How should teachers be paid?

[brendan]

If you are in public education, you should get the same standard of teaching, regardless of what school you come from. If you are paying extra for private education ot tuition, fine, good on you. The important thing though is that everyone has the same access to the resources required to do well in school/life. And why should that be the case? Because having those basic resources is what gives EVERYBODY the personal freedom to work towards what they want in life, not just the select few.

The goal shouldn't be to impose conformity - you could make it all equal, by making all schools equally crap. That's the logic consequence of your principle. Yet who would say that is desirable? And again, how does that even relate to the OP on how teachers ought to be paid?

Firstly, I didn't say "potentially successful students are limited by their family financial background". Please don't incorrectly cite things that I didn't say, Obsolete Chaos was the one who said that. Secondly, well duh, of course correlation doesn't imply causation, but it's not like this inference is something I just randomly decided to make up, see here: http://www.educationfoundation.org.au/downloads/How%20Equitable%20Are%20Our%20Schools.pdf

Quite right, that was chaos'. That article you cited is simply correlation and it doesn't address the fact that ACER found no correlation between socio-economic background and student achievement for Asian students, which completely destroys any inference of causation. You cannot possibly have causation without correlation. Even if you have correlation that still isn't enough.

Secondly, the studies that find correlation show that the variation in SES only accounts for 5-10% of the variation in student achievement. Again that is only correlation not causation - SES is an indicator not necessarily a determinant of student achievement. The fact that an ACER study found that the variation in SES could not explain the variation in student achievement for Asian students pretty much is the nail in the coffin for the idea that SES itself is a determinant of student achievement. If you don't have correlation you cannot possibly have causation.

[Eriny]

If you are in public education, you should get the same standard of teaching, regardless of what school you come from. If you are paying extra for private education ot tuition, fine, good on you. The important thing though is that everyone has the same access to the resources required to do well in school/life. And why should that be the case? Because having those basic resources is what gives EVERYBODY the personal freedom to work towards what they want in life, not just the select few.

The goal shouldn't be to impose conformity - you could make it all equal, by making all schools equally crap. That's the logic consequence of your principle. Yet who would say that is desirable? And again, how does that even relate to the OP on how teachers ought to be paid?

Firstly, I didn't say "potentially successful students are limited by their family financial background". Please don't incorrectly cite things that I didn't say, Obsolete Chaos was the one who said that. Secondly, well duh, of course correlation doesn't imply causation, but it's not like this inference is something I just randomly decided to make up, see here: http://www.educationfoundation.org.au/downloads/How%20Equitable%20Are%20Our%20Schools.pdf

Quite right, that was chaos'. That article you cited is simply correlation and it doesn't address the fact that ACER found no correlation between socio-economic background and student achievement for Asian students, which completely destroys any inference of causation. You cannot possibly have causation without correlation. Even if you have correlation that still isn't enough.

Secondly, the studies that find correlation show that the variation in SES only accounts for 5-10% of the variation in student achievement. Again that is only correlation not causation - SES is an indicator not necessarily a determinant of student achievement. The fact that an ACER study found that the variation in SES could not explain the variation in student achievement for Asian students pretty much is the nail in the coffin for the idea that SES itself is a determinant of student achievement. If you don't have correlation you cannot possibly have causation.

I just think that the spread of 'good' teachers should be fairly even across all public schools. Both the affluent and low income earners need and deserve good teachers and they should all get them.

It's true that the studies are merely correlations, but there is logic in drawing the conclusion that influences other than the student themselves can impact on academic achievement. Socio-economic status being significant in that. I do agree that it is no more than an influence, it's certainly not a determinant. A smart kid will go well at any school, it's just that an average student will logically have a better chance of success if they are among people who value education (usually these are people who have some form of affluence) and if they have good teachers.

[costargh]

This post is in reference to the above argument between Brendan and Eriny.

You are both talking about government schools yes? Is Eriny saying that all government schools should be able to have access to good teachers and those who want a better standard of education can choose to pay the costs (private schooling)?

