Julie Bishop's Vision for Education in Australia (Merged) (1 Viewer)

[banco55]

Re: Julie Bishop Introduces "Perfomance-Based Pay" for Teachers

But the only thing stopping those in other professions from getting a pay rise is themselves. According to 'performance-based pay', students will have a big influence... Blah, blah, blah; I agree 100% with Exphate. This is bullshit.

That's rubbish. You don't think real estate agents, mortgage brokers etc. compensation is affected by factors beyond their control like interest rates etc?

 

[karoooh]

Re: Julie Bishop Introduces "Perfomance-Based Pay" for Teachers

That's rubbish. You don't think real estate agents, mortgage brokers etc. compensation is affected by factors beyond their control like interest rates etc?

Ok, I didn't word that properly. I was speaking in reference to what volition was saying about most other professions where people 'are judged to be better than their bosses':

I don't have a problem with performance based pay, I consider it like most other professions where people who are judged to be better by their bosses get paid more.

 

[frog12986]

Whilst merit based pay would be difficult to determine, I am in favour of ongoing teacher assessment at fixed intervals as part of a process to firstly obtaining and then maintaining accreditation. The teaching profession has continued for too long without any form of oversight or accountability, and unfortunately teaching standards have been sacrificed in the process. (Ah, but another benefit of an active and influential union)

 

[klaw]

Re: Julie Bishop Introduces "Perfomance-Based Pay" for Teachers

That's rubbish. You don't think real estate agents, mortgage brokers etc. compensation is affected by factors beyond their control like interest rates etc?

You can still tell who the best workers are because interest rates affect them equally. With teachers, the most knowledgable teachers may be put into a class of stupid idiots and get a bad performance-based pay thing whereas a stupid idiot teacher may be assigned to a class of geniuses and get exceptionally good marks.

If someone is good at maths, he will almost always get good marks, despite the teacher. In the same way, dumbasses will always be dumb. That's why you can usually identify the smart and dumb people around your school. They don't get their results because they're lucky/unlucky and got good/bad teachers.

This system also encourages teachers to be stricter about things like homework. I'd really hate it if most teachers turned to those nazi teachers who check hw everyday and give detentions out to ppl who didn't do it. I know that it might be more effective marks-wise even though half the people would just copy off a friend or do a lazy 30 sec job, but I'd really prefer freedom and flexibility to choose when to work ahead/catch up than having someone check up on me every day.

 

[_dhj_]

Re: Julie Bishop: "Perfomance-Based Pay" for Teachers

I'm against this idea. As to what distinguishes teaching from other professions I'm not exactly sure. But students definately shouldn't have a say in assessing the performance of their teachers because they don't know what's best for their education. In the case of primary and secondary education, the students are not merely provided with a "service", but are taught so that they can serve society. An analogy can be drawn with the military - where trainees certainly shouldn't be able to judge their superiors. The education is compulsory also because the facilities kids have to judge what's best for themselves in the long run is limited.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Re: Julie Bishop: "Perfomance-Based Pay" for Teachers

I don't have a problem with performance based pay, I consider it like most other professions where people who are judged to be better by their bosses get paid more.

Even at the expense of those in lower classes who need a teacher who will dedicate themselves to them? At the expense of an eccentric teacher who has to apply themselves to a stringent model to bring the median up which might not be as beneficial, so a parent can positively evaluate them? Honestly, how many teachers do you think are going to risk being financially held back so they can help a class that might not advantage them financially. Yeah, teachers go into the professions hoping to help people out, but they've got themselves to look out for as well. It's asinine to compare teaching to other professions.

 

[banco55]

Re: Julie Bishop: "Perfomance-Based Pay" for Teachers

Banco lives in a world where education means nothing. Don't worry about him

I'd like to live in a world where the teachers union first priority was the students.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Re: Julie Bishop Introduces "Perfomance-Based Pay" for Teachers

It'd be nice if it was possible, but it's not, it's way too complicated which is why such measures are dealt with by principles, akin to how a manager deals with a company.

