Sorry Furry. I'm writing reports and highlighting net folders and it's a terribly humour-removing process. I'm hating every second of my day today I'm afraid. So forgive me for missing the humour. That said, yes you probably did hit a nerve. I don't like being accused of being prejudiced or of not caring about the working class. I apologise if it was meant in jest. I probably would have realised on a better day.

Working hard is not, in and of itself, justification for a certain level of pay. If your 'hard work' isn't effective, then the money you are paid is wasted as was the time spent.

No, but on the basis of the ridiculous standardised testing my kids have undergone, I have been effective. The parents have been overall very effusive in their thanks and praise in both years and I am surprised by how far they've come in a year. I still think performance pay is one of the most illogical and poorly thought through ideas in the history of education. Obviously you quit teaching because you couldn't hack it in a job where you have to use your brain. Yes I'm just saying that to piss you off, because I'm having a bad day and I can't be bothered arguing with you over this. As I said, I don't have time to spend hours on JU mkaing coherent debates. I find it hard to believe you work 70 hours given the amount of hours you are on JU. I do little else but my work and sleep and I realised 2 years ago that I no longer had the time to blog.

'Sorry Furry. I'm writing reports and highlighting net folders and it's a terribly humour-removing process.'

I wondered if perhaps the time of year was getting to you. (Let's face it, you'd be superhuman if it wasn't.) For my part, I'm truly sorry that I didn't make my humorous intentions more explicit. I was really only trying to have a friendly dig, in line with the 'champagne socialism' of both your blog ID and the title of your thread.

I don't dispute your working class credentials for a moment. (Not that it would make any difference if I did, of course, but you know what I mean.)

'Working hard is not, in and of itself, justification for a certain level of pay. If your 'hard work' isn't effective, then the money you are paid is wasted as was the time spent.'

Mason, if you really think that 'productivity' is as easily and objectively determined for a teacher as for a long haul trucker, then let's hear a little bit of the detail. Regardless, even if one accepts the argument that it is possible, then you're inevitably talking about introducing an entire stratum of clipboard-carrying, pen-pushing bureaucrats hovering behind teachers' shoulders.

" Ladies and gentlemen, I give you ... the 'Productivity Police'! (They themselves couldn't actually teach if you held a gun to their heads, of course, but their jobs oblige them to make value judgments about those who do.)"

And if that sounds far-fetched, it's already been tried. If you'd like to know how well it works in practise (HINT: it doesn't), then find anyone who's worked in the UK state school system in recent years - in any capacity, not just teachers - and ask them about OFSTED. Oh, and then ask them why they're no longer working in the UK state school system.

I wondered if perhaps the time of year was getting to you. (Let's face it, you'd be superhuman if it wasn't.)

Thankyou for being so forgiving Furry. Just finished Reading and Writing folders and reports, so my sense of humour is returning a little. At 8pm I'm now off to have some dinner at home.

Thanks for the humorous second post replying to Mason. I really can't be bothered arguing with him on this one anymore. Performance pay is as ridiculous as you have made it sound, and if he doesn't realise this already, he's never going to. In my experience (limited as it is) the only teachers who go on about how much better they are than other teachers are the ones who leave at 3:05 every day, never share any resources and still teach the same way they did in 1903.

Thankyou for being so forgiving Furry.
Don't mention it. I'm only sorry my intent was not clearer.

'... the only teachers who go on about how much better they are than other teachers are the ones who leave at 3:05 every day, never share any resources and still teach the same way they did in 1903.'
But I object most strongly to this. I didn't start teaching until 1905!

Good one. Actually I quit for two reasons. 1. Low pay. 2. The stupidity of the Liberal American education system.

To be honest, I am not really a proponent of such a pay system for teachers but am in favor of annual evaluations and testing for educators as the school systems, as least here in the U.S., aren't educating our children very well. Many teachers are just coasting along collecting a pay check instead of actually teaching. I saw plenty of them myself when I was teaching.

Many of them here spend far too much time worrying about PC motivated nonsense instead of actually teaching the subject they were hired to teach. Something needs to be done to step up the level of actual teaching going on in schools, and if that means performance based pay then so be it, although I think more stringent evaluations and testing of the teachers might be a better solution.

As for Furry's reply, teacher performance can be measured through evaluation of student improvement. Of course the flaw here is that the teacher will simply teach to the test instead of actually teaching more in depth. There is no simple answer, but given the state of education, at least in this country, something needs to be done. We can't continue turning out high school graduates who can't read above a forth grade level.



Time management and a laptop. Simple as that. I fire up the laptop whenever I stop to eat a bite. When I stop at night I fire it up for a few minutes while I unwind before bed. I fire it up while waiting for the customer to finish loading or unloading my trailer. On the road there is little else to do. Obviously you're ignorant of what long haul trucking is really like.

'As for Furry's reply, teacher performance can be measured through evaluation of student improvement. Of course the flaw here is that the teacher will simply teach to the test instead of actually teaching more in depth. There is no simple answer, but given the state of education, at least in this country, something needs to be done.'
That's such a throwaway one-liner I won't even begin to address its failings. And even you acknowledge it would be useless. Yet we should do it for fear of doing nothing? Interesting.

'We can't continue turning out high school graduates who can't read above a forth grade level.'
Tell me you did this deliberately!   

Yes, actually I did. I wanted to see who might catch it. It didn't go nearly as long as I had hoped as I was hoping it might demonstrate my point.



No, I merely suggested that it's one alternative to the people with clipboards you described. There is no easy answer to the problem. But there is indeed a problem and at some point it needs to be addressed. Perhaps a complete overhaul of the education system is in order. I don't pretend to know the answer for there simply isn't a single solution that is going to fix the problem. It's going to take a combination of things to make it work. But, that said, lazy teachers are one piece of the puzzle.

'But, that said, lazy teachers are one piece of the puzzle.'

You're contradicting yourself here, Mason. Let me remind you of what you said earlier, in response to Champas telling you how hard HE works:

'Working hard is not, in and of itself, justification for a certain level of pay. If your 'hard work' isn't effective, then the money you are paid is wasted as was the time spent.'

So which is it you're saying we need to identify - laziness or ineffectiveness? One surefire way of failing to come up with a solution is failing to identify the 'problem' in the first place.

Douglas Adams recognised this, of course - 'Life, the universe and everything' and '42', anyone?   

Let me remind you that I also said this:




I didn't contradict myself at all, but mentioned two of the obvious problems. I wasn't aware that one is expected to restate every single point in every single post. Seems like a waste of energy to me.

When you decide to split hairs make sure you're aiming at the right hair.

'I didn't contradict myself at all ...'

So now you are advocating docking teachers for both lack of productivity and laziness? While you did throw in a glib line about how you might assess productivity (although then acknowledging that it wouldn't work), you haven't yet revealed how you would identify laziness. (Back to the clipboard Nazis scenario, I suspect.)

At best, your answer is ill-informed and hopelessly fudged.

4/10 - see me.   

Sure, why not?

Seriously, you seem to be making up your own little conversation as you go along as I never once said any such thing. I am beginning to think that you are in your own little world and that one is disconnected from reality.



Perhaps you should look up the word 'glib'. There was nothing glib about it and that was nothing more than an unwarranted attempt at insult. Typical.



The results of a lazy teacher would be pretty much the same as an ineffective one.

I've already stated that there isn't a single answer to the problem so you are now arguing in circles, in effect chasing your own tale.



Ah yes, when all else fails accuse the person of being 'ill-informed'.

I find you to be irrational and devoid of any sense of perspective outside of your own. I'll leave you to your own little world at this point as I see no benefit to myself or this thread in further acknowledging your imaginary debate. If you ever find yourself capable of addressing what is actually written instead of making it up on your own, perhaps you'll be worthy of the time to have a rational discussion.

I acknowledge that there are teachers who are going through the motions and who are lazy. I don't think this has anything to do with the "PC" movement you describe (apart fro my general objection to the way the term "PC" has become a lazy way to dismiss anything that conservatives don't like without needing to analyse or debate the merit of each specific idea).

