Let me be the first to say I am supportive of what Teaching Australia and the NSW Institute of Teachers are trying to achieve. It is most welcome that teachers are establishing professional bodies and standards akin to those that exist for doctors, lawyers, accountants etc., and there is much to be said for the view that if we want to be treated like professionals, we need to institute both the behaviour and the accoutrements of professionalism.

That said, the boosters of performance-linked pay for teachers have neglected to mention the widespread corruption and cheating that prevailed when performance incentive payments were the norm in British schools during the mid-19th century.

When teachers' salaries were tied to the performance of their pupils, the darker angels of human nature unfortunately provoked all kinds of improper collusion between teachers and students to cheat on exams and raise marks, along with intimidation and expulsion of slow-learning pupils. Many histories of British education document these events.

I know it seems far-fetched that this could happen in 21st century NSW, but we must remain mindful of these hazards before we leap enthusiastically into this “new idea” that is actually 150 years old. Indeed, our current performance-neutral pay scales were developed largely as an antidote to the old, corrupt system.

However distasteful it may be, we must reflect that if police were rewarded based on the number of convictions they obtained, and doctors were paid for the number of “cures” they dispensed, and auditors paid for the number of company books they pronounced “compliant” – well, the potential for corruption is obvious. Shoot the messenger if you will.

Given the vociferous support that some politicians and commentators have recently given to the teaching of historical facts in schools, it is ironic that they have ignored the lessons of history in this regard.

I think this article may be quite relevant to the independent school sector where it may be a choice between a rewarding (both financially and professionally) career in education or industry, but it's only partly relevant to the government sector.

Why do teachers leave the government sector? Sure, some of it may be to do with pay. However, I think a big issue may be that they're forced to be babysitters or crowd controllers, not teachers, in a lot of cases. How can a teacher be a professional teacher when it's like feeding time at the zoo and there's little he or she can really do about it? Why stick around for that day after day?

It's exactly the same reason that a lot of parents penny pinch to send their kids to private schools: they're sick of the 10%+ of their students' classmates constantly derailing the whole exercise in the government system.

Throwing more money at teachers, whilst good in the sense suggested, is a second step that needs to be addressed after far deeper and more urgent problems. I dare say that if these could be sorted out, a lot of teachers would stick around for the love of the job, even if they didn't earn a lot.

Let me add my $0.02 worth.

Public school teachers fought, argued and went out on strike throughout the early 70's and finally got rid of external (inspectorial) review of their work, methodologies and skills. They then fought through the late 70's and early 80's to finally get rid of any trace of peer review.

Throughout the 70's and later, teaching came to be held in such poor regard that we filled the ranks of what are now senior public school teachers with those who had failed or so nearly failed their own education that they had no tertiary choices other than teaching. Ask how many high school teachers have a respectable TER score for mathematics or science.

For more than thirty years, public school teachers have loudly proclaimed the importance of "values free" education which has always been perceived by most rational parents as simply code for teachers who want to teach only on the basis of the latest left-wing ideology.

And now public school teachers are aghast and shocked that we don't think a great deal of them as a profession?

Teacher arguments against performance management are simply another statement of a long-held total lack of accountability - a lack championed and fought for by teachers themselves.

Kevin may be a tad harsh (nearly all pubic school teachers that I know are so committed and hard working) but his general comment is true enough.

If teachers want higher rates of pay, then that must come with standards and accountability.

A minority of teachers are lazy, let down the profession, milk the system... and so forth. And this degrades the whole profession.

Teachers have nothing to thank their unions for because the unions have been so pay focussed they have ignored so many other pressing issues relating to improving the profession.

By accountability I do not mean the Brendan Nelson philosphy, I mean that an underperforming teacher on high pay must not be able to use their permanent status to take the system for a ride.

I went back and read the article again after reading the comments of posters here. Am I once again being naive? Is this writer talking about performance-based pay? Is the idea of paying teachers better salaries and insisting upon higher standards actually a euphemistic way of discussing performance-based scales?

Yes, I agree that such a system inevitably gives rise to creative ways of rorting the system - especially amongst those teachers who are poorly equipped for the job.

But I believe that the persons who have charge of my children for the greater part of their lives should be the best. And a profession that does not give adequate remuneration does not attract the best. Or does so only until interest rates go up and the salary will no longer pay the mortgage.

Thats what I had thought the article meant and, as a parent, I couldn't agree more while, as an academic, I also have to concede that such a re-structuring would have personal ramifications as well.

In Victoria you would be hard pressed to find a lazy teacher, they were all weeded out in the early 1990s, and very few new teachers hired. The new teachers are hired after a rigorous apprenticeship of contracts and part time work until they finally get a full time job. All Victorian state schools are responsible for hiring their own staff.

The Victorian Institute of Teaching only licenses teachers after they have completed 6 months classroom experience in a 2 year period. Many newly graduated teachers drop out when unable to find a position. The Victorian Institute of Teaching has plans to reaccredit existing teachers at regular intervals, say every 3 to 5 years.

Most people respond well to stability and encouragement. If we want our teachers to provide a confident, secure learning environment for our children, whether state or private, then this will be easier to achieve with a confident workforce.