 

[banco55]

Re: Julie Bishop: "Perfomance-Based Pay" for Teachers

Teachers Fed looks after the teachers - the teachers look after the kids.

Teachers Fed > Teachers > Students.

The teachers interests aren't always aligned with their students interests. For example the union is adamantly opposed to giving principals real power to hire and fire. They are hostile towards league tables.

 

[volition]

Re: Julie Bishop: "Perfomance-Based Pay" for Teachers

Ok, I didn't word that properly. I was speaking in reference to what volition was saying about most other professions where people 'are judged to be better than their bosses':

There are many factors that influence your work (that are outside your control), there’s nothing new about that idea! I'm saying that merit pay is still workable anyway, just as it is in other industries.

This system also encourages teachers to be stricter about things like homework.

Only if that was what the person paying (your parents) wanted. If it did so happen that people were just copying off friends then the school could just come up with some other way to make you do it or resort to other teaching methods. People copy homework now don't they, schools still deal with that as it is. They use those anti-plagiarising systems for example.

Let's get this clear. Teachers work in the PUBLIC sector. They are PUBLIC SERVANTS, stop comparing them to people holding positions in the Private Sector.

I don’t see how being a public servant changes whether or not you should get paid more if you’re a better teacher. I think your criticisms should be directed towards accurately determining how good teachers are (and why you think it isn't workable to be able to tell who's good and who's not).

Again, this is the Public Sector. Private professions often also see employees quit because they are dissatified with their pay. That will make for a good feedback mechanism when the struggling system gets further dragged under. For instance, I could leave my Mathematics Teaching course in year 3 without the Diploma of Education and become a Mathematical Consultant - a job that deliver enough money a day to knock off a HECS debt in no time.

I’d prefer a more privately owned system of education, probably some type of voucher system. Under a more private system there is more incentive to actually care about the quality of teaching, so if it were really the case that society valued the services of the School Maths teacher more than the ‘Mathematical Consultant’ then that would be reflected in the price.

I’d have no problem with teacher’s jobs/pay being up to the principal or whatever system each school principal wants to implement, what you’d find in the long run is that the better teachers will get paid more and systems that are incapable of telling good teachers from bad will just be whittled away as better schools take their place.

 

[volition]

Re: Julie Bishop: "Perfomance-Based Pay" for Teachers

Hmm looks like the post timings are stuffed up, your post happened "after mine".

I think even a system where it(pay/hiring/firing) was completely up to principal's discretion (in a more privately owned system) would work. I think generally the school principal has a good feel for the quality of teachers, and they're obviously not just going to think a teacher is bad because they take the classes with poorer students.

Even if it did mean standardised tests at the end of each year, why would there be a problem with this if it was what parents chose for their children? They'd be making an investment decision, virtually all investment decisions are made with imperfect knowledge. They should just choose the school that they feel will be best for their child. So if you'd rather send your kid to a school where they don't HSC-test them at the end of every year (because you don't think it matters that much, or for whatever reason), then great!

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Re: Julie Bishop: "Perfomance-Based Pay" for Teachers

I don’t see how being a public servant changes whether or not you should get paid more if you’re a better teacher. I think your criticisms should be directed towards accurately determining how good teachers are (and why you think it isn't workable to be able to tell who's good and who's not).

Probably because those in the public sector more often than not make such a contribution to society that would inadequately be measured by "customers" without knowledge, such as biased parents or students.

I’d prefer a more privately owned system of education, probably some type of voucher system. Under a more private system there is more incentive to actually care about the quality of teaching, so if it were really the case that society valued the services of the School Maths teacher more than the ‘Mathematical Consultant’ then that would be reflected in the price.

Mmm, yes, I'd say that it wouldn't make a difference. From my experience at university, those who go into teaching either go into it all the way, or none at all. Those who wish to be good teachers (the majority) aren't going to be improved by pay bonuses or any other reward, as they already entered the profession aiming to be as good as possible.

