Forget Performance Pay and Teacher bashing .

Lift Teachers pay to Reflect their Qualifications and Work Load ; bring renumeration up to what other people in Private Enterprise receive .

Reduce teachers workload ; remove "ALL" Fad Education Concepts ; OBE , SBE , PEEL etc that load Teachers up by about 40% "Better a Teacher than a Clerk".

Return Education to the Traditional Owners , Parents and Teachers ; kick "ALL" the Bureaucrats out of the Classroom .

Insist on Democracy , treat Parents and Teachers like Stakeholders ; allow total freedom of speach on all facits of education .

Reject all appendages like "to enter the new age" ; "the smart age". This is all BS ; if you think not so ask someone 2 or 3 times your age if it's easier today than when they were kids , take care they may be very frank , you may find yourself chagrined and or humiliated.

Billie,

I don’t know where you get your figures from. There are just over 40,000 teachers in Victorian government schools and about 100,000 teachers in the state registered with VIT. About 18 per cent of the former are on contracts.

When I began secondary teaching in 1974, there was a 14-point automatic scale, with university graduates beginning on step 7. There were post of responsibility positions which paid above these points. There was a senior teacher class, to which promotion was by merit, but not comparative merit. Next there were deputy principals and principals. Schools worked democratically.

In 1975, the PORs were abolished and replaced by Special Duties Allowances, and appointment to these positions was school-based and on merit.

In 1992, senior teachers were abolished (a disgraceful case of the unions selling out their senior teacher members) and replaced with three levels of advanced skills teacher. AST appointment was school-based and on merit. AST 2 and 3 positions were for educational leadership not classroom teaching, and were subject to review at the end of tenure.

The 1992 Liberal government halted the implementation of the AST process and brought in two levels of leading teacher. Appointment was school-based and supposedly on merit. They were not for classroom teaching but administration and were short-term positions. That government also brought in annual reviews of all teachers before they could proceed up the scale. It also paid bonuses to the most compliant leading teachers, assistant principals and principals and made schools very exploitaive.

There have been various tinkerings with the system (e.g., the end of bonuses), but basically the Victorian Labor Government has kept the Kennett Government “career” structure in teaching to this day. In other words, there is no automatic progression in salaries, there is a performance review process, promotion positions are supposedly based on merit and are short-term, and all appointments are school-based, which means ultimately the principal decides.

None of these changes has led to one child in the state being better taught. They have made education worse, and still people want to go further down the same road.

Just getting back to Jonathon Ariel for a moment. I have taught at primary, secondary and tertiary levels as well as having run a business with a considerable turnover. And yes like Jonathon, I also have an MBA which was considerably easier than any other degree I have completed before or since. Running a business was a cinch compared with teaching. When those who have never taught suggest that teachers need to come into the real world, I think that they have no idea what they are talking about and that the reverse is true. Teachers are in the real world and deal with the most staggering social problems, obtuse bureaucracy and increasing demands from the public, parents and government. Those who think that teaching is such a cushy job, should try it for themselves for a month or so and see what they think then. In fact I challenge Jonathon Ariel to do just this.

And yes I taught successfully and have students who still keep in contact and ran a business successfully. Running a business is a piece of cake after you have negotiated classroom managment.

Billie – You raise several points. I could answer them, but note that Simon Templar has already addressed them far, far better than I could ever hope to.

Chris C – my ‘contempt’ as you put it is not for teachers but for the system in which good teachers must function. The system being the many interests involved: bureaucrats, parents, unions and other teachers. If what you say about lower pay and increased load is true, then that is an issue that must be addressed. It is highly improper to have teachers work more, be paid less and for someone to think that such conditions will attract quality candidates. BUT, surely it is fair to measure if the teachers’ output has climbed and not just dwell on their input.

Also my concern is not merely over the size of the pay chq but also that those teachers with the right attributes (as defined by the schools where they wish to work) are recruited. Too high or too low a salary paid to a person to teach at a particular school (but who has the wrong skills set) is money wasted.

Sir Vivor – why do you say my comments are partisan? Surely they are common sense. They are intended to cure an ill. The ill being the one way flight from public schools. The fact that one side of politics holds similar views is a fact of life. If the Greens held this view, I would still be called partisan, but by others no doubt and not you.

FrankGol – you mentioned that Ms Bishop was not growing the funding pie and thereby assuming that some teachers may be paid less. Surely funding is a matter for negotiations. It may come out of existing allocations or it may result from greater allocations.The fact is the states slammed the door on the topic in broad terms so they never had the opportunity to test just how tight Julie Bishop held those purse strings

Simon, you say, at the end of your article:

"Last week, at COAG, we saw the Rudd tail brilliantly wagging the eight-limbed state and territory dog. Without a second thought, the states and territories rejected outright a pay-for-performance scheme. Shame."

"It seems that the states and territories don’t want to do right by school students, if that means giving the Prime Minister a policy win several months out from an election. The spirit of former Senator Graham Richardson, is alive and well: do whatever it takes to (help Kevin Rudd) win. And pay any price."

"Even if that price is the relentless dumbing down of those charged with educating of our young."

I see all that as a partisan statement which detracts from the remainder of your argument. The way you mention of major players in an upcoming federal election makes it difficult for your comments to be taken as bipartisan or otherwise even-handed.

You may be interested in the article posted today by Phil Roberts, a NSW teacher and researcher. For example, he states that:

"... lack of casual staff [at isolated schools], combined with the tyranny of distance, means [isolated teachers] miss out on opportunities others take for granted. And consequently their pupils miss out. The prospect of a six-hour return trip either side of a full day with the prospect of dodging kangaroos and emus simply isn’t enticing.

"Schemes to attract experienced teachers through improved pay have been tried around Australia but ultimately have proved unsuccessful. What is needed is a move beyond the mentality that increased pay will solve all problems."

Phil Roberts' article highlights yet another dimension involved in obtaining quality teaching and quality results from teachers and schools in Australia, and doing so in an equitable fashion.

"Workchoices" by another name; it's got nothing to do with concern about students. Rather than have a positive imput into education it is likely to have negative effects. Teaching to a large degree is a collaborative profession, performance appraisal will discourage good solid teachers from sharing their good practical ideas to their colleagues.
Students who are struggling academically due to specific learning disablities will be enouraged to leave classrooms as they could easily undermine official attitudes towards teachers abilities. There are some schools where for whatever reason the student cohort have not been able to develop their abilities to the same degree as schools in other areas.
Good teachers will want to gravitate towards schools which offer the best prospects for their advancement. Further accentuating disparities between school ommunities.