And again with the performance pay issue...
Bishop spends $53m on apples for teachers
John Garnaut and Anna Patty
May 11, 2007
PRINCIPALS at more than 1000 schools will receive a reward fund of up to $50,000 to divide among their best teachers as part of a program to introduce performance pay next year.
The $53 million "reward" program would fund outstanding teachers who improved the academic results of their students, the Minister for Education, Julie Bishop, told the Herald.
"It will go to the principal of a school to use in ways to enhance literacy and numeracy in the school and that will include rewarding teachers who are responsible for that."
Principals will decide how the $50,000 will be spent, but performance pay is an option. The program will also include a $5000 bonus - plus travel and accommodation expenses - for teachers who are selected to attend a 10-day summer school.
"I've been signposting [performance pay] for quite some time. If people wanted to join the dots it's all there," she said.
The rewards will be delivered through state and private schools, with or without the co-operation of state governments.
The program puts pressure on the Labor leader, Kevin Rudd, to reveal his hand, since the party accepts the principle of rewarding good teachers but has rejected specific proposals.
It faces a hostile reception from unions, teachers and principals. The head of the NSW Secondary Principals Council, Jim McAlpine, said "offering bribes to teachers" would place principals in an impossible position: "It would be very difficult to ascertain which teacher out of a group of teachers deserved a bonus payment for improving student performance."
The $53 million will be split among 1200 schools over four years, beginning after next year's literacy and numeracy assessments. Schools and teachers will be chosen on the academic improvement - rather than the level - of their students. The scheme is designed to favour disadvantaged schools where students have the most room to improve.
Separately, Ms Bishop said "leading teachers" would be chosen to attend short courses in core subjects and rewarded with $5000 "bonuses", plus expenses. The $100 million program will apply to 1000 teachers a year who are recommended by schools and accepted by the Government.
Parents of students performing badly will receive $700 tutorial vouchers, at a cost of $460 million.
State and territory education ministers oppose any model of performance pay linked to student results. "It will be very divisive within schools and isn't a serious attempt to improve either student results or teaching standards," said the NSW Minister for Education, John Della Bosca.
The president of the NSW Teachers Federation, Maree O'Halloran, said performance pay "fundamentally misunderstands" what motivates teachers to work with their students.
Critics of the summer school program say that with only 1000 allocated places a year it will take more than 200 years for all teachers in Australia to attend.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bishop-spends-53m-on-apples-for-teachers/2007/05/10/1178390470983.html#
________________________________________________________________________________________________
The collegiality issue is another problem. Pitting teacher against teacher in a competitive environment will do nothing to maintain and expand the co-operative nature of teaching. Pity the poor beginning teacher whose mentor is fighting for that five grand and summer school training. That teacher could quite possibly be more concerned about getting access to those funds and training than assisting a new teacher become more proficient.
On a related note, I heard a television interview (out of the room but the telly turned up loud) with the CEO of a public school support group. I have emailed the CEO to ask for detail on his plan, that teachers who are prepared to go out of their way to improve their qualifications and provide staff development to other teachers would be eligible for increased pay. I've asked him for more info and will post it if and when it arrives.
4 comments:
Oh, hello!
"Separately, Ms Bishop said "leading teachers" would be chosen to attend short courses in core subjects and rewarded with $5000 "bonuses", plus expenses."
So teachers who need improvement don't get to learn more, but the ostensibly good ones do ...
Is there something fundamentally wrong here??
$5000 plus expenses for a ten day course. This is baffling.
In many cases it will become a pay off for those teachers that don't rub the principal the wrong way... often the one's who are going that extra step for their students. Schools will breakdown under this kind of officious legislation.
That much money spent wisely could cover extra RFF time for ALL teachers to attend extra training and wouldn't result in breaking down collegiality in schools. This supposedly education-strong budget has no rational basis.
One other thing that most have missed...
How do you quickly improve the overall academic performance of your school?
Easy. You get rid of the students at the bottom.
Encourage them to leave in year ten and your school will fly up the rankings without a single student benefitting!
How will this affect students with learning difficulties or disabilities? What principal and school is going to want a student that could cost them their $50,000 reward?
This is an attack on the disadvantaged members of our society and pushes us that little bit further towards America's stratified education system.
(Oh no, I just realised I've become a question-talker!)
Don't worry about your question-talking, Roobz! It's a good sign that you think rather than just answer!
I must agree on several points. First is the cost of this 'bonus' and what seems to be to me a bonus in learning. Like Kerry O'Brien's comments on the tutorial voucher system, the question eally should be 'could this money be spent somehow else to improve students' learning and quality teaching?'.
AND there have already been comments and questions in the last week or so about the impact upon schools whose students won't 'be helping them out' if they stayed there whilst money is at stake. It does indeed raise equity issues.
Post a Comment