The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Breaking the pay deadlock > Comments

Breaking the pay deadlock : Comments

By Andrew Leigh, published 19/3/2007

Striking a grand bargain with teachers where those who wish to choose a merit pay contract can do so.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
As a "client" of the education system, I am well aware that there is a need to improve the rewards for talent, and discourage laziness or "coasting" in the more parasitical. I also recognize that teachers in the public school system are generally underpaid.

But there are also those who quite frankly don't deserve to be fed, let alone given salaries and job security.

So while I recognize there is a problem, I am far from convinced that there is a future in a two-tier system, where the talent gets rewarded with well-deserved merit payments, but where the parasites and underperformers continue to be paid while continuing to fail to educate our children.

If you give the teachers a choice, the good ones will embrace performance-related pay, but the poor ones will cling like limpets to their existing featherbedding.

If merit is to be rewarded, failure must be punished.

The compromise proposed here would raise the overall cost, but will not weed out the dross.

The answer lies with the teachers themselves, not the government. If they were to allow their hangers-on to be fired, (and they know who they are, don't they?), there would be room for merit incentives.

But there isn't a politician alive who would dare to stand on a platform that advocated such, they would be eaten alive.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 19 March 2007 5:13:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles you will be pleased to know that Jeff Kennett cleaned out the Victorian public service in 1992 and the Labor government has maintained the system of employing public servants on contract devised by the Liberals. In this environment I can't see how a public servant or teacher in Victoria can remain on the public payroll unless they are competent or a serious brown noser.

The teachers union in Victoria is complaining that 40% of state school teachers are employed under contract, so clearly if you are no good you won't be rehired. Its tough for the contract teachers who have to reapply for their jobs every Christmas.
Posted by billie, Monday, 19 March 2007 5:55:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As the so-called merit pay bandwagon gains momentum on its downhill trip to the valley of despair, I am glad that put in my resignation from teaching two weeks ago. It seems that no idea, no matter how bad, will fail to get a run in the much-experimented-upon education “systems” of Australia. I am aghast that anyone can continue to advocate giving more power of any sort to principals.

Victoria under the last Liberal government had performance bonuses for leading teachers. The aim was to break the power of teachers to resist government attacks on their profession. It was a bribe for compliance with the system. Leading teachers would sign plans and the principal would reward them for achieving the imposed goals. I refused to sign such an unprofessional scheme. My principal told me that she would have great difficulty in rolling over my leading teacher position at the end of my tenure if I did not agree and then abolished the position so that I could not even apply for it.

I had seen the writing on the wall before this and applied for eight leading teacher positions in other schools. I was shortlisted and interviewed for all eight positions. In the first five cases, the school appointed the internal applicant. I was offered the remaining three positions, and I accepted the first of these offers. I turned down the last two offers, even though they were closer to home and would not have required me to move house, for the old-fashioned reason that I had given my word.

In 2001, one acting principal persuaded the staff to accept a curriculum structure which could not be staffed because she said no one would have to teach more than 20 periods a week. As the timetabler, I showed it could not be staffed but my advice was rejected. The next acting principal could see that my figures were accurate, and on the third last day of the school year, the staff agreed to change the curriculum structure and increase their teaching loads to 21 periods.
Posted by Chris C, Monday, 19 March 2007 8:57:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have held senior positions in teaching - senior teacher, advanced skills teacher 3, leading teacher and acting vice principal - for 23 years, so I was used to exercising leadership and to being valued in my roles in various schools.

I worked over the holidays to implement the revised curriculum and conditions package. I saved the school four teachers, or $208,000 in teacher costs, money that it did not have. I thought this was something to be recognised, but I was misguided. I had been right, and the school administration had been wrong - this is not allowed!

At the start of the new school year, one week into his time in the school, yet another acting principal accused me of costing the school $75,000 and purported to dismiss me from my position as timetabler. I was replaced by an assistant principal, two assistant timetablers and a consultant - yes, four people to do what had been one person's job. I had the support of my colleagues, who clearly recognised the victimisation of the person who had saved the school from yet another administration-caused disaster, and I took the principal to the Merit Protection Board, which, having considered my 151 pages of evidence, ordered my re-instatement.

Principals are not really that good and they should have less power - not more. Combine the Howard government's Work Choices for Employers with “merit” pay and principal power and you will see an explosion in bullying, intimidation, scapegoating and blameshifting in Victorian schools.

None of it will apply to me. The administration got me at the end of my five-year tenure, as legally it could, and, having had more than enough of this dreadful “system”, I am now financially able to be free of it. But the madness will apply to those teachers still stuck in one of the competing fiefdoms, who will be punished for speaking up for their profession if the states are not strong enough to resist the politricks of John Howard and Julie Bishop.
Posted by Chris C, Monday, 19 March 2007 8:59:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I experienced a few Chris C types in my time as principal. Total commitment to themselves and union rules and little commitment to the advancement of students and their performance. There are teachers who believe schools are really there for the wellbeing of teachers first and children second. It is very hard to lead a school effectively if too many members of the staff are off this type.

It is true that there are principals who have been poorly chosen. However, the majority to good people committed to students getting the best possible deal and with staff having the working atmosphere within which they can best express their talents and be rewarded appropiately.

Ideally principals should have the power to hire and fire and be given the resurces to reward strong performing teachers. Schools in more challenging areas should receive a greater level of funding. AWA's should be the norm as they give the greatest opportunity for flexible working arrangements.
Posted by Sniggid, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:41:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bishop is positioning for a fight over linking education funding to the forced offering of AWAs in schools. I doubt she cares whether AWAs improve performance or not.

Performance pay is always budget limited so being a good teacher may not always mean you will get paid more.

If you pay Mary more than John, Mary may perform better but John is likely to get worse.

You need a pool of possible replacement teachers before you can start hiring and firing willy nilly. There isn't one and there isn't likely to be.

You can have AWAs but this will mean reductions in current conditions, and future loss of bargaining power for all teachers. Strength in Unity is not just a slogan.

Spend more on public schools and give less to the well heeled private schools. Latham was not completely bonkers!
Posted by westernred, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 12:39:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy