Lessons from Blair for National and Labour
July 29th, 2011 at 12:50 pm by David FarrarThis week’s column at NZ Herald:
I think the time has come where National can do better than be more competent and pleasant managers of Labour’s health, education and welfare systems. The Government is thankfully looking seriously at reforming the welfare system, but the education system for example badly needs a decentralised performance pay system for teachers. Will National be content with national standards (which are entirely laudable), or will they propose more substantive reforms?
I also nominate the Labour MP whom I think could make the most credible advocate of reform.
Related posts:
- Labour will keep national standards
- Tony Blair
- Winning a third term for National – Part I
- The politics of welfare
July 29th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Lessons from the fraud who broke Britain? No thank you.
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
DPF, you offer nothing more than a ‘change for the sake of change’ argument.
Surely any change or reform should be to address real issues and the most pressing for NZ at the moment are the size of the deficit and a lack of employment.
Maybe reforming the welfare system might help with the deficit but a ‘de-centralised performance pay system for teachers’ what issue is that addressing? Your dislike of teachers unions?
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
YesWeDid – it is so sad I even have to answer this. There is a convergence of research that the one factor which can make the biggest difference to educational achievement is the teacher – not the school, not the principal, not the syllabus, not the exams – the teacher.
Yet we have a system where the worst performing teachers are basically paid exactly the same same at the best teachers. Madness.
I want a system where a school principal can pay a great teacher say $120,000 a year and pay a less effective teacher $40,000.
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
like we need to be listening to that fraud
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
DPF – great to see you in the trenches today. Your 1:10 is absolutely 100% on target. Problem is that the far left regard education as a place to narrow thinking and indoctrinate kids, not a place to educated their minds to consider wider possibilities. Stalin was particulatly hot on this. Having an outbreak of teaching excellence would be a huge problem for the militant/academic socialists, hence the push back against any notion of performance measurement.
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
@krazykiwi – we already have ‘an outbreak of teaching excellence’, our eduction system regularly rates in the top few in the world.
All the teachers I’ve met are committed and passionate about education and have a much wider range of political views than this ‘socialist education’ meme you and others on this site push.
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 1:25 pm
If they’re already scared, I don’t see why it would be necessary to send Phil Goff charging at them. Seems like it would only make the problem worse.
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 1:28 pm
YWD – teachers are not the education system, and vice-versa. BTW, I’ve chaired a school BOT and Mrs KK is a life-long teacher and now teacher of teachers around NZ. Some of the in-classroom incompetence she encounters would leave most people speechless. Of course there are stars too. But they’re paid the same as the others. Which is a problem. A very big problem that so many of you want to see persist.
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
YWD
Most comments here routinely ignore the facts that we have excellent teachers and overall a very good education system. There is a long tradition in NZ though of bashing teachers, especially when they have the temerity to join unions and act together for better pay and conditions.
I’m sure DPF would like an arrangement where his kids get the $120,000 teacher and the $40,000 teacher gets sent to South Auckland or Porirua East.
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
So if Helen had changed the party’s name to New Labour, we might have seen a different result here too at the last election? If you seriously think that, then Brian Edwars is correct – most of the electorate are indeed thick.
Tony Blair got unceremoniously dumped…it’s strange you didn’t mention that. Nor that he went to war based on a lie and subsequently tens of thousands of civilians paid the ultimate price for such a decision. Still I imagine he sleeps well – so what if a lot of ragheads died needlessly, eh.
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
“…and portray Labour as the party of genuine reform willing to tackle scared cows such as performance pay for teachers.”
Well, seeing as Labour are in Opposition, they aren’t in a position to tackle any sacred cows. But how is the PM doing in this regard, David?
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
@krazykiwi – my wife is also a teacher and this ‘paid the same’ thing is just plain wrong, good teachers rise up the ranks to become senior teachers, heads of sections of the schools, they take on management units etc.
There is no doubt if you have a poor teacher in a school there is little that can be done to remove them and some sort of limited tenure might work.
However I really can’t see how performance pay as DPF wants would work in practice. No teacher would want the difficult kids or the bad schools and any evaluation process would be highly subjective.