If thats the case then I tend to have the contention that everyone should have access to a good standard of education whether they live in Melbourne or Woop Woop. I have this contention because the aim of the public education system is to give everyone access to a 'free' education.
If people have the money to send their children to Private schools and believe that that they will receive a better level of education through that pursuit then they should choose that option. But the rich should not get priority to supposed 'free education'. (Through buying into richer areas that are in the zoning of better schools).

That is not the aim of government education and it should not be

[brendan]

It's true that the studies are merely correlations, but there is logic in drawing the conclusion that influences other than the student themselves can impact on academic achievement. Socio-economic status being significant in that.

If it was influential, then it would at the very very least showed up as a correlation in the ACER study - but it didn't - not even a simple correlation. SES could not explain the variation in student achievement for Asian students. There is no logic, and it is very much illogical, to imply from correlation that there must be causation. It is even more bizarre, to still hold on to the view of causation when a study has found that there was no correlation. If SES impacted on student achievement then it would have showed up in the ACER study, regardless of race.

an average student will logically have a better chance of success if they are among people who value education (usually these are people who have some form of affluence) and if they have good teachers.

If that was so logical, it's logic would have showed for itself. That claim you made is an empirical claim. The first one being the existence of peer effects and the second being the effect of quality of teaching on student achievement. Not to say that the claim is false, but peer effects are notoriously difficult to prove empirically because there are so many other biases that could be affecting what might appear to be peer effects. The major one is selection bias i.e. students who are smart might very well tend to hang around with other smart people, and that's why you find that kids who hang around with smart people tend to get higher results. But again, that is not the topic.

I just think that the spread of 'good' teachers should be fairly even across all public schools.

That's just not how it is at the moment. A good deal of why that isn't happening is a result of government imposed restrictions. The problem is that individual schools are not free to set their own compensation arrangements to meet their own individual needs. Schools that serve predominantly disadvantaged populations need to be free to offer higher salaries to the teachers to be able to attract teachers to work in such conditions. The current evidence shows that because the same salary schedule is imposed on all government schools that this creates severe problems for schools with particularly disadvantaged populations because they are not allowed to deviate from the uniform salary schedule and offer a higher rate of pay to teachers to compensate them for the tougher working environment. Government imposed uniform salary scales mean that teachers choose government schools based on non-wage factors. So we get the perverse effect that the most sought-after government school teachers are in the cushiest government schools.

the rich should not get priority to supposed 'free education'. (Through buying into richer areas that are in the zoning of better schools).
That is not the aim of government education and it should not be

I agree with that it's a real problem and it mocks the notion that government is providing a "free" education - this is even ignoring the whole "voluntary fees" debacle. Here is the most recent Australian study on it:

"Finding that a 5 percent increase in the median UAI (approximately one standard deviation) is associated with a 3.5 percent increase in house prices—or $13,000 at the median 2005 ACT house sale price...Since houses in better school zones are more expensive high-quality public education is not costless. The price of buying into a good school zone may prevent poor families from accessing the public schools of their choice. Given that education can transform the social and economic opportunities of the underprivileged, such social exclusion may perpetuate cycles of disadvantage if left unaddressed." http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/~aleigh/pdf/SchoolQualityHousePrices.pdf

[Eriny]

??
My problem is that if teachers are paid by schools, richer schools (which the correlations show tend to do better than poorer schools - the reason why can be moot) will be able to get the good teachers away from the poorer schools, which leads the students in poorer schools without the same quality of education as other public school students.

I just think that the spread of 'good' teachers should be fairly even across all public schools.

That's just not how it is at the moment. A good deal of why that isn't happening is a result of government imposed restrictions. The problem is that individual schools are not free to set their own compensation arrangements to meet their own individual needs. Schools that serve predominantly disadvantaged populations need to be free to offer higher salaries to the teachers to be able to attract teachers to work in such conditions. The current evidence shows that because the same salary schedule is imposed on all government schools this creates severe problems for individual schools with particularly disadvantaged populations because they are not allowed to deviate from the salary schedule and offer a higher rate of pay to teachers to compensate them for the tougher working environment. Government imposed uniform salary scales mean that teachers choose government schools based on non-wage factors. So we get the perverse effect that the most sought-after government school teachers are in the cushiest government school.

