This one is from Online Opinion.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5745
The biggest problem I have with performance pay is the lack of recognition that collegiality plays in providing an effective workplace for both students and teachers. Ariel briefly mentions this when he discusses the recommendations made in 2006 in the US: "teachers who perform at high levels and spread their expertise to other teachers deserve extra compensation for their performance and accomplishments." (my italics)
This is a crucial issue for all teachers, particularly beginning ones. If the experienced teachers are serious about ensuring that their new colleagues are going to succeed, an emphasis on assisting them in their planning, assessments and modelling good teaching strategies is essential. In a system where teachers are competing for a bigger slice of the same sized pay pie (see Julie Bishop's comments last weekend about the fact that the education budget will not be getting any bigger as a result of her plans), experienced teachers may be less willing to help the newbies.
It's not just about dollars and cents, it's about common sense. Teaching is not like other professions. The continuum of learning through 13 years of school means that, unlike a commercial enterprise where there is a beginning and an end to a project, no one teacher can be held up as the "reason" for a student's success.
Wednesday, 18 April 2007
Thursday, 12 April 2007
A comment on teachers' perfomance pay
From: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21516861-13881,00.html
Teacher performance model won't perform
COMMENTJudith Wheeldon
April 07, 2007
FEDERAL Education Minister Julie Bishop's plan to improve school education through performance pay for teachers is no plan at all.
We need leadership and a proper, funded business plan that answers key questions for this new project.
The minister's report cites research showing that "quality teachers make a significant difference to improved student outcomes". We knew that.
What we still do not know is how the minister plans to ensure every Australian child has a quality teacher. Paying some teachers more will not give every child a better teacher. Higher salaries for all teachers would.
How much money will be allocated to pay more than the current salaries? Where will it come from? Not from the federal Treasury, says Peter Costello, even though education is a federal priority and the Treasury is fat.
Saying "it's up to the states" is no substitute for a plan.
If 40 per cent of teachers meet the criteria, will they all receive the higher pay? If 60 per cent do? If 85 per cent do? Or will there be an arbitrary cut-off line that ignores the quality of many deserving teachers?
How much will a teacher receive? In the US, performance pay ranges from as little as an insulting $15 a year to some thousands, but paid only to a small number. There, performance pay is committed to for a year at a time.
Will our teachers have to be assessed every year? Will they have security that once the higher pay is awarded they can agree to a bigger mortgage? Has anyone looked at the costs in professional time and money (huge) of continually reassessing teachers?
Will performance pay for teachers in Catholic and independent schools be funded too? Many already pay above the award rates to all teachers. In what way will government school performance pay for some teachers attract and hold the best?
How will performance pay be allocated among schools? Will schools with more "quality teachers" have more funding, or will all schools have an equal per capita allocation? How will equity of access for teachers be assured?
How will equity for students be assured? Could a student go through school never having a "quality teacher"? And what will be the opinion of parents?
Ms Bishop perseveres in suggesting that parents and students might have a say in the evaluation of teachers.
How will academic integrity be assured if giving a higher mark or relenting in discipline might influence a teacher's salary?
Since comparative quality of teachers is the criterion, how will parents and students be given the complex understanding needed to know not just that Sally's teacher is a good teacher but that Sally's teacher is better than the others across the school or state?
How will we identify "quality teachers"? Easy. They are the ones who get paid more for the same work.
And this is a pity, because the ensuing divisiveness in schools will detract from the potential success of other ideas in the minister's report.
If independent school principals are more successful than their government school counterparts, it is largely because of their power to hire and fire. They can select, shape and set standards for their staff. This, allied with a strong professional development program tailored for the individual school and teacher, is a dynamic formula that can change a school rapidly.
The complementary authority for the principal to design a budget that responds to the needs of the school is a sensible step that would solve many local problems quickly. Principals could implement creative programs instead of merely dreaming of them.
Changes in education policy must be quality, co-ordinated and collegial - just like the staff.
Judith Wheeldon is a former head of two private girls' schools in Sydney: Abbotsleigh and Queenwood
What do you think??
Teacher performance model won't perform
COMMENTJudith Wheeldon
April 07, 2007
FEDERAL Education Minister Julie Bishop's plan to improve school education through performance pay for teachers is no plan at all.
We need leadership and a proper, funded business plan that answers key questions for this new project.
The minister's report cites research showing that "quality teachers make a significant difference to improved student outcomes". We knew that.
What we still do not know is how the minister plans to ensure every Australian child has a quality teacher. Paying some teachers more will not give every child a better teacher. Higher salaries for all teachers would.
How much money will be allocated to pay more than the current salaries? Where will it come from? Not from the federal Treasury, says Peter Costello, even though education is a federal priority and the Treasury is fat.
Saying "it's up to the states" is no substitute for a plan.
If 40 per cent of teachers meet the criteria, will they all receive the higher pay? If 60 per cent do? If 85 per cent do? Or will there be an arbitrary cut-off line that ignores the quality of many deserving teachers?