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
YWD, I tend to agree with you . Before we have performance pay for teachers, we should have performance pay for MPs. And each time an MP tells a lie, they get fined? John Key’s salary would be severely depleted by now….
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
ross
Yes, why do we only get demands for performance pay for teachers?
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
YWD – the ‘paid the same’ thing relates to two teachers, teaching the same level, with the same experience & qualifications. One is useless and gets paid $x. The other is a star and gets paid $x. It’s wrong. No amount to postulating about how difficult pay-for-performance might be to implement is enough justification for the status quo.
Completely agree on the tenure point. Perhaps the first step in pay-for-performance is ensuring that poor performance translates into no pay (ie please try another occupation). Mrs kk regularly cites cases where an ‘experienced’ teacher on high wages is lazy and incompetent, while a more novice teacher is eager, getting great results but is paid less. The ‘experienced’ one should be shown the door in many cases.
We’re not doing enough to create an environment where kids become fascinated with knowledge and its application. The physical, commercial and academic structure of schooling needs to be revamped from what amounts to a 100 year old system, into something that befits the 21st century.
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
We don’t. It’s an entirely natural concept, one that the militant teacher unions push back on.
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
DPF admits he has an obsession with performance pay for teachers.
He doesn’t seem to have the same obsession with performance pay for nurses, police, military
I wonder why that is?
[DPF: The obsession is to stop kids leaving school unable to read or write. No apologies for being passionate about that. I also support performance pay for nurses, Police and military. I'd have them all on individual contract paid whatever they can get from their employer]
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 2:05 pm
“No teacher would want the difficult kids or the bad schools and any evaluation process would be highly subjective.”
You are presupposing that performance standards will be measured by attainment of excellence or otherwise by students. I disagree.
Performance standards can be designed to cater for and promote good teachers in what would otherwise be poor performing schools. In fact, an appropriate performance based pay might place greater emphasis on achievement in schools that have, historically, struggled than in schools which have, historically, performed well.
Your logic in suggesting that any evaluation process would be highly subjective appears flawed. Any evaluation process must be objective. One danger of performance pay for the teachers is, I accept, the potential for subjective influence. There is no doubt in my mind that some boards of trustees and some principals will be incapable of implementing such a system objectively. It does not follow from that fact that it is impossible to design objective, measurable standards.
Logistically, introducing performance pay will be very difficult to design and implement. That is very much attributable to the entrenched attitude that has prevailed in the education system for as long as I can remember. The attitude is “one suit fits all”. Sure, there are some adjustments as far as funding for different deciles, special needs etc but just like teacher remuneration, the system is very much straitjacketed. For this to change their needs to be a complete paradigm change.
Performance standards should differ from school to school in order to reflect local values (so long as they are relevant and reasonable), prevailing learning difficulties as well as educational advancement.
I suspect that it would be necessary to have some form of external oversight (preferably not ministerial) which could take place in the form of some form of a localised review authority chaired by a retired principal, perhaps the principal of a neighbouring school, a retired board member or someone capable of casting an objective eye over the process.
I was struck by the fallacy of the union opposition to performance pay at the time of the bulk funding for teachers. It was vehemently opposed because, among other things, it would discourage cooperative teaching. The specific example was that a very good teacher would decline to share ideas with other teachers in order to secure the brownie points. In the real world, somebody who does that is not a good teacher or employee. Having said that, as I have pointed out before, the system is potentially open to abuse primarily because, like every sector, people are promoted beyond their level of competence. I am not convinced however that these pitfalls are reasons not to investigate and to proceed.
Many teachers, especially the good ones, get a great deal of job satisfaction without necessarily receiving the rewards that they deserve. People work better when incentivised. It is time the teachers unions appreciated that.
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
kk
DPF’s scenario is just utter nonsense. I think we can assume that the government is not interested in any significant increase in the overall amount of money paid to teachers: I mean they are only people of national significance, not roads.
If we were to take an average salary of $60,000 at present, how would we divide the cake to pay ‘stars’ $120,000 and ‘deadbeats’ $40,000. For everyone put in star status, you would need to have 5 or 6 deadbeats. Now, while it might make sense for the teaching profession to mirror the growing inequalities in our society, I’m not convinced that this would be a sound educational measure.
