Jolanda, what you just said confirms that rewarding individual teachers who actually do the teaching is not going to improve anything that will benefit students. And that is what we are being sold that this scheme is supposed to do.

Over the years, because of a whole host of reasons, I've had children in eight different schools. Four private schools, four public schools. I've dealt with 11 different principals. I've come across inspiring teachers, OK teachers, but the kids thought he was fantastic, and a teacher who was not actually teaching my son, but nevertheless had a wonderful impact. My youngest daughter was bullied for quite an extended period until realised in year 5, which was extremely painful for her. Her teacher with my daughter dealt with it very, very well.

Without fail, I've found individual teaching teachers to be involved with their students. Principals, on the other hand, are by and large extremely mediocre and seem to be involved on a largely personal journey of achievement. Of all the schools, I've only found ONE principal to be really inspiring. My daughter has just started high school, so have not had an opportunity to get to know the new principal. I've heard him speak and he's making all the right noises. Though of course, talking the talk, doesn't always mean walking the walk.

I don't know if there are any principals participating on this thread, but as a parent, I'm much, much more interested in how and why principals are appointed, how long their tenure is and how their performance is evaluated and by whom.

I'm much, much more interested in how and by whom the curriculum content is developed.

As for Simon Templar, he has a funny attitude for someone who is supposedly professionally connected to education. Maybe a change of department could do. Try the Health department, we are used to people not actually working with patients sprout beautiful words for the public, but secretly thinking those of us who do work at the coal face are thick and must have rocks in the head.

Peformance pay is a red herring.

There is nothing wrong with performance pay, but it will do bugger all to fix the education system. The vast majority of teachers are extremely dedicated and work bloody hard. The troubles are:

1) Many teachers are woefully under-qualified

2) Too much time is spent upon insane bureacracy and benchmarking

These problems are the fault and responsibility of both Liberal and Labor governments. Faddishness and nannying in education - largely a Labor pasttime - has been a disaster.

But if you want the one destructive cause, it's the amount of money (not) going into higher education. Howard has turned a great tertiary system into a basket case which serves no one.

For Ariel, or anyone, to discuss Australian education woes and to not raise this obvious and critical point - well, it proves they're a Liberal hack.

Yvonne,
Thank you for your remarks, especially those regarding Principals and it certinly tallies with my experience. In this group there are gifted educators but on the whole, they are egotistic, opinionated and as you say more concerned with using their positions to further their own aspirations. In my mind, this situation applies more to the public system than private system.

What amazes me is the huge turnover of teaching staff that occurs in these public schools (comparative to the other public sector departments) and yet I'm yet to hear of a Principal being required to account for a high turnover of staff. They are accountable (in Victoria) to school boards. These boards are simply stacked by school principals with staff and those community members that they wish to have on the board. They run their schools like personal fiefdoms and any staff who disagree are immediatly hounded until they comply or leave.

In most cases, Principals started teaching when 18 and most have never worked in any other environment except the Education Department. It is this lack of diversity in work / life experience that I find worrying as it limits their ability to understand and engage their external community.

As someone who has worked in the public and private sector in human services, it used to amaze me that a number of people that held these positions had themselves very basic skills of written communication. I recall, one Principal showing me a letter that he intended sending to a minister; I was astounded, a whole paragraph without any discernable sentence structure and the grammer, that would have got a P for a 10 year old.

I don't know if you are aware but a recent survey of teaching staff (I'm not sure if Principals were tested)in Victoria found some pretty disturbing results in terms of basic literacy.

No wonder the Commonwealth is becoming alarmed but talk of performance salary and giving Principals more authority over staff is the equivalent of giving Nurse Dracula the plasma to save the patient.

I was going to leave this thread but Bushbasher has enticed me back in.

Bushbasher

Why do you say many or most teachers' are under-qualified. Are you talking about high schools, primary schools? I just wonder how many years must one spend at university before they are suitably qualified to teach? Everyone in my staff room are four year trained. Most have two degrees. A couple have their masters.

Netab

Could you please identify that survey. Lots of interesting allegations are made about teachers'. I'm sceptical about this one because I've yet to meet a teacher who has literacy problems.

You have to just look at the teachers' who have participated on this thread to wonder the validity of that type of allegation.

Liz,

Generally, I think education faculties are much more concerned with faddish, second rate sociology than anything to do with teaching.

Specifically, I know something of the situation with mathematics (but suspect that similar arguments could be applied to other disciplines). It is a well-know fact that many mathematics teachers are under-qualified: most mathematics teachers will admit it. And the reasons for this are not a mystery.

First of all, the high school mathematics curriculum pretty much everywhere in Australia is appalling: current teachers are victims of this as well as perpetrators. Secondly, the university mathematics curriculum in most universities is appalling. Thirdly, even when the university curriculum is not appalling, it is seldom directed towards the actual understanding and appreciation of mathematics that would help teachers teach. Fourthly, many many mathematics teachers have the thinnest of university mathematical training.

Note that I am not blaming teachers for this, and nothing I have written supports Ariel's cheap shot at teachers, and definitely not his partisan hackery. Teachers, like their students, are victims of a broken and broke system. Rudd is no hero, but he'll be a huge improvement over barbarians such as Howard and Bishop (and Nelson and Vanstone and Kemp).

Netab
If, as you claim, most Principals started teaching when they were 18 the teaching profession must be full of child prodigies. Let's see if your claim adds up. The average age of Year 12 students is 17. The length of most teacher training course is 4 years. You do the sums Netab.

So much for your numeracy. What about your literacy?

You are amazed "that a number of people that held these positions had themselves very basic skills of written communication." As you so revealingly expressed it: " I recall, one Principal showing me a letter that he intended sending to a minister; I was astounded, a whole paragraph without any discernable sentence structure and the grammer, that would have got a P for a 10 year old." Your own sentence contains three inapt punctuations, two basic spelling errors and wobbly syntax.

I suppose you might have a claim to have been taught badly.

Let's have the details of the recent survey of teaching staff in Victoria which had "disturbing results in terms of basic literacy". We've all met those eight-out-of-ten-dentist type surveys.