If there were a way for lazy teachers to be less rewarded, then I would be OK with performance pay. However, there is no reliable way to measure the performance of a teacher. Teachers do make a difference to their students. However, at the end of the day, we can only have so much impact. Other factors, like family stresses, poor upbringing, lack of discipline in the home, bullying, and student ability have far more impact than we do. Kids who are watching abuse happen at home find it very difficult to concentrate in school, no matter how much we provide a safe, supportive environment. Not always, but generally.

Performance pay would also lead to a decrease in teacher quality. Rather than sharing resources and ideas with each other, teachers would start guarding their on recious little ideas in order to be judged better than their colleagues. Teachers would fight over and make deals to ensure they got the brightest, best-behaved kids in their class whenever class lists were being drawn up.

And frankly, how do you even measure student performace reliably? Maths is probably one case where standardised tests can maybe work if they are comprehensive.

However, for English and oter subjects, it is fraught with shortcomings.

One group of kids at our school have just got back their results from a standardised test created by the State Education Board. One of the kids, who is getting a D in writing on their report card, was also judged by the State Board as well above the state average, and the best writer in the class. The D rating is based on numerous pieces of writing done over the course of the semester, in which the child produced numerous pieces of early Year 1 quality pieces of work. The child cannot identify different genres of writing . Their sentences are very basic. There is no flair in their writing. Nonetheless, a D is a lot of progress for a kid who could barely read in Year 1. The problem with the statewide test is that the children are asked to write one piece of writing in half an hour about a topic they don't know and in a genre they are unprepared for and unfamiliar with. Meanwhile, sverela of the top writers would prefer to take their time and not feel under pressure to produce their best work on the one day. Good writing takes time.

In reading, there is a little merit, but so many factors come into a child's ability to read depending on whether they are familiar with the subject matter of the book. A child such as myself greatly benefitted when I was given political books to read because of my upbringing and familiarity with the debates being raised in say To Kill a Mockingbird. Other children ad to not only struggle to read the words, but to understand the concepts. This difference is much furter pronounced in primary school. I saw amazing improvements in 3 of my students' reading last year when they were given a book to read about a family of divorce where the father had had a gambling addiction. Suddenly, these children, who were normally terribly behaved and hated reading and couldn't manage it, became the most talkative, in-depth analysts in the class as they proffered their own personal expereinces, which very closely mirrored those of the family in the book. They became enthusiastic about reading and were always keeping up, if not ahead. Imagine also giving Year 1 children who have never seen snow a book about adventures in the snow, or city children trying to read Dreamtime legends. I know from teaching Dreamtime legends this year to my children, that even when they are immersed in the genre for weeks on end, they still find it very hard to imagine a time without PlayStations and to write stories about a hunter-gatherer society with none of the tecnology with which they are familiar. But this is a reality experienced every day in remote indigenous communities where they struggle to understand the books written for the middle class kids living in the cities. IT is also faced by immgrants when they have different lives. It is faced by children of divrce who fail to relate to the happy family stories thrust on them in fairytales and so on every day at school, usually by white middle class, nuclear family teachers. You can't then create a standardised test for all Queeenslanders or all Australians, because the reality of life is that we have very diverse lives from each other. At a certain age, they need to be able to imagine beyiond their own little worlds, but this sort of abstract thinking takes time. Good teaching can lead to children being able to understand books not from their own experiences. I spent a lot of time discussing Aboriginal culture last year when I read my Year 6s a book set in a remote indigenous community. But had I siply thrust on them this book on standardised test day and asked them to analyse it on their own without any discussion, then whether or not they would have succeeded would have mainly depended on how familiar they were with the topi in the first place. Children have remarkably different lives from each other, even within one school. There is very little we can assume that is common experience.

So yes, I'm a PC teacher, I work many many hours, and my kids have all made progress on certain standardised tests. But there have been many other factors at play besides myself. I played a part, but here were many barriers for individuals that I was in no power to overcome, like children who couldn't concentrate because of low self-esteem. In spite of the fact that I might have done alright out of standardised measures and performance pay, I don't believe that would have been a good way to measure my performance, just a way to keep the admin building off my back.