That's true. The current situation is that there is inequalities between teacher quality at different public schools. Unfortunately though, giving the schools the power to pay for teachers will not help this. Maybe a different solution would be better. I do like the idea of the school itself determining how much a teacher should be paid, because their data would be more comprehensive than standardised testing in determining the "value" of a teacher (although one could argue that that's unquantifiable) especially since performanced based pay determined by the government, I think, would be rife with flaws and ultimately benefit teachers with a smart class rather than good teachers, but giving richer public schools more power in getting good teachers is an unwanted side-effect.

[Collin Li]

performance pay is fundamentally flawed. unless you want waste time and money establishing pointless bureaucracies and policies to somehow determine the "quality" of every single teacher in this state is, the one-size-fits-all policy - although it may be unfair - should stand.

What? You misunderstand my point. I opt for decentralisation and removal of bureaucracies like the DoE, not the introduction of multiple bureaucracies to enforce various methods. I say, put the responsibility back to the schools, so that they will actually get to optimise staff management (and it would be in their incentives to).

This would happen by the free market, not by bureaucracy. You seem to be saying that many bureaucracies are worse than one, I agree. I am saying that no bureaucracies are better than one

[costargh]

??
My problem is that if teachers are paid by schools, richer schools (which the correlations show tend to do better than poorer schools - the reason why can be moot) will be able to get the good teachers away from the poorer schools, which leads the students in poorer schools without the same quality of education as other public school students.

I just think that the spread of 'good' teachers should be fairly even across all public schools.

That's just not how it is at the moment. A good deal of why that isn't happening is a result of government imposed restrictions. The problem is that individual schools are not free to set their own compensation arrangements to meet their own individual needs. Schools that serve predominantly disadvantaged populations need to be free to offer higher salaries to the teachers to be able to attract teachers to work in such conditions. The current evidence shows that because the same salary schedule is imposed on all government schools this creates severe problems for individual schools with particularly disadvantaged populations because they are not allowed to deviate from the salary schedule and offer a higher rate of pay to teachers to compensate them for the tougher working environment. Government imposed uniform salary scales mean that teachers choose government schools based on non-wage factors. So we get the perverse effect that the most sought-after government school teachers are in the cushiest government school.

That's true. The current situation is that there is inequalities between teacher quality at different public schools. Unfortunately though, giving the schools the power to pay for teachers will not help this. Maybe a different solution would be better. I do like the idea of the school itself determining how much a teacher should be paid, because their data would be more comprehensive than standardised testing in determining the "value" of a teacher (although one could argue that that's unquantifiable) especially since performanced based pay determined by the government, I think, would be rife with flaws and ultimately benefit teachers with a smart class rather than good teachers, but giving richer public schools more power in getting good teachers is an unwanted side-effect.

If teachers are paid based on performance, won't the pay for teachers be the same regardless of what school they are teaching at?

If its a matter of prestige for teachers then they ultimately should have the choice to move to schools where they may better their carreer but maybe should have incentives for staying in poorer schools such is the case with the current rural doctors shortage (Packages that reward those who choose to work in sometimes undisieable locations)

I really don't know anymore. The flow on effect of this proposed system is really extensive lol

[droodles]

Actually pay for teachers should be based on performance in terms of: as performance up, pay up so that it gives them the incentive to keep up the good work.

[Collin Li]

I do like the idea of the school itself determining how much a teacher should be paid, because their data would be more comprehensive than standardised testing in determining the "value" of a teacher (although one could argue that that's unquantifiable) especially since performanced based pay determined by the government, I think, would be rife with flaws and ultimately benefit teachers with a smart class rather than good teachers, but giving richer public schools more power in getting good teachers is an unwanted side-effect.