[DPF: You should not assume things. If we had performance pay for teachers, I would strongly advocate more money for teachers salaries. But not when the crap teachers get just as much as the great ones]
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
Length of service and qualifications are the ONLY factors that determine the pay rate of a teacher. While teachers can be awarded units above their union determined pay rate, this is only done for extra duties and responsibilities and sometimes for positions that are difficult to fill, never for performance. Teachers that do not perform cannot be fired, only for gross incompetence, but can sometimes be enticed to move on but only with a good reference. Some underperforming (bad) teachers move from school to school. Most underperforming teachers are tolerated as there is just no way can a Board afford to fire them and risk a court case and bad publicity.
Vote:While difficult, something needs to change.
I have seen many good teachers disillusioned with the system.
July 29th, 2011 at 2:11 pm
mm – you’re struggling to use maths to convey why something isn’t possible. Let’s get back to basics. Do you agree with the principle that good teachers deserve to be paid more than poor teachers?
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
mm
Vote:I do not think anyone is suggesting that the basic scales will differ. I envisage that performance incentives will be allocated by discretionary units (with a monetary value) which can be distributed according to performance standards. That, at least, would be my initial suggestion until the concept of performance pay gained traction. I do agree with you that in order to make the thing float, the government will have to invest money. The extent of investment would obviously be based on a cost/benefit analysis and I have very little doubt that it would be justifiable.
July 29th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Other_Andy: “Length of service and qualifications are the ONLY factors that determine the pay rate of a teacher.”
Utter rubbish. I suspect you know that and are just being provocative, or are you really that ignorant?
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Nookin,
Your logic is flawed. Teachers do indeed get job satisfaction becuase they know they’re doing a great job. So how would paying them 10% more “incentivise” them? They don’t need incentivising because they’re doing as well as they can. That’s one of the big problems with the Right – it thinks that you have to throw large sums of money at workers, otherwise they’ll do a lousy job. You only have to look at Parliament to see that paying individuals large sums of money doesn’t necessairly produce great outcomes.
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
mikenmind – DPF’s scenario demonstrates exactly why the government doesn’t want performance pay for teachers – because it will cost too much. Better to keep pay low.
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
ah bc, thought you’d show for this one. what Other_Andy said is not utter rubbish. Those are the predominant factors in determining teacher pay.
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Ross
Vote:Because if someone works twice as hard and achieves better results any system that has them paid the same rate as someone waiting out his or her time is unfair and creates resentment. There are freeloaders in all sectors. There are also excellent practitioners in all sectors. Are you saying that both have a same value to society? Productivity should bring rewards. Your reference to parliament proves my point entirely. Your comment about the “right” does not make sense. Nothing about performance pay involves “throwing money” indiscriminately. It’s about paying for quality.
July 29th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Can Blair give lessons to anyone? The poor guy is morally bankrupt, despite DPF’s cheerleading.
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
And one of the problems with the left is they’re always talking nonsense! People have different motivations. Some are social, some are linked to personal interests, some are financial. Good employers provide a range of rewards for effort. Some are social, some are linking work with worker interest and some are finanal through wages.
The best employer/employee relationship is when these are all aligned, and having been in business and seen this happen I can say with absolute certainty that our company was unstoppable, fun and rewarding for everyone involved.
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 2:28 pm
@bc
“I suspect you know that and are just being provocative, or are you really that ignorant?”
No bc, I have been involved in education in New Zealand for the last 25 years.
Length of service and qualifications are the ONLY factors that determine the pay rate of a teacher. While teachers can be awarded units above their union determined pay rate, this is only done for extra duties and responsibilities and sometimes for positions that are difficult to fill, never for performance.
You know better?
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Oi. Farrar.
target=”_blank”
I’m VERY lazy.
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
the Labour MP to drive change has got to be Sue Moroney .. she is their spokesperson after all
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
All private sector jobs are already performance based pay. Why are state servants exempted?
bc asks, “He doesn’t seem to have the same obsession with performance pay for nurses, police, military
I wonder why that is?” That’s because the Police and the Army are performance based. You really are ignorant.
“And each time an MP tells a lie, they get fined?” I would guess most Labour politicians would need the debt collectors sent round. You too are really ignorant.
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
“the Police and the Army are performance based”
Ha ha ha.
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
His theory is ok(for a socialist, that is), but his implementation was terrible. The NHS is still absolutely appalling, the schools have huge issues, tertiary education is a mess and Blair’s government became the most authoritarian British regime since World War 1, creating a new criminal offence for every day they were in office.
Not an example I would like NZ to follow, notwithstanding Simon Power’s tendencies.
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Thanks for the laugh Christopher Thomson…so the CEO’s of all those non-performing private sector companies have actually taken a pay cut? Nah, didn’t think so.
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
“And each time an MP tells a lie, they get fined?” – hopefully.
Vote:How about if government spending runs over x% of GDP a new election is called?
July 29th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
ross – you know how their remuneration is made up (or just speculatiing and envious?)
mm – interested in your answer to my 2:11. It’s an easy yes or no.
RN – An outstanding idea
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
kk
Yes.
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
mm – excellent. For the purpose of idealism, let assume there are no budgetary constraints, and that unions have no lever to prevent teachers from negotiating any aspect of their terms of employment, and that poor teachers must be paid less than they are today. What would you do with al this .. to ensure teaching excellence is rewarded?
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
kk
With no budgetary restraints, eh? I’d set a minimum teaching salary of $100K, to attract better people up front. That alone would ensure good competition for the more senior ranks.
I’m interested in your comment that unions should have ‘no lever to prevent teachers from negotiating any aspect of their terms of employment’. How on Earth can unions (who negotiate for their members) prevent teachers from negotiating?
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
So the idea of regular testing of primary school children is to prepare the way for performance pay for teachers is it, coz there is no educational reason for this waste of teacher and pupil time.
The irony is of course that good teachers should be left to do their job, not manage their pupils to get good test results so they can validate a pay increase for themselves.
People who think sort of change improves outcomes are barking.
Simply improve pay, treat them with respect and watch the general quality improve (more contest to train and be hired) as the profession attracts better teachers into it.
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
mm – would we get better quality bank management by doubling teller wages? That’s effectively what you’ve suggested, and implementing it would give a huge boost to the salaries of existing poor performers, ergo sending completely the wrong signals.
As for unions, I have little time for them. They are a largely worthless relic of a bygone age. The modern employee is individually powerful enough via legislation and social media, without being convinced otherwise by archaic unions
It’s been a tough day at the blogface, and a quiet beer is calling. Back later.
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
And if any change is made to target some teachers for special pay levels – it should be when they are head hunted from well performed schools to work at schools that are underperforming.
To identify that need all that is required is testing at the beginning and end of the pupils schooling to compare performance to other schools. Presumably the more poorly performing schools lose some of their staff and receive some proven perfomers on special contract rates.
But of course would the National Party want to do something that would take better teachers from their party voters children and place them in the Labour Party voting decile areas – no, but its the only way to improve educational outcomes.
Talk about teacher performance pay is a distraction from this real need and is base politics and has little to do with improving educational performance.
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
kk, you would get a better quality of bank teller position applicant, but that’s needed in teaching “aint it” …
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
Well SPC, it’s pretty clear that the National Party weren’t much interested in education when they:
1. Appointed Anne Tolley as Minister of Education.
Vote:2. See 1 above.
July 29th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
krazykiwi @ 2.19pm
I’m afraid what Other_Andy said is utter rubbish and he needs to be called out on it. Here it is again:
“Length of service and qualifications are the ONLY factors that determine the pay rate of a teacher.”
The caps of the word ONLY is his emphasis by the way, not mine.
I notice you use the words “predominant factors” rather than ONLY, so it appears even you don’t really believe his rubbish.
Vote:I agree with yours words “predominant factors”. Length of service, ie experience, and qualifications would be the predominant factors of pay of many jobs.
July 29th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
@bc
“I’m afraid what Other_Andy said is utter rubbish and he needs to be called out on it. Here it is again:
“Length of service and qualifications are the ONLY factors that determine the pay rate of a teacher.”
The caps of the word ONLY is his emphasis by the way, not mine.”
You forgot….”NEVER for performance” (Caps are mine).