I’d have no problem with teacher’s jobs/pay being up to the principal or whatever system each school principal wants to implement, what you’d find in the long run is that the better teachers will get paid more and systems that are incapable of telling good teachers from bad will just be whittled away as better schools take their place.

 

[xXeMoxXxCoRexX]

While it's admirable trying to apply free market principles to the running of public schools, I have to wonder what the point is, when the purpose of the place isn't to make a profit anyway.

Parents, generally, have no idea about education, which is why it's compulsory. Obviously there'll be plenty of anecdotal evidence against that because BoS has a disproportionately high amount of members who value education (and whose families probably value education).

And where does the huge faith in principals come from?

 

[HotShot]

While it's admirable trying to apply free market principles to the running of public schools, I have to wonder what the point is, when the purpose of the place isn't to make a profit anyway.

Parents, generally, have no idea about education, which is why it's compulsory. Obviously there'll be plenty of anecdotal evidence against that because BoS has a disproportionately high amount of members who value education (and whose families probably value education).

And where does the huge faith in principals come from?

In general Australians and AUstralia itself- its culture and the government policies do not value education. And hence why we are starting to lag behind the rest of the world.

 

[banco55]

While it's admirable trying to apply free market principles to the running of public schools, I have to wonder what the point is, when the purpose of the place isn't to make a profit anyway.

Parents, generally, have no idea about education, which is why it's compulsory. Obviously there'll be plenty of anecdotal evidence against that because BoS has a disproportionately high amount of members who value education (and whose families probably value education).

And where does the huge faith in principals come from?

I have faith in the principals generally making sensible decisions with regards to hiring and firing because they have to work with the teachers. If there's an incompetent teacher (I'm sure we've all had a couple if you ever went to a public school) that will affect the principal a lot more than it will affect some public servant in the education department. I used to have a teacher that would literally hand out work sheets every day and than he would read the papers for the whole day. Everyong (parents, principal etc.) knew he was a shit teacher but noone could do anything about it. Thank god for the union.

 

[banco55]

The crux of the issue is not whether principals should be responsible for deciding pay rises, hiring or firing but whether results will determine pay rises.

A principal deciding is alot more effective and fair than results deciding it.



Generalisation. Prove it or your statement is just another random statement meaning nothing.

Results provide an objective measure. In most other professions where they have bonuses they are based on an objective measure. ie hours billed

 

[volition]

Probably because those in the public sector more often than not make such a contribution to society that would inadequately be measured by "customers" without knowledge, such as biased parents or students.

I don’t see a good enough reason to have this much government control over education. It’s really hard to say that “the government knows better than us stupid people” when they’re really only voted in by ‘us stupid people’ in the first place. The best solution imo is to just privatise/deregulate the entire education industry. But failing that, I’d settle for some type of voucher system(funded by taxation) where schools have to actually compete for students (and therefore also compete for funds).

It’s not wrong of students to chase the higher paid jobs in a society where jobs are indexed by price, jobs that pay better just represent the fact that society needs them more.

What I was saying is that for it to be standardised across the board, EVERY school in EVERY STATE would have to commit to and participate in these standardised tests, in order for everyone to be on a "similar level", making it easier to discriminate teacher performance from mixed ability. Basically it would be putting everyone "on a level playing field" I suppose.

Ah I see, well I don’t really like the idea of just doing it ‘across the board’ based on standardised marks, I’d much prefer a smaller scale system that allows more for individual differences between schools/pupils/teachers.

I just don't get what is wrong with the system now?

I think it’s that it’s too hard to fire (which also means less inclined to hire in the first place), and union efforts that just derail productivity.

My fear is that the performance based pay-rises will force alot of people into a career change. We are already coming to a stage where a large chunk of the Teachers in NSW are nearing retirement (Baby-boomers ftl) which will through some chaos into the mix. Just think what this change will do on top of that. Young teachers will contemplate resigning and alot of people training to may reconsider.