By letting schools have more flexibility in choosing teachers, it invites competition and it makes teachers compete to perform better. It doesn't merely re-distribute teachers, it grows the total amount of 'quality' that is to be distributed, and ultimately, that is a good thing.

A restrictive teacher policy only locks out opportunities for higher wages, and creates disincentives against teachers who would perform better. It also keeps those who would otherwise have a comparative advantage in teaching from entering this field, since they would favour some other field with less regulations.

[costargh]

Actually pay for teachers should be based on performance in terms of: as performance up, pay up so that it gives them the incentive to keep up the good work.

I like the idea too but most of the argument stems from the point of "how do you measure performance?"

[Eriny]

If teachers are paid based on performance, won't the pay for teachers be the same regardless of what school they are teaching at?

Not necessarily. If the same teacher happens to be teaching a bunch of good students, they'll get higher test scores, show higher rates of improvement and will have a lower drop-out rate than if that teacher was teaching a bunch of bad students, unless they were movie-ishly remarkable.

I do like the idea of the school itself determining how much a teacher should be paid, because their data would be more comprehensive than standardised testing in determining the "value" of a teacher (although one could argue that that's unquantifiable) especially since performanced based pay determined by the government, I think, would be rife with flaws and ultimately benefit teachers with a smart class rather than good teachers, but giving richer public schools more power in getting good teachers is an unwanted side-effect.

By letting schools have more flexibility in choosing teachers, it invites competition and it makes teachers compete to perform better. It doesn't merely re-distribute teachers, it grows the total amount of 'quality' that is to be distributed, and ultimately, that is a good thing.

A restrictive teacher policy only locks out opportunities for higher wages, and creates disincentives against teachers who would perform better. It also keeps those who would otherwise have a comparative advantage in teaching from entering this field, since they would favour some other field with less regulations.

I actually agree, but there's still the issue of making sure each public school has equivilant means to hire the same quality teachers.

[costargh]

If teachers are paid based on performance, won't the pay for teachers be the same regardless of what school they are teaching at?

Not necessarily. If the same teacher happens to be teaching a bunch of good students, they'll get higher test scores, show higher rates of improvement and will have a lower drop-out rate than if that teacher was teaching a bunch of bad students, unless they were movie-ishly remarkable.

Oh but I am basing my sense on a situation where teachers could be fairly tested on their performance. Ie. Regardless of good or bad students, a teacher can still be rewarded equally for performing well.

[Eriny]

If teachers are paid based on performance, won't the pay for teachers be the same regardless of what school they are teaching at?

Not necessarily. If the same teacher happens to be teaching a bunch of good students, they'll get higher test scores, show higher rates of improvement and will have a lower drop-out rate than if that teacher was teaching a bunch of bad students, unless they were movie-ishly remarkable.

Oh but I am basing my sense on a situation where teachers could be fairly tested on their performance. Ie. Regardless of good or bad students, a teacher can still be rewarded equally for performing well.

Oh well, in that case then yeah, you're right. The question would be: how on earth would we fairly do that? (without disadvantaging low socio-economic schools)

[Collin Li]

I actually agree, but there's still the issue of making sure each public school has equivilant means to hire the same quality teachers.

Perhaps the government should offer schools FEE-HELP loans, LOL

I just thought of loans and teachers... premier league education! Combined with school vouchers, this lets management shine, and it throws out a lot of fairness issues.

[costargh]

The question would be: how on earth would we fairly do that? (without disadvantaging low socio-economic schools)

Well yeh I guess thats what the whole argument is about. How can you pay teachers based on performance if the system that is used for basing their performance is not adequate?

I think with the right guidance a system of pay based on performance could work and could be be beneficial to students in the long-run but without the right system it will inevitably lead to unfairness in the public education system for teachers.

I think in certain industries performance pay can definitely increase performance and productivity (for say fast food). Whether the public education system can sustain such a system is beyond my knowledge.