised as working long hours, they receive relatively poor support – they usually have to share a computer – and most particularly the incredibly central role they play in the future of society is hardly appreciated. Education is the single most important issue for all communities and nations. Consider India, most particularly Kerala.

What there is evidence for is that greater support and recognition of above average performance, combined with formative evaluation, that is regular discussion and support, makes a difference. And an important feature for teachers is the opportunity for professional development. University of Arizona education expert David Berliner has set out succinctly the factors that improve education performance. Has anyone in this whole education debate mentioned him or any of the other outstanding researchers?

Instead, teachers are being pushed into testing and don't even have control of that. Most of the "policy wonks" are hooked on simplistic views. Business persons – the same ones who promote the proposition that “welfare to work” will help diminish the skill shortage - don’t want to spend any money training people and upper middle class parents think their child is never properly recognised.

In the USA there is a vast amount of high quality research on education. Yet there are complaints that the research is not rigorous enough and should be like the research done for the pharmaceutical industry. Well, Berliner has shown how foolish that is. Is it possible that the research is being condemned for its inadequacy because it is not producing results which support the preconceived ideology of the elites?

Last, Andrew Leigh didn't produce any evidence to support the proposition that it would be better to try to overcome the decline in literacy and numeracy of teachers: he simply asserted that it would likely produce more change. So why did Minister Bishop leap upon this?

In an ideal world the best teachers would be working in the worst skills where their skills are most required. How would you value merit in that situation? Teachers work with a different group of students each year before passing them on to another teacher. How do you measure which teacher which has contributed the most from year to year.

No matter what the best intentions are merit pay finishes up as a rort with a few at the top getting rewarded whether they have earned it or not and the rest just get pissed off and don't work as hard or as well as they could.

Study after study has shown that money is not the primary motivator for most workers.

Good teachers can't be bought, but they should be rewarded for their hard-won skills.
Long service in teaching should be rewarded financially and excellence in teaching should be recognised and renumerated accordingly.
That said, the rewards for teaching simply are not financial ones - I for one am content with my pay.
Far better would teaching be if it were regarded as a vocation rather than a "profession" and more younger teachers were given a rounded-out training which was not so leftist, egalitarian and overly-concerned with faddishness and shonky methodology.
TAC

Please TAC, remunerate us better ... but don't renumber us.

Am scratching my head attempting a mental retrieval of the SBS debate. Definitely remember being stimulated by it, so to speak. I recall being singularly unimpressed with Andrew Leigh and even more so with that dishonest b - h, Julie Bishop.
This latter individual even had the cheek that argue that federal funding of university training was adequate, rather than mutilated in the way a number of other contributors, usually experts in the education field, had indicated both previously to her outrageous comment, and then at the resumption of the discussion after she had insulted the audience's intelligence by making it.
To Mercurious, however, I offer best wishes for the future.

I believe merit pay would cause division and low morale amongst teachers.

I am in my 10th year of teaching. I am not yet at the top of the pay scale. If I added up and was paid for the *actual* hours of work that I do, the Government would not be able to afford me!

Yes, there are some 'bad apples', but there are bad apples everywhere. I believe that most teachers work hard and most do it for reasons other than the money. (Really, who in their right mind would do it for the money?)

Yes, I am a good teacher and yes I work hard. Yet, I do not want to see 'merit' pay introduced. It will end being determined on some ridiculous criteria. The people who deserve it won't get it, while people who *don't* deserve it will. It will be like the 'merit' system for promotions positions- there are certainly some executive staff who are promoted on 'merit' when they don't deserve it.

If it comes down to it- let teachers decide whether the 'merit' pay is introduced. After all, we're the one's who will be affected by it.