Not a problem as far as I’m concerned:
- Career change: Nobody can expect to continue doing their job for an indefinite period of time, you only have a job as long as somebody else needs your services. Anything otherwise would be arguing for your right to someone else’s property (this right doesn't exist).
- Teachers retiring: Shouldn’t this push teacher’s pay upwards? More people will consider teaching as a profession. I don’t like all the talk of shortages that the government has to go around ‘fixing’, an example of a govt failure is how in America there’s this perpetual desire to “train scientists/mathematicians”. Guess who now has lower grad salaries as a result of the push? The simple economics behind it is irrefutable; increasing the supply of a good merely reduces the price. The government’s allocative efficiency doesn’t beat market efficiency.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I don’t see a good enough reason to have this much government control over education. It’s really hard to say that “the government knows better than us stupid people” when they’re really only voted in by ‘us stupid people’ in the first place. The best solution imo is to just privatise/deregulate the entire education industry. But failing that, I’d settle for some type of voucher system(funded by taxation) where schools have to actually compete for students (and therefore also compete for funds).

That assumes that you can trust the private sector with something as vital as education, that a private sector would be able to succesfully implement a standardised curriculum in an entire state (although the government seems to have trouble between states) and that there'd be a point to such an act. Really, to ensure that everyone is receiving a fair, equitable and standardies education the government intervention would have to be enormous. Why bother, when it's perfectly reasonable, logical and quite easy to simply tax the public, and manage education via one single body? Everyone, theoretically (not under Howard, or the coalition evidently) receives the same education, less people are disadvantaged via circumstances beyond their control and intervention is enabled with massive layers of beuracracy.

A ticketing system? Oh my no, what an awful idea. There's already sufficient problems with providing a decent education to people within disadvantaged areas, for instance Redfern (although it gets a lot of attention, so it's somewhat lkess disadvantaged) and schools beyond the Sydney metro area and larger satellite towns. A ticketing system, where schools would compete for funds would simply exacerbate those problems. Education is not something that can be succesfully privatised and deregulated folks, much like healthcare.

It’s not wrong of students to chase the higher paid jobs in a society where jobs are indexed by price, jobs that pay better just represent the fact that society needs them more.

Or that society thinks they need them more. I'd argue that a metalworker, or a coal miner is far more useful to society than a beureacrat, and yet...

 

[xXeMoxXxCoRexX]

Or that society thinks they need them more. I'd argue that a metalworker, or a coal miner is far more useful to society than a beureacrat, and yet...

and yet you argued so strongly against Peter Debnam's idea to reduce the number of bureaucrats just a little while ago

No seriously, I think if you had vouchers we'd see certain members of the community selling the vouchers at less-than-their-value-prices to other members of the community in order to fund smokes, beer and the pokies.

 

[banco55]

That assumes that you can trust the private sector with something as vital as education, that a private sector would be able to succesfully implement a standardised curriculum in an entire state (although the government seems to have trouble between states) and that there'd be a point to such an act. Really, to ensure that everyone is receiving a fair, equitable and standardies education the government intervention would have to be enormous. Why bother, when it's perfectly reasonable, logical and quite easy to simply tax the public, and manage education via one single body? Everyone, theoretically (not under Howard, or the coalition evidently) receives the same education, less people are disadvantaged via circumstances beyond their control and intervention is enabled with massive layers of beuracracy.

Or that society thinks they need them more. I'd argue that a metalworker, or a coal miner is far more useful to society than a beureacrat, and yet...

Why would the government intervention have to be "huge" when it's not now with catholic/independent schools? As for accountability you'd have a single government body set standardized exams for every year above year 6. The results would be publically released so if a school was doing a poor job it would soon become apparent. The teachers would know what topics were going to be on the exam so they would have to teach them and thus comply with the curriculum.