Instead of calling me ‘ignorant’ and my statement ‘utter rubbish’ call me out bc.
The salary of a teacher is determined by the Collective Agreement (PPTA or NZEI) and is based on the qualification of the teacher and the years of service.
You can find all the information here:
Vote:http://www.ppta.org.nz/index.php/collective-agreements
There is a similar website for the NZEI
July 29th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
Why don’t we sort the issue once and for all.
Allow BOT to determine who they employ and what they pay them. And at the same time give parents vouchers for their spend and let them go where they see the best value for their kids education.
Power to the customer as it should be.
Would fix all the real estate overpricing in school zones, would sort out the chaff and deadbeats from the schools, schools could chose to have particular emphasis e.g. dare i say it Maori, Chinese, even Muslim and thats choice, which is what being a funder and consumer is all about.
who says what is currently in the curriculum is right for any times so it would also force a constant rethink of that.
The best teacher I know said to the interviewing panel when asked why she wanted the job.” well I don’t need the money, I’m good at what I do and I love doing it. At he end of the day what matters to me is that my kids are happy. my parents are happy. That should make you happy.”
Money rates at about no.5 or 6 in the list of things that create job satisfaction.
Nothing new in that fact but mostly completely forgotten.
I’m sure someone can pull up some job satisfaction stats.
Vote:She got the job despite a further 160+ other applicants.
Can you see why???
July 29th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
@Viking2
Vote:would also get rid of the left influence in the education sector pdq
July 29th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
sorry bc, but if your gripe is that “only” rather than “predominantly” renders then entire sentence “utter rubbish” then I’d suggest a few year 10 English lessons.
Length of service has zero influence in any job I’ve been in – either as an employee, or as an employer. Ditto qualifications although I will confess to stacking candidates CVs into two piles, those with a degree and those without. One of my best IT consultant hires had a degree in microbiology. Another had never set foot in a Uni.
It’s time good teachers stepped out of the self-intereted, overbearing ‘support’ of their union, and equally time the useless ones were no longer afforded union protection designed to dumb the industry down to the lowest common denominator.
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 8:24 pm
@V2
“…give parents vouchers for their spend and let them go where they see the best value for their kids education.”
Excellent!
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
Education vouchers… what? Like that Socialist paradise Sweden? It really would be a lurch to the right for us
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
@kk
“Education vouchers… what? Like that Socialist paradise Sweden? It really would be a lurch to the right for us”
Wow, you are right.
Vote:Would never have guessed that.
Interesting.
Although the school choice policy was introduced by a right-wing government (Swedish definition of right wing).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/3717744.stm
Wonder what labour would make of that.
July 29th, 2011 at 10:25 pm
Thanks for that link Other_Andy. Of particular interest was the section titled Renumeration.
There was a detailed list of allowances, even for the bus controller
What was interesting that all of these payments were for…wait for it… PERFORMANCE (ie doing stuff!)
Now what did you say again in that post: teachers are paid “NEVER for performance” (your caps again).
And then you bang on repeating the same stuff you have already being called out on. I guess if you keep saying it to yourself then it must be true. Ye gods, talk about a fail of epic proportions.
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
krazykiwi @ 8.23pm
If you don’t know the difference between the words ‘only’ or ‘predominantly’ and why those words make a difference to the rubbish Other_Andy is spewing then it’s year 10 English lessons for you!
And if length of service (ie experience) has zero influence for you as an employer then why is everyone in here making it a prime justification for having youth rates?
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
bc 10:25 – performance is not ‘doing stuff’ in the context of merit-related pay increases. Performance it is an assessment that the relative contribution of an individual teacher exceeds the expectations of that role, and that a pay increase is not only justified, but needed. This can not, and does not happen in teaching today, but it does in every industry I’ve worked in over 30 years.
it’s time unions were stopped from promoting the lowest common denominator. its time for good teachers to be paid what they’re worth, and the for the useless ones to be sent packing.
~~~
bc 10:33 – The use of ‘only’ rather than ‘predominantly’ does not change the statement is to ‘utter rubbish’. That’s hyperbole on your part, as the difference suggests there more to be added rather than the original being utter rubbish. Year 10 English is calling you.
