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 > What a performance about paying teachers! > Comments

What a performance about paying teachers! : Comments

By Ian Keese, published 23/4/2007

The millions of dollars, spent on politically correct pseudo-issues, could have been spent on improving the education of students.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
One wonders what budget the performance bonuses for all public sector workers, not only teachers, would come from.
Posted by Batch, Monday, 23 April 2007 1:20:43 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 understand that the rate at which an organisation advances mostly depends on how quickly information spreads throughout that organisation. If something is found to work successfully, and information about this is quickly spread to others in that organisation, then more people will begin to use something that is known to successfully work, and the organisation takes a step forward.

However the education system is not working successfully, and is gradually going backwards. Girl’s marks have hardly improved in 30 years, while boy’s marks have declined in that time period.

So another way of paying teachers is to base pay increases on overall student performance in a state or nationally. Benchmark tests are undertaken, and all teachers are paid according to student outcomes. If student’s throughout a state or nationally perform badly, then no teacher gets a pay increase.

This system would encourage overall improvement in student outcomes, would encourage innovation, and would also encourage teachers to communicate between themselves and pass on information of what works successfully and what doesn’t.
Posted by HRS, Monday, 23 April 2007 1:29:24 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
Teachers do not have control over the education of students that is in the hands of the politicians and bureaucrats. It is people like Julie Bishop who over a generation have reduced the relative value of teaching as a profession, vastly inflated the expectations for the profession and failed to match these with real funding increases, and chop and change educational policies with political game playing designed to reinforce a supposed "values" position for Bishop.

Performance pay is not about education it is about Bishop playing to her political base.
Posted by westernred, Monday, 23 April 2007 2:51:46 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
Others than HRS may more fully appreciate that the author has a set of interesting and well-argued points concerning teacher pay, status and results.

As for the solution suggested by HRS, pay for results on standardised tests, there is no assurance that such an intervention will address the cause of declining achievement scores. It is unsafe to assume that the decline is due to teacher performance, when the classrooms are subject to outside influences such as school management styles, school system policies, funding support, technological transfer and and changing family patterns.

Most readers will recognise that focusing on the teacher, and arguing that pay for results on standardised tests will solve the problem of declining test scores, is fatal oversimplification.

I for one did not send my children to school so that they could concentrate on getting top scores on standardised tests.

Particularly in high school, students have the opportunity for a wide range of social involvements. Most of these will relate far more directly to their adult experience than the skill of doing well in a "test environment". Educators address the problem of balancing their students loads with a broad perspective and an understanding of children built over their years of experience.

I would hate to see a narrow focus on training a class to do well on tests, in any school. Very few people in the real world get paid for such a bizarre task. What would all this testing prepare children for, beyond doing the same job? I for one could not admire such a teacher/trainer, or take much interest in their struggles.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Monday, 23 April 2007 3:07:52 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
The long-term cuts to teacher pay have been huge.

Victorian male average weekly ordinary time earnings were $1107.30 ($57,777 pa) in November last year (ABS 6302.0, November 2006).

In 1975, a beginning teacher was paid 118.8 percent of MAOTE. That equates to $68.639. A beginning teacher started this year on $46,127 - a relative cut of $22,512 or 32.8 per cent. To put it another way, a first-year-out teacher needs a salary increase of 48.8 per cent to restore the relative value of that salary to what it was 32 years ago.

In 1975, after seven years a teacher reached the top of the scale and was paid 166.6 per cent. That would be $96,256 at the start of this year, compared with an actual $57,775 - a relative cut of $38,481 or 40 per cent. To put it another way, an eighth-year-out teacher needs a 66.6 per cent salary increase to restore the relative value of that salary to what it was 32 years ago.

The new top level for most teachers, which now takes eleven years to reach, paid $65,414 – a relative cut of $30,842 or 32 per cent. To put it another way, a twelfth-year-out teacher needs a 47.1 per cent salary increase to restore the relative value to that of an eighth-year-out teacher 32 years ago.

In 1975, a senior teacher was paid 189.8 per cent. That would be $109,660 for the highest paid leading teacher today, who was actually paid $78,675 at the start of this year – a relative cut of $30,985 or 28.3 per cent. To put it another way, a leading teacher needs a salary increase of 39.4 per cent to restore the relative value of the senior teacher’s salary to what it was 32 years ago. There was only one level of senior teacher pay. There are six levels for leading teachers and the lowest of these is $68,362 – a relative pay cut of $41,298.

The decline in principal salaries is similar but much more complicated because they are on salary packages with ranges and bands.
Posted by Chris C, Monday, 23 April 2007 5:10:39 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
To Chris C - I am the author of the article (see article for contact details) and I take your point about the Victorian System. Being from NSW I certainly did not know the details of how the levels worked,, but did think that, in theory at least, it provided a model for rewarding the mature classroom teacher. Of course, in the end it comes down to how much money governments are going to invest in education - and teachers in general are so altruistic that they will not let what they are paid divert them from doing their best for students. I will reply to other contributors after a few days. Ian Keese
Posted by Ian K, Monday, 23 April 2007 5:56:22 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
Ian,

The current categories of teachers in Victoria do not mean what you think they mean.

The 1978 Green Paper discussed rewarding the best teachers while keeping them in the classroom. Nothing happened. In 1992, senior teachers were dumped and replaced with three levels of advanced skills teacher. Level 1 pay was trivial, and 2 and 3 were administrative positions. In 1995, ASTs were dumped and leading teachers introduced, again as administrative positions.

In 2000, the category of experienced teacher with responsibility was introduced, supposedly to reward the best classroom teachers. It was another lie. Teachers in my school who had been getting allowances for extra responsibilities had their allowances taken away but not the responsibilities. One showed me his pay slip half-way through the year: he got one cent in back pay as a result of his ETWR “promotion”. Because Victorian schools are funded on a voucher system, the school with the most experienced teachers will have less money for allowances, so pay increments granted for expertise become replacements for what in other schools will be allowances for extra responsibilities.

