Until now, I have been referring to teacher 'merit' pay and teacher 'performance' pay as the same thing. I have simply used the words of the articles or comments I have referred to. But I think I should be focusing upon the semantics here as part of the ideological struggle.
Jim McAlpine, head of the NSW Secondary Principals Council , said that teachers' merit not performance should be considered (see Maralyn Parker's Blog http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/maralynparker/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/expect_a_performance_over_teacher_pay_issue/). Here, attention to semantics is needed.
The issue of merit versus performance MUST be considered. Until now, these words have been bandied around as if they meant the same thing, but really, the idea is vastly different. The former focuses on teachers’ good teaching and on teachers bettering themselves to achieve that. The latter focuses upon student output and not rewarding those whose students don’t achieve. Of course there are links, and to many they both mean the same thing. However, the lens through which we look can alter the perspective from simply rewarding for production of students with good marks to pushing for teacher improvement. (I haven't lifted that - it's mine)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment