“SPEAKING OUT FOR OUR PROFESSION” RECOGNISING ACCOMPLISHED TEACHERS
FACT SHEET 1 The failure of performance based pay: overseas experiences KEY ISSUES
The federal government’s idea of performance based pay The federal government has foreshadowed a model of performance based pay which
includes mechanisms for “assessing” and “rewarding” teachers based on: • Overseas experience • student outcomes (based on exam results) shows that performance • reviews/rankings by colleagues, principals, students and parents pay models based on • taking on additional responsibilities and roles student outcomes destroyed the collegial The failure of performance based pay – experiences overseas nature of schools and Research has noted the failure and detrimental impact performance based pay the quality educational schemes have had when implemented in overseas education sectors. outcomes of their students In the United Kingdom, the Performance-Related Pay (PRP) scheme was introduced in 1999 and was based on a merit pay model.
ACTION
•
QIEU members are asked to attend their local branch meeting as advertised in chapter briefings 1 & 2.
CONTACTS QIEU Phone: (07) 3839 7020 Fax: (07) 3839 7021 Freecall: 1800 177 937 Email Enquiries: enquiries@qieu.asn.au Internet: www.qieu.asn.au
Under the scheme, teachers were eligible for additional increments in pay after passing a threshold based on their “acceptable” performance in five areas: “knowledge and understanding; teaching management and assessment; wider professional effectiveness; professional characteristics; and pupil progress” (CMPO report, 2004). The ineffectiveness of the scheme however, soon became evident with Garsed (Ed.Lines, March 2007) noting that four main factors accounted for the failure of the PRP scheme:
“1. Individual PRP is considered to be inappropriate in school environments. Improvements in pupils’ performance are generally seen by teachers as the result of their collective effort, and are sometimes attributable to factors beyond their control, such as parental support; 2. Teachers consider PRP to be unsuited to the complicated task of improving children’s education. According to one teacher, ‘children are not products and taking into account each child’s need – emotionally as well as academically – cannot be correlated directly or indirectly to results’ (Farrell and Morris 2004, p94); 3. Teachers dislike the potential for favouritism in the way that the PRP scheme operates, given the importance of the subjective judgement of head teachers as to whether staff meet the threshold or not; and 4. Teachers sometimes view PRP as divisive, something that erodes morale and thus is demotivating.” In the USA, teachers have also experienced difficulties with performance based pay schemes based on student outcomes. •
In Houston, Texas such a scheme paid teachers more for raising their students’ scores on state exams. Teachers can earn up to $3,000 each; however, when implemented some teachers got as little as $100. The result of this scheme soon became divisive both within the school and the community, after the amounts paid to teachers for “improved student performance” were published in the local newspaper; with teachers pitted against each other in terms of perceptions based on the size of “bonus” they received (Tomazin, The Age, 2007).
QIEU Members Speak Out for Our Profession