In 2004, the label “graduate” replaced “beginning”, the label “accomplished” replaced “experienced” and the label “expert” replaced “ETWR”. Nothing real changed. My “expert” teacher responsibility was to ring up the fire brigade to check the extinguishers. Another “expert” teacher’s responsibility was asbestos.

Education is not the only field in which the public is routinely deceived, but the amount of deception I see is huge. Every “career restructure” I experienced in my 33 years was a fraud. Performance pay, which we have already experienced in Victoria in the dreadful Liberal years, will be another fraud to cover up the failure of governments to pay teachers as well as a far poorer society could afford to pay them more than 30 years ago.

In essence, teachers, despite the militant label, are industrially weak and naïve, and will continue to get done over by more powerful forces unless they join and be active in their unions.
Posted by Chris C, Monday, 23 April 2007 8:53:49 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
Teachers should be paid in accordance with ability and performance.We are not going to get good Maths,English or Science Teachers if we don't pay for talent.One size does not fit all.In any school community teachers and pupils know who are putting in the hard yards and who has the talent.Language does not always mirror intellect,but it is a good general guide.Just ask George Bush.

It wasn't so long ago that there were classes of 60 children and more.Now we have all these school counselors,ESL teachers,teachers aids etc and still the standards have fallen because we have forgotten about the art of discipline, especially for those of average ability who really need it.

Pay fewer more to improve standards and the results will be truely astounding.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 23 April 2007 10:53:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sir Vivor
I have heard your response from quite a few other teachers I have talked to regards the decline in student performance, particularly with boys.

It seems to come from some type of handbook. Mention a decline in student marks, and the automatic response is to say that a school is not about learning, but about social interaction, and the school is actually some type of child minding centre, where students do not have to learn anything, but socially interact.

In the case of boys, there is now quite a lot of evidence to show that boys are becoming less interested in the education process (I think the official mindspeak term used by the education departments is “disengagement’), and more boys are dropping out of the education system at a younger age.

So schools have failed to improve student marks in 30 years, and also failed to make students interested in the education process.

I think it is a failure by schools on all fronts.

But now teachers want more money, so that they can continue to produce a system of failure.
Posted by HRS, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 8:08:14 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
HRS says:
"Mention a decline in student marks, and the automatic response is to say that a school is not about learning, but about social interaction, and the school is actually some type of child minding centre, where students do not have to learn anything, but socially interact."

HRS has missed my point as well as Ian Keese's

If HRS read my comment carefully, he/she might agree that I did not argue the idea quoted above.

My opinion is that all schools are about learning, and social interaction is one of the learning areas.

"Free schools", the archtype of which was AS Neill's Summerhill, have gone entirely out of vogue. I don't know if there are any left in Australia.

I would say such schools were extremely biased toward social interaction. Even so, I would give the benefit of the doubt to the teachers who worked there and assume that they were committed to conveying their particular expertise to their students, in the best way they could. And that they saw the core of their jobs much as do other able teachers, in more conventional schools.

The job of a school and its teachers is to provide students with valuable subject content in a safe and supportive environment, and to help students do their best to gain both scholastic and social competencies.

I have explained in my previous comment what I expected, in part, of the schools where my children were educated. If I wanted them to do especially well on achievement tests, I would have sent them to a coaching academy.

An afterthought - perhaps the tax deductions available to tutoring businesses ought to be geared to the standardised test results of their clients' children.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 2:49:23 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
Sir Vivor,

I forgive you for thinking that schools are mostly centres for social interaction, similar to a coffee shop or public park, but it is rather a poor indictment of the education system when so many tutoring centers are springing up like mushrooms throughout so many towns.

These tutoring centers seem to be a major growth industry, perhaps one of the few growth industries left in many towns.

The public now has to pay out large amounts of tax money to run the schools, and then pay out large amounts of money to send their children to tutoring centers, because they don’t learn much in the schools.

Its probably all the fault of “bad parents”, which is a teacher's mindspeak term for mothers and fathers
Posted by HRS, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 4:28:46 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
Author’s reply to comments: Must state categorically to HRS that constant repetition about “Falling standards” does not make it true. In reading, mathematical and scientific literacy Australia ranks in the top five of 30 industrialised countries (OECD, Education at A Glance, 2003). Yes, students who may have left school at 15 some years ago now stay on, and there are more social problems, which make teaching more challenging, but that is a different story. Despite Kevin Donnelly and co there was no golden past (see Stuart McIntyre http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21275638-25132,00.html or my article “Crisis: What Crisis” at http://demed.wordpress.com/

The one thing that I am suggesting is that, subject to clearly specified criteria, it should be possible for teacher’s salaries to continue to rise after the present 9-10 year plateau Such a plateau only exists in four other OECD countries apart from us: Denmark, NZ, England and Scotland. In Korea salary after 15 years is about the same as in Australia at the same time but after that can rise by another 75% to come close to $A100,000. As Chris C points out this must be a REAL increase, not a smoke and mirrors trick as part of a zero-sum game by Treasury, and could only come out by a coalition of teachers, parents and community members putting pressure on a Government.

I have not replied specifically to Sir Vivor, because I feel we are on a similar wavelength.
Posted by Ian K, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 10:18:09 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
Ian K

Besides joining the union, what are teachers' meant to do as far as putting pressure on government?

I'd love to see change.

I am really struggling to make ends meet and feel I must leave the profession because it's not financially viable.

A young student teacher at our school recently confided that he won't end up teaching because it 'doesn't pay enough'. He has a human movements degree, so he's decided to follow that line.

A couple of teachers in my staffroom are working at two jobs.

It works well for couples in double-income households, particularly with avoiding vacation care and before and after school care for their children.

