How should teachers be paid?

[melodrama]

lol they're libertarians. pfft.

That's my point, individual government schools ought to be free to choose that arrangement too. Such decisions ought to be at the school level (like at every other private school) not by some bureaucrat in a distant office.

ultimately it all boils down to the workability of the whole thing. whilst giving schools autonomy sounds good in words, it calls for a much more rigorous code than the tier system. it's imperative that this code quantifies the ability of a teacher accurately and fairly. basically, you have to translate the definition of a good teacher (which is already problematic) into a unique number for every teacher in the school. it'll only work if schools are willing to spend time and money churning out these numbers and tweaking them over a period of years (and possibly resulting in good teachers deserting the students as a result). however, i doubt that they'd be willing to throw the school into chaos for the sake of performance pay.

experience only accounts for 1% of the variation in teacher performance

i think you misunderstand me - i'm not saying that experience will lead to better performance, but i'm saying that experience will be gained BECAUSE of better performance. if there is indeed a "competitive education industry" as coblin suggests, good teachers endure and shit ones get sacked.

[brendan]

lol they're libertarians. pfft.

Well I consider myself as just a plain liberal. Not "Liberal" as in the Liberal Party of Australia, but a liberal in the traditional/classical sense. Nothing more, nothing less.

if there is indeed a "competitive education industry" as coblin suggests, good teachers endure and shit ones get sacked.

The problem is, its not competitive. If it was competitive then you would at the very very least have decisions being made at the school level rather than imposed by a central bureaucracy (like in the Soviet Union). I say "very least" because it is a necessary but not a sufficient condition. It's nothing radical, i just want government schools to have the same amount of autonomy as do private schools like PLC

[Collin Li]

lol they're libertarians. pfft.

Is that supposed to dismiss our arguments and label them as lunatic or radical? Libertarians are far from radical. They take ideas from both the left and the right (anti-censorship, gay rights, capitalism). The radical idea is that government will solve all of our problems.

if there is indeed a "competitive education industry" as coblin suggests, good teachers endure and shit ones get sacked.

I suggested there ought to be a competitive education industry, not that there is.

I don't understand why you say there must be all these codes and regulations. I proposed that fair is free, because the school will have an incentive to make sure they pay the best wage to the best teachers as well as they can, so that they can continue to get results that attract parents to send their kids there. Also, if you have a bureaucracy that makes sure there is a fair distribution of teachers, then you mitigate the entire market system. This locks able teachers into poor schools, which means they will not be able to leave to a school that offers a better wage, which then causes complacency and encourages poor teaching standards.

[melodrama]

Is that supposed to dismiss our arguments and label them as lunatic or radical? Libertarians are far from radical. They take ideas from both the left and the right (anti-censorship, gay rights, capitalism). The radical idea is that government will solve all of our problems.

relax, collin, i'm kidding. sif make an ad hominem attack when brendan's around =(

my point is that codes and regulations within schools are imperative in the whole idea of performance pay, ie there must be a procedure in order to arrive at a salary, rather than plucking a number from thin air at the principal's whim.

The problem is, its not competitive. If it was competitive then you would at the very very least have decisions being made at the school level rather than imposed by a central bureaucracy

I proposed that fair is free, because the school will have an incentive to make sure they pay the best wage to the best teachers as well as they can, so that they can continue to get results that attract parents to send their kids there.

don't they already have an incentive? schools are already competitive by nature, and strive to maintain and build on their reputation. the number of plc pamphlets that flood our mailboxes can clearly attest to that therefore, it is natural that the schools themselves would aim and act to retain the better quality teachers rather than being dictated by a central bureaucracy.

This locks able teachers into poor schools, which means they will not be able to leave to a school that offers a better wage, which then causes complacency and encourages poor teaching standards.

that's rather cynical - surely the passion for teaching as well as the threat of unemployment will keep them on edge? however, it's up to you - you can either make it a level playing field or you can allow the able teachers to flock to the richer private schools and obliterate the poorer state school system.

while your ideas sound idealistic and fair, i argue that it is too hardline at this point in time.

[brendan]

I just want government schools to have the same autonomy as does PLC (oh wait didn't you go there mel? what a concidence )

[melodrama]

ah wellll i've heard plc being used in worse contexts

[Collin Li]

my point is that codes and regulations within schools are imperative in the whole idea of performance pay, ie there must be a procedure in order to arrive at a salary, rather than plucking a number from thin air at the principal's whim.

It wouldn't be as bad as you paint it. If it was merely plucked from thin air at the principal's whim, then that school would fail miserably. The prices would be determined by supply and demand. If by "procedure," you meant procedures that each school chose and maintained by itself, then yes, I agree, there is no problem with that: they are responsible for managing their own staff. If you mean some centralised code that regulates the freedom of teacher transfers, then I cannot agree with you. Any such regulation would simply limit the ability of talented teachers to teach where they want to teach.

don't they already have an incentive? schools are already competitive by nature, and strive to maintain and build on their reputation. the number of plc pamphlets that flood our mailboxes can clearly attest to that therefore, it is natural that the schools themselves would aim and act to retain the better quality teachers rather than being dictated by a central bureaucracy.

Yes, there is a lot more competition with the private sector. If public schools had the same autonomy as private schools, that would be a good step forward.

surely the passion for teaching as well as the threat of unemployment will keep them on edge?

This is logically unsound. These conditions also exist in a competitive society. There is a marginal cost because some of the incentives (in a competitive industry) have been removed.