As for youth rates, there are one or two lefties here who think they’re a great idea (despite the evidence to the contrary), but I suspect you’ll find the rest think they’re restricting youth employment and contributing to all sorts of downstream problems.
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
Goff will never be an effective blairite because he was such a dick then that he lost to Gilbert Myles.
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 11:10 pm
Yes. krazykiwi but Other_Andy stated that teachers ONLY get paid for qualifications and length of service. By his own link he showed that there are payments for things other than that.
So enough of him.
It’s possibly a poor personality trait of mine, put it down to getting older, but I suffer fools gladly less these days
Regarding your comment about the definition of performance. Some interesting points there. How do you feel about the extra money paid to the Specialist Classroom Teacher? This is additional money, ie on top of their salary, paid to a teacher in every school that is considered an exceptional teacher and mentors other teachers, eg does lesson observations of teachers and provides feedback/suggestions for improvement. Is this not an example of a teacher that is being paid for ‘performance’?
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 11:31 pm
Bc, did you flunk reading comprehension, or are you intentionally ignoring what I wrote?
The reason why I keep on repeating things is because you don’t seem to read it the first time.
Now PLEASE Read carefully what I wrote the first time:
Length of service and qualifications are the ONLY factors that determine the pay rate of a teacher. While teachers can be awarded units above their union determined pay rate, this is only done for extra duties and responsibilities and sometimes for positions that are difficult to fill, never for performance.
“There was a detailed list of allowances, even for the bus controller
What was interesting that all of these payments were for…wait for it… PERFORMANCE (ie doing stuff!)”
Those payments are for extra duties and responsibilities (read my original post!) and NOT performance, that is why they are called allowances.
Now read carefully, straight out of the Collective agreement.
4.14 Bus Controller’s Allowance
4.14.1 A teacher appointed as bus controller for a school district who undertakes, in full, the bus controlling duties and responsibilities shall be paid the additional salary of $3.61 per day for the first route and $1.26 per day for each additional route. The allowance is not payable on a runback within a route nor where a bus makes a second trip over substantially the same route.
Where did you see the word performance?
It says duties and responsibilities
For the last time.
Length of service and qualifications are the ONLY factors that determine the pay rate of a teacher. A ‘good’ teacher gets paid the same as a ‘bad’ teacher when doing the same job. There is NO extra pay for performance!
Any teacher can tell you that.
Full stop.
I don’t know who you are or what YOU do for a job but why do you think you know better how teachers are being paid than a person who has worked in education in New Zealand for 25 years?
Vote:July 29th, 2011 at 11:36 pm
@Other_Andy
Vote:please sir from a poor sod with less than year ten English
In my limited experience the best teachers get promoted due to performance therefor earning more. sorry sir
July 30th, 2011 at 12:05 am
Some questions for you then Other_Andy:
1)What about the additional money paid to the specialist classroom teacher? Is this not extra pay for performance? If not then you have a very narrow definition of performance.
2)Do people not get paid more money for extra reponsibilities in the “real” (non-teaching) world?
3)Reading the link you provided it seems that length of service by itself does not allow a teacher to progress up the pay scale. Very interesting indeed, as people here would have you believe that teachers automatically get pay increases regardless of their teaching ability. There is a lot of stuff there about different levels of (dare I say it) performance of a teacher, eg beginning teacher, experienced teacher. And guess what – these levels are linked to pay. For example a teacher cannot move to the salary level of an experienced teacher without meeting performance (yep that word again) indicators. Does this meet your definition of performance?
Vote:July 30th, 2011 at 12:29 am
Thanks again to Other_Andy and the link he provided. Here it is folks:
4.2.3 Pay Progression
(a) Teachers shall progress to the appropriate base scale maximum shown on the scale subject to the employer attesting that the teacher has met the appropriate level of the Professional Standards for Secondary Teachers – Criteria for Quality Teaching appended as Supplement 1 to this agreement.
(b) Assessment against Professional Standards
(i) A beginning teacher may have up to two assessments against the beginning teacher standards or three if registration is delayed, before assessment against the classroom teacher standards. However, beginning teachers may be assessed against the classroom teacher standards from an earlier date if progress warrants it and the teacher and appraiser agree.