What would your suggestion teachers's do as far as effectively putting pressure on the powers that be, when we are, at the same time, being denigrated as a profession.
Posted by Liz, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 11:29:00 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
Response to Liz:

Yes the big issue is building up respect for the profession in face of denigration. I would consider three approaches:
(1) I would hope (but can’t be sure) that a change in the Federal Government might help. Compare the gushing way Brendan Nelson as Defence Minister approaches the troops in Iraq or Afghanistan with his far less positive attitude to the teaching profession when he was education minister. Julie Bishop was a good Minister for the Ageing but has to my mind been a disappointment in her attacks on the profession. Is she just following the party line?
(2) Teacher’s themselves must be ambassadors for the teaching profession and at barbecues and dinner parties promote the positives of the profession. We are a vital part of the glue that holds society together. Australia’s educational systems are far from perfect, because they are run by imperfect people like ourselves, but we must never retreat from admitting that we do have one of the BEST systems in the world. Similarly we must not divert our energies into “turf wars” between public and private (and I hear disdain from both sides of the divide). Yes, let us work on more equitable funding arrangements, but keep respect for each other – we are both doing essentially the same job.
(3) Consider becoming involved in the Australian College of Educators http://www.austcolled.com.au/. It is the one National organisation that represents educators at all levels and across all sectors and actively promotes the interests of the profession.
Posted by Ian K, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 9:24:57 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
Sorry Ian K, Sir Ivor, Chris C and Co but you all have a socialist view of the world of teaching. Sure, teachers tend to reach the maximum salary after only 9 years or so, but this was because over time Teacher Unions were successful in getting the number of salary "rungs" reduced.

Any principal who spends time about his or her school knows that there are teachers who teach better than others and relate well to the kids. Some just really stand out. They really do. And some stand out because they do a relatively poor job. Why some people baulk at the notion of rewarding better performing teachers is beyond me. And why some baulk at the notion of removing teachers who underperform is also beyond me. After all schools are actually there for the betterment of the students. That is their primary purpose. Too many teachers tend to view schools as being primarily for their benefit.

Rather then admit the obvious and examine a range of ways whereby top performining teachers are rewarded for their efforts, people such as Ian K and others go for the socialist idea whereby if there is to be any extra money it should go to all teachers irrespective of their relative impact on students. Then of course, out comes the "Howard Hater" type bagging of Brendan Nelson and Julie Bishop and the raising of the Labor/Union Party flag.

Nevertheless performance pay is now on the agenda and will happen sooner or later whichever party is in government. I'm for teachers to be on AWA's myself, including the principal, who should be accountable to some local or regional body.
Posted by Sniggid, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 12:18:35 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
Yesterday's wire news stated that this government is the highest taxing government for 30 odd years taking almost 25% of GDP in tax revenues. The federal government is currently allocating the states less of the revenue raised and the article also mentioned that the Federal government threatened to withhold GST from the states for some punishment or other.

What's that got to do with education? The states can only spend money on salaries when the federal government allocates it.

Chris C keeps quoting the golden age of teacher salaries, after Whitlam - when teachers pay matched community expectations of teachers' role in society. Prior to Whitlam getting into power teachers in Victoria didn't earn enough for a male teacher to support his family. In fact, all public servants were scrimping on low salaries that hadn't been increased for a decade. Graduate starting wages for teachers in 1973 were just over $3000 per annum and that was the highest pay because that profession has the least prospects. Private industry paid less but promised better prospects.

I think we are currently in a period of low wages growth ( coupled with massive growth in profit - the greatest share since 1929). It doesn't make sense to work hard to do a job for less pay. If you have to think about supplementing your income to pay living expenses then you clearly aren't able to give your job all of your attention.
Posted by billie, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 12:35:07 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
At this following government web-site, you will find many statistics relating to girl and boy student performance.

http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/policy_initiatives_reviews/key_issues/boys_education/boys_education_research_and_websites.htm

I cannot find any statistic that shows that the performance of boy students have improved over the last 30 years, while there are some statistics that show that girl students have improved in some areas, although only marginally.

Combining the performance of girl and boy students, then teachers should not be given any pay increase for improvements in overall student performance, because there haven’t been any.

As far as Australia being in No5 position on some list of countries, then this has minimal consequence in terms of performance pay for teachers. I once worked in an agricultural industry that was regarded as being the most efficient of its type in the world. It was at No. 1 position in the world (and not just No.5), but we did not receive any type of performance pay or bonus payment because of this.

Instead if we wanted an increase in pay, we had to demonstrably prove that we had increased our productivity. If we could prove this, then we could receive a pay increase. If we wanted a pay increase each and every year, then we had to prove that our productivity and performance had improved from the year before.

If we could not demonstrably prove that we had improved our productivity or performance, then we had absolutely no chance of getting a pay increase.

So teachers should get no increase in pay because of improvements in student performance, because in general the students have not improved their performance. In fact, boys have gone significantly backwards.

I also know that a teacher’s attitude towards boys is the main determinant in the outcome of boy students. So if a teacher is found to have a negative, maligning, feminist or gender prejudiced attitude towards boy students, then the teacher could actually get a cut in pay, and also counselling and disciplinary action is immediately undertaken on that teacher.
Posted by HRS, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 2:56:10 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
' ...if a teacher is found to have a negative, maligning, feminist or gender prejudiced attitude towards boy students, then the teacher could actually get a cut in pay, and also counselling and disciplinary action is immediately undertaken on that teacher.'

I've yet to come across a teacher that is even close to that description. Teachers' tend to care a lot about their students and their achievements.
Posted by Liz, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 8:37:15 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
re HRS' comment:
"At this following government web-site, you will find many statistics relating to girl and boy student performance.

http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/policy_initiatives_reviews/key_issues/boys_education/boys_education_research_and_websites.htm

I cannot find any statistic that shows that the performance of boy students have improved over the last 30 years, while there are some statistics that show that girl students have improved in some areas, although only marginally."

So I guess we're just holding our own near the top of the OECD countries - no improvement.

