You are here:   Education > Performance-Related Pay Will Be A Débacle
 

2. It's very difficult to judge the impact of one teacher. Even if results were entirely down to everything the teacher did (and clearly they are not), what happens when the teacher is given a new GCSE group from year 10 that has been badly taught for the previous three years? Again, it is impossible to judge. And what of those teachers who don't have any exam groups? Set them targets saying pupils must make two sub-levels of progress by the end of the year and the teacher will simply award those children the results you've demanded. Results are not an accurate way of measuring teacher performance because they can literally just make them up.

3. Pupils are responsible for their results, not teachers. The culture in state schools is already upside down. Visit a good private school, and the children will tell you that they get good grades because they work hard. If they got a bad mark, it's because they were slacking. Kids in the state sector think that when they get a bad mark it is because the teacher wasn't good enough. Paying teachers according to results will only exacerbate an already pernicious and debilitating culture in our schools. 

4. Extra-curricular activities should be valued. A target culture undermines this. Teachers don't just teach their children to pass exams. Or at least they shouldn't. Reward them for reaching certain results and that's exactly what they'll do. Teaching to the test is already a massive problem in state schools. This goes to the heart of what is wrong with PRP. A narrow focus on targets is not what you want in a good school. Why would you want to encourage teachers to think that only a small part of their job (namely three targets) is important?

5. Intrinsic motivation is a good thing. Pay a teacher to take on that extra basketball class and suddenly the intrinsic motivation is gone, and not just from that individual, but from all of your staff. One of the beautiful things about good teachers is the way they give effortlessly for the sake of their pupils. Do we really want a bonus culture in our schools as exists in the City where 100 per cent of bankers believe they are entitled to some sort of bonus and  every year they complain about how it's too small? Welfare recipients may start out feeling grateful towards government for its help, but at some point that turns into a sense of entitlement. Is that what we want for our teachers?

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Paulus
January 25th, 2014
3:01 PM
Why cannot teachers join the real world like every one else poor performance should lead to no pay rise. Why does the public sector think it is different to everyone else others work in teams and work hard. Get real

Charlie South
January 25th, 2014
1:01 AM
If reform Schools were brought back, where teachers were selected and trained to deal with difficult pupils , then it would make it much easier in comprehensive schools.

Oggi
December 29th, 2013
1:12 PM
There is a wealth of research that proves the point Ms Birbalsingh is trying to make, but she does not quote any because this is professional knowledge and she seems to think that good teachers are only about "love". I like good professional teachers and doctors because they have professional knowledge and motivation that go beyond "the love for children" (and patients? or perhaps illnesses?). "Love of the profession and the children" leads to non-evidence based reasoning and emoting rather than reasoning and training, and the hilarious deduction that bad teachers are bad because they don't love children enough, as bad doctors are bad because they don't love patients (or illnesses) enough. That is what a degree in philosophy and French from Oxford gives you. At least she used to be a good French teacher. Senior management in a school are also in charge of professional development. As a teacher being told that I have to love the children more (and perhaps work longer hours for them?) does not help me improve in profession.

Armageddondays
December 21st, 2013
10:12 PM
Having previously thought the author slightly bonkers, congratulations on a well-argued dismissal of PRP. It DOES pretty much back up what the teaching unions have been saying, and points I have made in letters to the TES. Of course, Katharine can't be seen to be somehow backing unions, hence the dig about 'ludicrous claims' in paragraph 3. PRP IS about saving money - George Osborne said as much in his budget statement. It WILL be used by some Heads to exercise personal dislikes and pursue vendettas against some staff, because this already happens, and this gives heads the means to do it so much more effectively. Teachers "earn relatively good money" - depends what it is 'relative' to. My take home salary and disposable income has gone only one way in the last few years - DOWN.

Malcolm McLean
December 19th, 2013
12:12 AM
I agree. It obviously depends on the precise details - who sets the targets, what they say, who determines whether or not they have been met. But performance-related pay is a likely to do harm as good. The sensible policy to to make all schools free schools. If a free school feels that some sort of incentive system is useful, they can introduce it, tailored to their own circumstances. But I don't think many free schools have done so, thinking, probably rightly, that it will damage staff loyalty, teamwork, school atmosphere.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.