How much will a teacher receive? In the US, performance pay ranges from as little as an insulting $15 a year to some thousands, but paid only to a small number. There, performance pay is committed to for a year at a time.
Will our teachers have to be assessed every year? Will they have security that once the higher pay is awarded they can agree to a bigger mortgage? Has anyone looked at the costs in professional time and money (huge) of continually reassessing teachers?
Will performance pay for teachers in Catholic and independent schools be funded too? Many already pay above the award rates to all teachers. In what way will government school performance pay for some teachers attract and hold the best?
How will performance pay be allocated among schools? Will schools with more "quality teachers" have more funding, or will all schools have an equal per capita allocation? How will equity of access for teachers be assured?
How will equity for students be assured? Could a student go through school never having a "quality teacher"? And what will be the opinion of parents?
Ms Bishop perseveres in suggesting that parents and students might have a say in the evaluation of teachers.
How will academic integrity be assured if giving a higher mark or relenting in discipline might influence a teacher's salary?
Since comparative quality of teachers is the criterion, how will parents and students be given the complex understanding needed to know not just that Sally's teacher is a good teacher but that Sally's teacher is better than the others across the school or state?
How will we identify "quality teachers"? Easy. They are the ones who get paid more for the same work.
And this is a pity, because the ensuing divisiveness in schools will detract from the potential success of other ideas in the minister's report.
If independent school principals are more successful than their government school counterparts, it is largely because of their power to hire and fire. They can select, shape and set standards for their staff. This, allied with a strong professional development program tailored for the individual school and teacher, is a dynamic formula that can change a school rapidly.
The complementary authority for the principal to design a budget that responds to the needs of the school is a sensible step that would solve many local problems quickly. Principals could implement creative programs instead of merely dreaming of them.
Changes in education policy must be quality, co-ordinated and collegial - just like the staff.
Judith Wheeldon is a former head of two private girls' schools in Sydney: Abbotsleigh and Queenwood
What do you think??
Wednesday, 4 April 2007
Donnelly on mathematics and falling standards
http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21476027-28737,00.html?from=public_rss
I'll be back ... and I am.
Donnelly continues his attack on OBE in this article by simplifying it as being a "feel-good approach to education", and bases his claims on an apparent lack of teachers' use of the word 'failure' and unwillingness to focus on mastery of topics within mathematics. Donnelly has AGAIN used his own oversimplified and over-emotional view of OBE to attack it. Mastery of knowledge and understanding is actually central to OBE.
This is totally unrelated to the rest of the article in which … Donnelly says "In order to strengthen mathematics teaching, the report suggests teacher training must be improved. Although it does not go as far as to argue that all teachers should complete an undergraduate degree in their specialist discipline, followed by a diploma of education, thus ensuring that graduates have a firm foundation in their subject, the report suggests that mathematical science departments should have a greater involvement in teacher preparation … Research shows that one of the key determinants of successful learning is a teacher's mastery of a subject. There is increasing concern that the type of general bachelor of education degree designed and taught by schools of education fails to provide such grounding. As Guttmann points out: "The training of teachers can be improved by making sure that mathematics teachers have a mathematics degree, followed by a diploma of education or equivalent. Their mathematical education should not be provided by education faculties, but by discipline experts." ”
Here Donnelly uses someone else’s words to perpetuate his own agenda, yet evidently knows nothing about teacher education itself. A one-year teaching degree does not necessrily a good teacher make, Kevin, despite content knowledge. Besides, a specialist degree does not, for the most part, address concepts to be taught at school at the level that they should be taught.
I'll be back ... and I am.
Donnelly continues his attack on OBE in this article by simplifying it as being a "feel-good approach to education", and bases his claims on an apparent lack of teachers' use of the word 'failure' and unwillingness to focus on mastery of topics within mathematics. Donnelly has AGAIN used his own oversimplified and over-emotional view of OBE to attack it. Mastery of knowledge and understanding is actually central to OBE.
This is totally unrelated to the rest of the article in which … Donnelly says "In order to strengthen mathematics teaching, the report suggests teacher training must be improved. Although it does not go as far as to argue that all teachers should complete an undergraduate degree in their specialist discipline, followed by a diploma of education, thus ensuring that graduates have a firm foundation in their subject, the report suggests that mathematical science departments should have a greater involvement in teacher preparation … Research shows that one of the key determinants of successful learning is a teacher's mastery of a subject. There is increasing concern that the type of general bachelor of education degree designed and taught by schools of education fails to provide such grounding. As Guttmann points out: "The training of teachers can be improved by making sure that mathematics teachers have a mathematics degree, followed by a diploma of education or equivalent. Their mathematical education should not be provided by education faculties, but by discipline experts." ”
Here Donnelly uses someone else’s words to perpetuate his own agenda, yet evidently knows nothing about teacher education itself. A one-year teaching degree does not necessrily a good teacher make, Kevin, despite content knowledge. Besides, a specialist degree does not, for the most part, address concepts to be taught at school at the level that they should be taught.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)