What does this say in favour of all those tutoring centres springing up around Australian towns? Are they really doing any good for the children, or are they simply helping some parents feel like they're doing the right thing?

And if the buildings the tutoring centres are renting are negatively geared, then the Australian Taxpayer is getting double-dipped yet again for all those deductions, and no evidence of value for money!

I say, no evidence of improved results on standardised tests of the students attending, no tax deductions for the tutoring service!
Posted by Sir Vivor, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 9:31:09 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
Billie,

In June 1963, the equivalent salary for a top of the scale teacher was 210.5 per cent of male average weekly earnings – considerably more relatively speaking than after the Whitlam years.

HRS,

I do not believe that there has been a dramatic decline in educational standards over the last thirty years, but let us accept that there has for the purpose of argument. Let us also accept, purely for the purpose of argument, that this decline is the fault of teachers, rather than any other social factor. Note that over those 30 years, teacher pay has been cut, relative to average earnings, by between 28 and 40 per cent. Does it not make sense that a dramatically declining salary will lead to people with ability choosing another career? Does it not therefore also make sense that restoring salaries to the levels of the past would improve the ability of those joining teaching? Note also that the period of claimed decline in standards is the period in which the centralised system gave way to schools as the private fiefdoms of principals, who now spend budgets as they wish, determine their own staffing levels and leadership positions, choose their own teachers, put their own teachers through time-consuming review processes, pay their own teachers at the salary levels they determine, etc. Does it not seem obvious that this long-term empowering of principals has failed utterly to improve the education of children? Is it not therefore obvious that we should move towards a centralised system in which the education department set standards and procedures for all schools and in which pay levels are set consistently between schools?

Performance pay was used in the nineteenth century, when it was called payment by results. It did not work. It was dropped.
Posted by Chris C, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 10:58:22 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
Liz,

You could nominate one single teacher that has every said anything positive about the male gender, or said anything positive about boys as a group. I have yet to find one.

I have heard directly from teachers describing boys, and I find it incomprehensible how they have ever become a teacher. I have also seen countless statements from feminists attached to the education system maligning and denigrating males, and how they retain their places in the education system is beyond belief.

Sir Vivor,

Most people are paid according to the skills they are using. Teachers may be entitled to a pay increase. It depends on what skills they are using.

For teachers to be awarded a pay increase based on performance, then they have to increase their performance. Their increase in performance has to be measurable, because the pay increase is measurable.

The education system has to be sustainable. It costs money to educate a child, and when that child reaches adulthood, they have to be able to pay the money back in some form of tax. If that is not done, then the education system becomes non-sustainable.

If teachers want a pay increase, then this adds costs to education, so teachers would have to state how that money is going to be paid back
Posted by HRS, Friday, 27 April 2007 8:29:42 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 am afraid that Sniggid, by throwing around labels like “socialist view of the world” and “Labor/Union Party Flag” only muddies the waters and leads him to not reading what I actually wrote in my last post :

”The one thing that I am suggesting is that, SUBJECT TO CLEARLY SPECIFIED CRITERIA, it should be possible for teacher’s salaries to continue to rise after the present 9-10 year plateau.” i.e I am actually arguing for performance pay for the best teachers

I have been involved for two years in the Quality Teaching Awards Program in NSW (link in original article) where I have been assessing teachers who are the best of the best. This is done by a portfolio, and a day school visit involving lesson observations, interviews with parents, students, school executive and teacher. The best summation has come from the students themselves and the whole system is a tried model for some form of performance pay.

I criticised specific policies of both Nelson and Bishop, but I would probably do the same with the Labor Party Policy if I had any idea what its policy was. And while Unions, whether of Public or Independent School Teachers play an important role in a Democratic Society, they are only one of many stakeholders in a good education system.

I understand the concerns by HRS and Sir Vivor about how this will be financed, but we must remember two things:

(1) All money Governments spend is OUR money, and if we think it could be better spent we should say so. My recommendation is to reduce the duplication of a National Education Body that seems to be running a war against State Bodies and use that money saved on Bureaucrats to reward the outstanding dedicated teacher at the chalk face. (That doesn’t seem socialist clap-trap to me)

(2) The benefits to a society of quality teaching in terms of economic prosperity and social harmony are both obvious but at the same time very complex to characterise because they are so widespread and so diverse.

Ian Keese
Posted by Ian K, Friday, 27 April 2007 9:44:01 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
Ian K,
Your Quality Teaching Awards system does seem a move in the right direction, for a teacher to be awarded a pay increase over and above their base salary.

The next step would be to identify what methods the “best of the best” teachers actually use, and then to teach other teachers to use those methods also. Once the other teachers are using those methods, then they could get a pay increase. That would be a part of continuous improvement.

I also think that teachers saying that they improve society is very vague and indefinite. In many ways are society is declining. For example, I have heard recently that Australia now has the highest rate of youth suicide in the Western world, and most of these suicides are boys.

Should teachers get a pay increase because of that? I don’t think so, because at least some of that could be because of teacher’s attitudes towards the boys.

So the idea that teachers improve society is too indefinite to get a pay increase
Posted by HRS, Saturday, 28 April 2007 10:42:43 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
re HRS's comment:
"Most people are paid according to the skills they are using. Teachers may be entitled to a pay increase. It depends on what skills they are using."

I would prefer to see teachers who are "the best of the best" moved into a better-paid classroom mentoring and teaching role among other teachers, but of course there is no assurance that someone who gets "superior results" with their class will be an effective mentor or educator or trainer for other teachers.

And that's without examining what any one person calls "superior results".

I'm satisfied that teachers who are not "the best of the best", but who are "good enough"; teachers who have the skills required to organise and deliver content to a class over the school year, and to fairly measure the results of their efforts; can benefit from the collegiality of a shared classroom, and can become better trainers and educators. I expect that most teachers would appreciate the opportunity to make their professional lives more productive and rewarding, whatever their skills, talents and gifts.

But I am not about to hold my breath until any of these "good enough" and "best of the best" teachers get the wages and increments which are commensurate with their ability and responsibility; particularly with the current pattern of coupling between federal and state funding for human services.

As Ian Keese has intimated, the flow of federal funds to the states is far too vulnerable to political manipulation.

A federally mandated pay system which shared a shrinking pie among teachers who got paid according to their skills strikes me as very unfair. As it is, the pie is shrinking, and that's bad enough.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Saturday, 28 April 2007 12:43:06 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
Thanks to HRS and Sir Vivor (or ‘Survivor’?) for carrying on the conversation at an intelligent level (as well as Liz and Chris earlier) but I think it is about time I withdrew from this particular discussion. I have enjoyed it, but there is a life outside the computer screen. Hopefully I will be able to contribute to On Line Opinion again at some later stage

However I want to agree with HRS that there is a problem with boys, which he may have experienced either personally or through the experiences of others. The underlying problem is overall the education system is geared to girls – who are in general terms (because there are always exceptions) organised, neat, wanting to please and not to boys – in general terms, erratic, untidy, independent. As I teacher I knew because I was one of those boys –and one factor in my becoming a teacher was because I felt things could be a lot better. I have also seen the (rare) female teacher, whose problems with adult males who turned out to be bastards is reflected in her becoming obsessed with the negative behaviours or boys in her class

One of the qualities of the outstanding teacher, male and especially female, is a high level of self-reflection and a belief that both boys and girls have outstanding qualities to offer society if these can be developed.

I also agree that “improving society” in a future sense is vague, but one can see evidence within the school when the good teacher turns a “problem” into a “success”.

If anyone wants to continue this discussion beyond On Line Opinion, I have given an email contact in my original article and I have a website with other articles: http://demed.wordpress.com/

Ian Keese
Posted by Ian K, Saturday, 28 April 2007 1:50:20 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
Ken

I think it's disappointing that you made the generalised comment:

'I have also seen the (rare) female teacher, whose problems with adult males who turned out to be bastards is reflected in her becoming obsessed with the negative behaviours or boys in her class'

Teachers, as professionals, who are Mothers of boys and love their husbands, and those who are not married or Mothers, tend to take into consideration that many boys find it difficult to sit still in a classroom for any length of time (and many girls for that matter), and plan their lessons to include activities that allow them to move about the classroom or engage in tactile experiences.

I think the comments made by yourself and HRS indicate sexist attitudes towards women. Don't blame us for an education system designed and underfunded by men.
Posted by Liz, Saturday, 28 April 2007 6:52:57 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
Ian K,

You seem to think that boys are “erratic, untidy, independent. “, but girls are “organised, neat, wanting to please”.

The remarks about boys are rather negative, but if teachers are negative towards boys, then teachers are unlikely to get positive results from the boys.

So in reality, every time a teacher is negative towards boys, it represents a loss in potential performance pay for the teachers, because the teachers are unlikely to get improved performance from the boy students.

Liz,
I’m sorry you think I’m sexist, but could you please explain how I’ve been sexist.

“Don't blame us for an education system designed and underfunded by men.”

Well. This is rather negative about the male gender.

It would be interesting to know how women would design and fund the education system, as you seem to think that women are better than men, (or maybe you’re just being sexist.).

By my calculations, only 22.5% of current trainee teachers are male, so the education system will mainly be run by women in the future, so please carry out some mindspeak, and say how woman are going to run the education system, to bring about improved performance of girl and boy students.

Could you also nominate one single teacher that has every said anything positive about the male gender, or ever said anything positive about boys as a group. I have yet to find one (and this now includes Ian K, and a poster called Liz).
Posted by HRS, Sunday, 29 April 2007 6:38:25 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
Sniggid,

When I began teaching in 1974, there was a 14-point scale and four-year trained teachers began on step 7, thus reaching the top step in seven years. The VSTA gained two extra steps, disproving your claim that unions have reduced the number of steps in the salary scale. There are now 12 steps for four-year trained teachers, further evidence that the union – in Victoria at least – has not reduced the number of steps.

I cannot remember meeting even one teacher who thought schools were “primarily for their benefit”.

The critics of the education say that things have got worse over the past thirty years. This corresponds with the period in which teachers suffered a relative pay cut of 28-40 per cent. Thirty years ago, pay increments were automatic, staffing was centralised and schools worked democratically. As we have moved in the direction the critics want, things have in their eyes got worse. That sounds like an argument for going back to what we had – when principals and teachers could focus on education, not the bureaucratic superstructure that is about to have another floor added to it.

Studies of AWAs show that they are simply devices for making working conditions worse. In the hands of the current crop of Victorian principals, they would be used to add another level of exploitation of teachers.

HRS,

I know lots of teachers who have positive things to say about boys and who work well with them. It would be wrong of me to name them on a public forum; nor is there any point as they are not public figures, just people I have worked with who do a good job despite the poor resourcing, the poor leadership and the continual abuse that their profession faces.

The feminisation of teaching that worries you is arguably a direct result of the pay cuts of the last thirty years. If you want more male teachers, you will have to pay for them.
Posted by Chris C, Sunday, 29 April 2007 11:53:25 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
Chris C,
No organisation should be paying someone extra money to develop a better attitude. If they have not got a good enough attitude, then they get counselling, disciplinary action, perhaps a drop in pay, and perhaps the sack.

I am very concerned about the feminisation of the education system. So many of these feminists do not have a very good attitude regards men, and they are likely to develop a very poor attitude regards boys also, where boys will be thought of as being defective because they are male.

Perhaps this is another reason why benchmark tests have to be undertaken in nearly all schools everywhere, to ensure boys are not forgotten about.

I already know one school where boys have been forgotten about. At that school, they talk in terms of students and boys, so boys are no longer regarded as being students.
Posted by HRS, Sunday, 29 April 2007 5:22:28 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've heard of a 'feminization of education' theory. It's a theory, amongst many theories circulating on teachers'. Another is the 'crisis in education' theory. There is no crisis. Boys are doing well. Girls are doing well. Some boys and some girls are not doing well. These students are primarily from lower socioeconomic or ESL backgrounds.

My own experience, and given I'm a teacher in a high school and have worked in a number of high schools, is that the sex of the teacher is not what determines the success of male students, or female students for that matter.

Boys are frequently restless in a classroom. Stating the case is not demonstrative of a bad attitude towards males. It just means teachers' are aware that some boys' find classrooms difficult places to be in. We take that into consideration with our planning.

At the end of the day, surely a parent wants the best teacher for their child, not just a male teacher.

HRS, could you please give a reference for that statistic. In primary school, the ratio of female to male teachers' is quite significant. In high school, male teachers' are well represented.

Males are predominantly in policy making, administrative positiions. I'm not saying that women would do a better job. But we're just not in those positions. So if you're going to rant about constructed 'crisis' and 'feminization of education' theories, then don't blame female teachers'.

If you need to point a finger at someone for your perceived issues in education, why not point the finger at *some* parents?
Posted by Liz, Sunday, 29 April 2007 8:02:41 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
HRS: "Could you also nominate one single teacher that has every said anything positive about the male gender, or ever said anything positive about boys as a group."

I'll nominate my partner, who has taught for more than 20 years at primary and secondary levels in the NSW public system. She rather likes men (me in particular) and often has good things to say about the boys she teaches.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 29 April 2007 8:29:53 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
CJ

I also don't have problems with boys.

I find that when there are issues with boys, it's usually some brawl out in the playground. And that's not directed at teachers'. We just have to break it up so they don't kill each other.

Sometimes the girls can get quite nasty, particularly towards other girls and female teachers.
Posted by Liz, Sunday, 29 April 2007 10:34:10 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
HRS:

My two sons' teachers, male and female, were with one exception, "good enough", and often better. The exception was male. That person evidently expected my younger son to be as compliant, considerate and positively helpful as my older son. His feelings toward #2 were very plain to me, and very disappointing.

That is water under the bridge; while I wish it hadn't happened that way, while I don't consider any attributable outcome of #2's experience with teacher X to be the best of all possible worlds, #2 and I have moved on from that time and place.

I am hoping the teacher has done likewise, to the benefit of other students who are "marching to the beat of a distant drummer".
Posted by Sir Vivor, Monday, 30 April 2007 10:43:39 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
Liz,

The statistic you have requested comes from here

http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/E635D70E-EB9D-4168-A382-3A2D093CEB34/4589/educating_boys.pdf

In 2002, there were 9739 male trainee teachers from a total of 43185, which is about 22.5 %.

The PDF file also contains statistics such as

“While girls’ performance in literacy results has remained relatively stable over the past 25 years, overall, boys’ results have fallen to a significant degree.

In NSW, the difference between boys’ and girls’ average Tertiary Entrance Score rose from 0.6 marks in 1981 to 19.4 marks in 1996.”

I don’t think such statistics indicate that boys are doing “well”, and I don’t think such statistics warrant an increase in performance pay for teachers.

I think your suggestion that it is socio-economic background or “parents” that is causing a decline in boys education seems to come from some handbook, as I have heard it repeatedly from teachers. However it is rather suspect, because the majority of boys and girls go to co-ed schools and would be coming from the same socio-economic background, and boys and girls come from the same parents. There is not one set of parents for girls, and another set for boys.

I have noticed that if a student does well, a teacher will normally attribute this to themselves, but if a student does badly, then of course this is attributed to the student’s parents (and never the other way around).

But you still have not said how women are going to change the education system (as you seem to have seem to have some type of problem with men, and believe "men" are the cause of problems in the education system), so I’m still waiting to hear that.

CJ Morgan
I wouldn’t mind hearing what good things at least one teacher has to say about boys or men.

I’m a male, and I get rather insulted whenever I hear a teacher say that boys are erratic, lazy, immature etc, which are the only type of comments I personally have ever heard a teacher say about boys.
Posted by HRS, Monday, 30 April 2007 4:13:19 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
HRS - we live in a small town, so I tend to know who the kids are, so she'll say something like 'Freddy's a brilliant little artist', or 'Johnny really comes out of himself when he's onstage' or whatever, when we bump into them and/or their families, or they come into our business. As for men, in addition to me, she seems to be somewhat enthusiastic about such blokes as Johnny Depp, George Clooney and certain tennis players, undoubtedly among many others :)

I have a solution for you HRS - as you seem to know more about teaching than teachers do, why don't you get yourself a teaching qualification and become part of the solution to the problems you perceive? We certainly need more male teachers, particularly those with definite ideas about how to improve, assess and reward performance in teaching.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 30 April 2007 9:33:22 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 intended withdrawing from the debate when it moved of the original topic but I do want to support Liz, Chris and CJ Morgan in trying to convince HRS that things are not as simple as he/she appears to think.

Could I put it as a series of propositions, which to me seem quite reasonable:

(1) While there is almost infinite variation in the individual characteristics of males and females, boys as a GROUP and girls as a GROUP have different characteristics and drives. Neither groups’ characteristics are better or worse, and the best outcomes are achieved when one is balanced by the other.

(2) Sitting 30 adolescents at desks in a small room for over five hours a day is a very ARTIFICIAL environment, which both boys and girls have to adapt to. Adolescent boys find this difficult, but this resistance is an ESSENTIAL part of them finding their self identity.

(3) Good teaching is about seeing the potential of each student, irrespective of their gender, and developing his or her talents. Male AND female teachers are equally devoted to this process.

(4) Teaching is, fortunately, a caring profession carried out by humans. As humans there are a range of abilities among them, and there is no end of things that can be done better, but I am proud to be associated with the great majority of them.