CS, a very well thought out and intelligent argument. There is little there that one can disagree with. It is a difficult problem to nail down and there is no single solution to the problem.

I'll admit that my statement regarding performance based pay was facetious, but it is born of direct experience with lazy teachers and teachers who spent far more time on their own little pet causes instead of teaching that for which they were hired to teach.

I know first hand how difficult teaching can be, and also know first hand that some teachers are more effective than others when it comes to teaching the subjects they are supposed to teach. I am not familiar with the state of public education in your country, but here it is deplorable and seems to be getting worse. I believe a big part of the problem lies in the hiring process itself. There is a shortage of educators here and they seem to be hiring just anyone who applies for the job.

I don't pretend to know the solutions to the problems or how best to evaluate teachers, but the problem can't be ignored simply because it's a difficult one to solve. Our children need to be properly educated and that requires effective educators. As I mentioned earlier, perhaps a complete overhaul of the public education system here is going to be required before the problems can be solved. We can't keep graduating illiterate students just because we don't want to hurt their self-esteem. We aren't doing them any favors. They need to be prepared for college or for the real work world.

Performance pay would also lead to a decrease in teacher quality. Rather than sharing resources and ideas with each other, teachers would start guarding their on recious little ideas in order to be judged better than their colleagues. Teachers would fight over and make deals to ensure they got the brightest, best-behaved kids in their class whenever class lists were being drawn up.

I wonder why teachers are so different from the normal person then.  For in all other "professions", we are judged on our performance, and yes, in some cases against each other.  But it is the fool that will not share with his peers.  We learn by sharing.  We know that each of us does not know it all, but with sharing and cooperation, we can all know it all collectively.  The good teachers do not have to fear sharing, for knowing how to do something is not a one to one correlation with doing that thing well.  But it does help.

I have seen my share of good teachers - and the secrets are not that secret.  The bad ones just wont or cant learn them.  So they continue to be bad, and the system suffers because they cannot be dealt with effectively. They are protected in their incompetance.

problem with the statewide test is that the children are asked to write one piece of writing in half an hour about a topic they don't know and in a genre they are unprepared for and unfamiliar with.

I hate standardized tests that are used in this way.  For that is a failure of the administrators to use them correctly.  The tests are not to be used as an absolute, but to show how much the student has progressed.  Unfortunately, the only thing worse than a bad teacher is a brain dead administrator - and there are a lot more of them - percentage wise - than bad teachers.

I wrote not long ago about the good teachers in schools not at the top of the heap.  These schools did not have the highest test scores, as the students often did not have the background that the schools with the top test scores did for a variety of reasons, one of the biggest being what was being taught to the student before they got to class. 

But the measure of the teachers was not who had the highest test scores, but whose students progressed the most during the school year.  And often by that measure, those schools with the lower test scores were better by far.  It showed that they students were LEARNING in those classes, while in the top rated schools, all the students had to do was to regurgitate what they had already learned and still get a high score.   Hardly indicative of a good teacher.

You seem to recognize that truism, and that is probably because you are a good teacher.  But I sense some frustration in your post - a frustration from not being able to make others in your profession realize the same thing.  And that I have seen all too often.  Good teachers are beaten down by brain dead administrators until many just give up and go through the motions.  These are not the bad teachers that I spoke of, but they are not teaching good either.  That is a fault of the system.  Where excellence is not rewarded, but automatons are.  It is not the best teachers that get noticed, but the ones that can regurgitate what the administrators want to hear.

IN other professions, when that happens, social darwinism has a solution.  The company goes belly up.  But with government, unless there is a giant upheaval or an outside source (invasion), it never does.  It is just perpetuated by the status quo. The best thing for education would be the privatization of it.  So that the schools would be competing with each other.  Sadly, that will not happen because the brain dead administrator and bad teacher lobby has a choke hold on not allowing that to happen.  In the end, they do get to maintain their jobs.  And the kids lose.  Not all kids.  There are enough good teachers that some will, be well educated.  But not enough given the resources devoted to it.