(ii) Teachers will be assessed against the classroom teacher criteria once fully registered or after two years in the case of teachers holding Limited Authority to Teach (LAT) status.
(iii) Classroom teachers may have three assessments against the classroom teacher standards but all teachers (including LATs) will be assessed against the experienced teacher standards once they have reached their appropriate base scale maxima. The only exception is teachers who have reached their base scale maxima before having up to two assessments against the beginning teacher standards (or three if registration is delayed) and up to three assessments against the classroom teacher standards. These teachers may have up to three beginning teacher standards assessments and up to three classroom teacher standards assessments before being assessed against the experienced teacher standards.
(iv) Teachers who hold units and who have assumed a specified leadership, pastoral, administrative or task-specific responsibility in respect of their unit or units will be assessed against the relevant criteria for teachers holding units together with the standards applicable to their level of experience in respect of their classroom teaching duties.
(c) When setting performance expectations and development objectives with individual teachers for the coming year, appraisers and the individual teachers shall have regard for:
(i) The number of years taught and the appropriate level of the professional standards to be applied;
(ii) The subject(s), the class level(s) and the nature of classes taught;
(iii) The degree to which achievement and development are expected within each criterion;
(iv) Any other agreed factors.
(d) Subject to 4.2.3 (a), (b) and (c) above, pay progression applies in the following ways:
(i) All full-time and permanent part-time teachers whose salary commencement is described by 4.2.2 (a) or (b) above shall, after completing one year on each step, progress to the appropriate qualifications maximum shown on the scale;
(ii) Teachers who do not have a subject/specialist qualification defined by a ‘G’ notation and who have not completed a recognised course of teacher education shall progress after completing one year on each step, to step 4 of the Base Scale – Untrained Teachers;
(iii) Non-permanent part-time teachers employed for fewer than 20 hours a week shall advance to the next step on completion of each 1000 hours. Credit towards each increment shall be based on class contact hours only and shall not include the 11% loading which applies in calculating salary. Salary credits will be calculated to the nearest month.
Notice that there are defined performance indicators that have to be met BEFORE the teacher progresses up the salary scale. It says it in the first sentence with the words SUBJECT TO. And just in case that isn’t enough to convince you that teachers don’t move automatically up the pay scale then that comes next:
4.2.4 Withholding Increments
(a) Where a teacher has not met the standards at the appropriate level the employer may defer salary progression. A programme of support and development will be put in place to assist the teacher in meeting the standards within a timeframe agreed between the employer and the teacher.
(b) At the end of the review period:
(i) Where the teacher has met the appropriate standards, s/he will progress to the next salary step from this date. This will become the teacher’s new anniversary date for pay progression purposes.
(ii) Where the teacher has not met the appropriate standards the employer will determine whether there are significant areas of concern to warrant initiating competence procedures or whether the programme of further support and development should continue.
Yes (shock, horror) a teacher can be stopped moving up to the next pay scale and more shock, horror (!) can have competence procedures. This destroys four myths stated by some people in here, namely:
1) Teachers automatically get paid based on length of service
2) Teachers are not reviewed/assessed
3) Teachers don’t have to met any professional standards/have performance indicators
4) “Bad” teachers can carry on teaching regardless.
Very interesting indeed
Vote:July 30th, 2011 at 12:38 am
Far easier and more effective to introduce fixed terms for teachers so principals can choose to not rehire the duds. While most teachers are good and dedicated there is a small but significant portion who do a poor job and the future of young people is too important to let these people keep teaching!
Vote:July 30th, 2011 at 7:55 am
@bc
“What about the additional money paid to the specialist classroom teacher? Is this not extra pay for performance? If not then you have a very narrow definition of performance.”
If you mean by a ‘specialist classroom teacher’ a teacher in charge of a subject then yes. BUT, this is a special responsibility you can take on, a bit like overtime in other jobs. Some schools will attach a management unit or a unit of responsibility to an additional (!) job. Again, this has nothing to do with performance. Teachers get, for example, also paid extra for overnight camps. ANY teacher who does this gets paid for this regardless if you do that job well or not.
There is NO performance pay for teachers in New Zealand no matter what you or Griff think.