Ian Keese
Posted by Ian K, Monday, 30 April 2007 10:28:52 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
CJ Morgan,
I will say something positive about the male gender and education. Men built every school I am aware of, and they have funded most schools also, as men pay about 70% of personal income tax.

I will say something positive about boys. They grow up to be men.

But what I do know about education leads me to believe that males now have very little future in education. There are too many teachers like Liz, who don’t like men in the education system.

So that is why I am interested in Liz’s ideas on how she would design and also fund the education system to improve student performance, (although she hasn’t actually given much tangible information regards this as yet).

Ian K,
I think you will find that boys will not be able to adequately find their identity at a school, if there are very few male teachers at the school.

I have had experience in developing training programs for young men doing apprenticeships, and I think too many of them have rejected their schools. This will be a problem in the future, as many companies now expect their tradesmen to have associate diplomas, (and degrees if possible). Just having a certificate is no longer sufficient. Also to compete with other countries for trade, tradesmen will have to have more and more skills, and to get those skills, they will have to go back to school and to higher education.

Schools are becoming too anti-male, and the lower retention rates, and the disengagement, and the rejection of the education system by so many boys will become a real problem for this country
Posted by HRS, Monday, 30 April 2007 11:57:53 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
HRS I don't think that the retention rate for boys is falling. There are more boys completing year 12 than there were 30 years ago. However there are also more girls completing year 12 than 30 years ago. Today you probably find that more girls finish year 12 than boys. Is that a problem?

Boys who don't complete school have more opportunities than girls who don't finish school. Boys may start apprenticeships and leave school before completing year 12 but unless a girl wants to work in a factory, hairdressing or sex industry she must complete year 12.

As Ian K said, teenage boys test their boundaries and authority and as a result of testing authority they may be wasting their time, other students time, endangering other students and be asked to leave the school. Often that defiant behaviour mirrors their parent's attitudes or their father's youthful behaviours. Sometimes the youth's wilful behaviours come from nowhere.

And through the whole workforce I observe that women always have more formal educational qualifications for a position than the men they compete against.
Posted by billie, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 10:40:47 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
Further to comments above about positive comments about boys - my Mum is a teacher, and over the many years of her talking about various students, only two have stuck in my mind where she has gone well above and beyond - and they were both for boys.

1) A student of hers developed a brain tumor and had to have a major and dangerous operation. Prior to the operation, when he was at home, my mum brought this boy gifts to perk him up (I remember a cricket magazine) and his homework to catch up on so he didn't get too far behind, and we as a family went around to his parent's house, on the weekend, to chat to him and his family. She still occasionally keeps in touch with this boy's family, who she did not have a prior relationship with until he became ill.

2) A young boy (about seven-ish) came into her class - he was very disruptive and erratic, and it took a long time to figure what was going on. Turns out this kid had an awful life, sexually abused by an uncle, mother suicided, now living in foster care. My mum went along as a witness at a court hearing, and kept in touch with the boy later, even giving him her home number in case he needed someone to talk to after he left her school.

Now, both of these were extraordinary circumstances, but surely they demonstrate that teachers (and yes, my Mum is a good 'Leading' Teacher, but certainly not so above and beyond to be unusual) really do CARE for their students, and are not going "ooh boys are icky".

Truly, I believe that the best way to get more people GOING into and STAYING in teaching is to massively up the base pay. Sure, put performance targets in there as well, but don't try and screw over people who are already doing a pretty damn good job and being paid below market rates to do really important work.
Posted by Laurie, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 12:59:56 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
Billie,
I have already heard your comments about boys from different teachers in the past (and almost word for word).

All your comments about boys have been typically negative and denigrating of boys, (eg. wasting their time, other students time, endangering other students and be asked to leave the school, defiant behaviour, wilful behaviours etc).

You have said nothing positive about boys, and if you are a teacher, you will likely get negative results from the boys in return.

I also think that you do not want boys in the education system, as you choose to talk negatively of boys. Liz is a teacher, and it seems that she does not want men in the education system. That is my concern regards the feminisation of the education system. It eventually becomes an incestuous and gender-prejudiced system.

Like Liz, you also have not given any tangible or constructive ideas on how to improve student performance. You have simply maligned and denigrated boys. Congratulations.

Laurie,
If teachers have to be paid more money to attract better teachers into the system, then it means that the teachers currently in the system may not be suitable.

So teachers currently in the system could be paid more money, but the teachers currently in the system would also have to re-apply for their jobs before they get any extra money.

Teachers are there to teach, and considering the decline in boy student performance, then a teacher’s attitudes towards boy students (or the male gender) would have to be a primary criteria in deciding whether or not a teacher is reemployed at a higher wage, or reemployed at all.
Posted by HRS, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 4:40:18 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
OK, I get it now. Someone's just a tad obsessed about gender and/or feminism, and has been steering the thread in that direction at every opportunity. Now that I I've read back through the thread, it seems pretty obvious that HRS has some kind of bee in his or her bonnet.

Sorry HRS, I thought this was a discussion about better ways of rewarding our teachers for the excellent work that they do. I think I might leave you to it - whatever it is that you're trying to say.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 7:46:23 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
HRS

I haven't said half the things you've said I've said.

I realise I'm creating a tremendous inconvenience to you by not saying these things you would like me to have said, and therefore denying you an opportunity to participate in a 'meaningful' debate, in which you can lecture us dastardly female teachers' on the errors of our ways.

A solutionl could be to create a fictitious character on OLO. Then you can argue your arguments with a more obliging 'poster'.
Posted by Liz, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 8:01:14 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
CJ Morgan,
In every industry I have been in, you only get performance pay if you improve your performance.

When analysing the situation, and boys and girls marks are added together, then teachers have not improved the performance of students in 30 years. You can try and find the statistics to show that they have.

So why should teachers be awarded a pay increase for not improving the performance of students?

Liz,
You have said that men have created problems in the education system.

That is: -
“Don't blame us for an education system designed and underfunded by men”.

As a teacher, this was a very sexist, very feminist, and totally non-professional thing to say, but you have had the opportunity of saying how women would design and fund the education system, and to date you have not given that information.

You have maligned the men currently in the education system. That is a fact, and I’m finding it quite typical that teachers malign males. But you have not said how women would design and fund the education system.
Posted by HRS, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 12:05:48 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
Enjoy your rant HRS
Posted by Liz, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 9:39:12 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
Liz,
As a professional, caring and non-sexist teacher, you have written:-
"Don't blame us for an education system designed and underfunded by men”.

So the obvious question is "How will women design and fund the education system?"

So far you haven't given an answer, and I'm begining to wonder if its some type of secret, that can only be talked about amongst female teachers.
Posted by HRS, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 10:34:24 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
Back to performance pay . . .
The best pay policy for professionals such as teachers:
* pay them well
* pay them fairly (including, in part, according to a fair notion of 'merit')
* manage the payment system so that pay the last thing on teachers' minds - intrinsic motivation should predominate.
The Bishop plans are based on extrinsic motivation. Along with the underminnig of collegiality, this is sure to be quite counter-productive.
cheers
Barbara Preston
Posted by BarbaraP, Thursday, 3 May 2007 12:39:02 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
Barbra P
Your formula does not include student performance.

Paying someone extra money does not guarantee an increase in their performance. Paying teachers extra money does not necessarily mean that the students will improve their performance, and the students have to improve their performance, because both primary school and secondary school students have not improved their performance in many years.

So another systems is:-
- Benchmark the student performance.
- Pay the teachers performance pay if (and only if) student performance increases.
- Carry out retraining and disciplinary action for the teachers if student performance declines (eg. Discipline teachers for maligning boy students, discipline teachers for using parents as scapegoats to hide their own failings etc.)

There could also be disciplinary action on teachers like Liz, who malign men, but won’t give out information or answer questions.
Posted by HRS, Thursday, 3 May 2007 10:29:23 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
HRS - your formula is for massive teacher shortages - who with any professional/vocational commitment to teaching would want to be a teacher? Who with high general ability but not great vocational commitment to teaching would want to work in such a system when they could get much more pay elsewhere - and where there is respect for them as professionals. (Where are the arguments that local GPs should be paid on performance measured by direct patient outcomes on an individual basis??)
cheers
BP
Posted by BarbaraP, Thursday, 3 May 2007 11:37:01 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
Getting back to the original article...

First, you say that performance pay is unworkable and in the next breath you say it can be implemented to give senior teachers higher pay.

That's an illogical position. Even you are for performance pay or you are not.

If you are for it, then you must accept that the poorer teachers will be paid less than the better ones.
Posted by grn, Thursday, 3 May 2007 2:54:06 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
Barbara P,

You still have not mentioned the students.

You seem to be suggesting that teachers should be paid more so that they will get a warm and fuzzy feeling. Most people get a warm and fuzzy feeling if they are paid more, but the normal steps are :-

1/ someone increases their performance or productivity,
2/ they get performance pay or some type of bonus for increasing their performance or productivity,
3/ then they get a warm and fuzzy feeling.

I don’t think you can leave out step 1.

So teachers would have to increase student performance before teachers get performance pay.

I also see no problems in retraining or disciplining teachers for maligning boys, using parents as scapegoats, or not giving information or answering questions etc. Anyone else in any other industry would receive retraining or disciplinary action if they did such things.
Posted by HRS, Sunday, 6 May 2007 11:13:45 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
HRS perhaps this letter from The Age yesterday sums up many teachers' position . . . . .

Good schooling is a partnership

RE "Parents pay for help as private schools fail test" (The Age, 4/5). Thank you for enrolling your child at our school. Children's educational achievement depends on a variety of factors: their native ability as measured by an intelligence test, as well as their motivation. Successful students must feel safe and comfortable in their family environment. They must have proper health and wellbeing.

All of these are outside our control. We undertake to provide children with the opportunity to learn, dedicated and motivated teaching staff, equipment, materials and a safe, encouraging environment. Over the coming six years, you entrust your child to our care for less than 25 per cent of his/her waking time. We look forward to our partnership together to nurture his/her education.

Lindsay J. Smith, Malvern East
Posted by billie, Sunday, 6 May 2007 11:17:44 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
Billie,
If that was a school policy, then it seems like a rhetoric type policy to me, with nothing substantial in it.

It could read:- At this school, the teachers aim to improve the academic performance of your child.

Or better still:- At this school, the teachers will improve the academic performance of your child.

If the academic performance of the children in the school does improve in time, then the teachers get performance pay.
Posted by HRS, Monday, 7 May 2007 10:43:37 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
If any kind of extra performance pay is to exist (and it does already to some small measure, certainly in the Victorian system), then you need to dramatically boost teacher's base salary anyway.

Yes, yes, HRS- "OOH NO BUT THEY HAVN'T DONE ANYTHING TO DESERVE IT!" Well, I disagree. They certainly do deserve it - I cannot think of any other profession, with the qualifications required by teaching (i.e. four year university), which have had a diminishing of their real, actual purchasing power, salary over the years.

Teachers require higher pay scales for simply turning up and doing the job which, by and large, they do pretty damn well.

Then, once teachers are being paid comparable to their skills and qualifications and dedication, can we add on top a degree of outcomes-dependent money.

But even then, its a tricky thing, and it would be innappropriate to tie it to individual student performance - many times you'll see a kid go through a period of 'consolidation' - everything they've learnt so far starts to actually 'settle in' and make sense, and then all of a sudden they'll make a huge leap forward. The tricky thing about this is that it might have been the work of teacher A who helped clarify the ideas which lead to consolidation, but the kid's leap forward occurs under teacher B's watch, so they get the benefit. Very difficult.
Posted by Laurie, Monday, 7 May 2007 5:07:10 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. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

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