The biggest problem I have with performance pay is the lack of recognition that collegiality plays in providing an effective workplace for both students and teachers. Ariel briefly mentions this when he discusses the recommendations made in 2006 in the US: "teachers who perform at high levels and spread their expertise to other teachers deserve extra compensation for their performance and accomplishments." (my italics)

This is a crucial issue for all teachers, particularly beginning ones. If the experienced teachers are serious about ensuring that their new colleagues are going to succeed, an emphasis on assisting them in their planning, assessments and modelling good teaching strategies is essential. In a system where teachers are competing for a bigger slice of the same sized pay pie (see Julie Bishop's comments last weekend about the fact that the education budget will not be getting any bigger as a result of her plans), experienced teachers may be less willing to help the newbies.

It's not just about dollars and cents, it's about common sense. Teaching is not like other professions. The continuum of learning through 13 years of school means that, unlike a commercial enterprise where there is a beginning and an end to a project, no one teacher can be held up as the "reason" for a student's success.

You have all got to be kidding.

Whilst i acknowledge that there are pitfalls to performance based pay, teachers should no longer be in the bubble of equal pay. How can anyone argue that the better teachers who work harder should not be rewarded greater?

It is a joke that they get paid equally, considering the vast differnces in ability, knowledge and drive.

The reason alot of my mates became teachers is they had no motivation to move away from institutionalised systems, had little innovation and drive, and they felt that teaching seemed 'a pretty good life'. Tell me this is not the case for a lot of new teachers.

This is not the case for all i know and is a limited cross section, but this example shows why there are different mentalities you are dealing with here. I have found alot fothe good teachers end up 'ex teachers' as they quickly realise there is no room for people of a certain mindset in the education system.

It appears that those teachers who dont want this are worried that the easy life will not be so easy if this where implemented. 12 weeks holiday a year for starters.

As a student i had most teachers not give a toss. I evenhad a couple that told me to leave before year 12, and there 'was no way on earth' I would achieve the required marks to study my course. if they had a vested interest, maybe i wouldnt have been told this.

If it where guaged on attendance, performance based on previous years and averages, and on student feedback, there would no longer be a 'too hard basket' in sections of every classroom.

In business, if some of my staff arnt performing, i do everything in my power to help. If it didnt matter, i wouldnt care. this is the same in teaching.

As for the teachers out there, be prepared to enter the real world real soon, and aghast, lets see the improvement across the board with the performances of the students.

Billie said: “In Victoria government schools have to hire their own staff, which is a great impost on staff time, formulating position descriptions, advertising the job, reviewing candidates, interviewing applicants and selecting the new teacher. This HR function has been devolved to the school with no additional funding.”

Billie, I have worked in education for nearly 20 years and I can’t imagine in any school in SA ‘teachers’ having to formulate J&Ps, or advertise etc. This is the job of school management, and if we trained school managers to manage instead of clinging to the outdated headteacher notion of principalship, they would, like any other comparable ‘business’ in or out of the public sector, be able to accomplish the task.

You said “The speed with which Julie Bishop the Federal Minister for Education gave up her merit based pay indicates that it was only an ambit claim, there was no additional funding forthcoming.”

Why should Julie Bishop find more funding. It is up to state Ministers to fund education and if they were not trying to score points against a federal liberal government and give a rat’s about education, they would be looking at their own budget strategies and finding ways to reward and have the guts to sanction.

Victimhood looms yet again from the disgruntled ageing teachers who contribute to these fora. The constant whining and excuses about how ‘everything is too hard’, and’ how would you cope if…’, and ‘no one loves us’, and ‘why don’t you all stop that horrible teacher bashing’, would seem to point to the reason why teaching is under such scrutiny at the moment. We rarely hear about enthusiastic innovative teachers, We never hear a teacher or anyone in public education for that matter, admit that maybe some of the criticisms have weight, and that maybe things should be changed and that maybe some of the developments over the past twenty or thirty years have just not worked and can not any longer be defended.

Simon Templar cont.

Chris C. says ad nauseum that teachers unions are weak so how could they possibly dominate. Well I can tell you that at every level in education and especially during central teacher placement exercises, the union dictates each small step by step and calls a halt to proceedings if they don’t get their way. You might think that teachers should be paid twice as much, but over 80% of the billions of dollars of budget increases over the past 30 years have gone in teacher wages and conditions. Next to nothing for infrastructure and other resources for our children’s learning.

Paul, one of the things I remember from psychology, is that reward tends to increase the prevalence of a behaviour. Perhaps performance pay may just contribute to better teaching!

No Sir Vivor, let’s not have anything to do with accountability or any relationship between teaching and learning!

Simon Says:
"No Sir Vivor, let’s not have anything to do with accountability or any relationship between teaching and learning! "

But what I said was:

"I have no philosophical problem with performance for pay, just like I have no philosophical problem with energy efficiency. The difficulty is in the implementation."

and

"Who are we aiming to make valuable members of our society? It takes all kinds to make the world go round, and any system to reward competent trainers and memorable educators has to be both multidimensional and subject to agreement by multiple stakeholders."

and

"Direct, formal links between achievement test results, parent approval and teacher pay are not, in my opinion, a good idea at all."

It does you no credit to oversimplify, Simon.

So, Realist, there are "vast differences in ability, knowledge and drive" among teachers? But you also tell us about "alot of" [sic] your mates becoming teachers with no motivation, little drive, and just for the good life. And "a lot of new teachers' are like that. After all, most of your own teachers did not "give a toss".

So which is it - teachers are typically lazy or teachers are vastly different one to the other?

And, do tell, what is this 'good life' that teachers enjoy? Apart from the "12 weeks holiday a year' (teachers just turn up on day one each term fully prepared, eh?) What makes the job so cushy? Don't forget they knock off at 3.30.

At the same time, you found "alot fothe good teachers end up 'ex teachers'". Perhaps they despaired of teaching some pupils how to write English and think straight?

Simon Templar gives us the benefit of his SA experience - where they don't train "school managers to manage" but where he's confident managers would assess teachers' performance accurately.

Simon asks, "Why should Julie Bishop find more funding?" Just because it was her idea, perhaps? If she can find squillions for schoools so well off they don't know how to spend them, she can find funds to support her long-discredited idea.

The problem according to Simon is 'victimhood', 'disgruntled ageing teachers', 'constant whining and excuses' and ‘no one loves us’. Good knockabout distractions, but hardly plausible analysis.

Simon says, "We rarely hear about enthusiastic innovative teachers", but he never ask the obvious question: why?

Then he degenrates into union bashing and a cute variation on blame-the- victim. Teachers would have had proper resources if "over 80% of the billions of dollars of budget increases over the past 30 years have gone in teacher wages and conditions". Bloody teachers, why won't they teach for a pittance? Then there'd be money for rain-proof gutters, air-conditioning and computers.

Simon remembes from psychology "that reward tends to increase the prevalence of a behaviour". A good argument for all teachers to be paid better?