The unions will not allow it. Read these articles.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10730660
http://www.roy.org.nz/royters/performance-based-pay-teachers
http://www.nzei.org.nz/site/nzeite/files/primary%20teachers/IsuueSheet_PerformancePay_web.pdf
There is NO performance based pay for teachers in New Zealand.
My definition is not narrow, it is the correct one
“Do people not get paid more money for extra reponsibilities in the “real” (non-teaching) world?”
See point one.
This is what I said in my original post, nothing to do with performance.
Schools do have a number of extra responsibilities and duties. Some are paid extra, some (Such as ‘playground duties and sports duties which are part of your job) are not.
“Reading the link you provided it seems that length of service by itself does not allow a teacher to progress up the pay scale. Very interesting indeed, as people here would have you believe that teachers automatically get pay increases regardless of their teaching ability. There is a lot of stuff there about different levels of (dare I say it) performance of a teacher, eg beginning teacher, experienced teacher. And guess what – these levels are linked to pay. For example a teacher cannot move to the salary level of an experienced teacher without meeting performance (yep that word again) indicators. Does this meet your definition of performance?”
I knew you would arrive here eventually (Also see your post above regarding Pay Progression).
Pay progression is about the MINIMUM standards. Every teacher has to perform to a minimum of standards to be a teacher.
It is like a truck driver. They have to renew their license every so often and have to keep their log book up to date. It is part of their job.
It might come as a surprise to hear that EVERY teacher (Who meets the minimum standards) will eventually move up the scale. Teachers who cannot meet the standards are not fulfilling the minimum standard to be a teacher, are incompetent and are eventually (Within one or two years) fired or asked to move on.
The Teachers’ Union, the politicians and teachers themselves all agree there is NO performance based pay for teachers in New Zealand.
Vote:If you and Griff think there is performance based pay for teachers in New Zealand because the unions, politicians and teachers are using a definition that is ‘too narrow’ and are therefore wrong, that is fine.
It’s a free country.
July 30th, 2011 at 8:44 am
It doesn’t really matter how we define ‘performance pay’. Clearly, some misguided people think that teachers need some kind of different pay system to encourage excellence.
Having said that, I always find it astounding that people only want ‘performance pay’ applied to teachers and how they struggle to define what they actually mean by performance pay. Teachers overall are incredibly underpaid for the work that they do. The best thing that could be done would be to provide a gradual pathway to restore teaching salaries to the kind of relative position they were at 30 or 40 years ago.
Vote:July 30th, 2011 at 9:32 am
It does matter how we define performance pay because then we can debate the merits knowing that we are talking about the same thing.
I have not read a post saying that only teachers should receive performance pay. Teachers have been singled out because the debate is about education — not policing, not the armed forces.
Are you saying that Sir John Graham and John Taylor are misguided? Your experience is? I think we need to know that to be persuaded why we should trust your judgment ahead of theirs and the judgment of posters on this site who are employers and who have the responsibility to provide employment incentives — because they know it works. At the moment I have to say that Graham and Taylor have presented a more cogent case. I don’t pretend to be an expert but I did have 18 years on school boards and gained enough insight into the plight of teaching and teachers so I feel qualified to comment without being called misguided.
Your approach is based on the notion that teacher are idealogues who teach out of altruistic motives. Some of them are motivated because of their commitment to the job. Others, less so. The issue is whether we need to recognise quality and reward it or whether we pay the same price regardless of the quality of the product.
Vote:July 30th, 2011 at 10:05 am
nookin – this is, i fear, a lost cause. the teachers who post here are not interested in being accountable for quality, and i’d posit that they similarly reject the notion of pupils being objectively measured lest that be used as a proxy for teaching quality. no, what’s required is simply that the government hand over more cash with no expectation of increased accountability or performance.
Vote:July 30th, 2011 at 10:17 am
I Know of cases in the education sector when totally incompetent teachers are retained because the risk of dismissing them is so great. Schools cant afford the thousands of dollars it will take to go to the courts to defend unjustifiable dismissal claims. The whole sector does need reform
Vote:July 30th, 2011 at 10:42 am
Probably the worst cases in the education sector are when Boards fall out with principals. I know of two cases in Lower Hutt where that has resulted in schools being closed.
Vote: