Performance pay will stop struggling schools attracting top teachers

Will performance pay make it harder for struggling schools to attract top teachers? Bill Watkin, the operational director at SSAT (The Schools Network), explores the big questions surrounding performance-related pay. This is an extract from the Guardian…

School leaders are now – if they have not already completed the exercise – developing their strategies for the introduction of a new pay policy. They are considering how they might gather evidence of a teacher’s performance, which evidence is most useful and how to achieve demonstrable consistency and objectivity. With a teacher’s salary level hanging on the outcome, it is a critical exercise.

The freedom to reward excellence, through salary adjustments, whether time-defined or permanent, is one which most leaders will relish. But it is likely that the freedom will also be accompanied by the risk of resistance, at least at the outset. The advice is to be careful to take appropriate legal and HR advice to ensure that the policy is drawn up correctly and that its introduction is effected smoothly. It will also be essential to secure effective training for all involved.

And how will a school find the money to reward all its excellent teachers, particularly if it has large numbers? Might it prioritise, as Sir Michael Wilshaw suggested this week, rewards over class size? There is evidence to suggest that this is certainly achievable.

The freedom to reward the best teachers in this way will reinforce an important signal to teachers: the quality of teaching and the commitment to the wider school experience are essential requirements of a successful professional. But, correspondingly, schools will be looking to enhance the support they give to those teachers who do not make the grade and to show that they accept that not all will be able to make that grade, however much scaffolded support they receive. School leaders know who their good teachers are. And so do the teachers themselves. The association of performance with pay will be welcomed by many.

Whether that enhanced pay takes the form of an annual bonus or a salary change is another dimension that schools will be addressing.

However, the position of more vulnerable, fragile, low-performing schools is a concern. The accountability framework is such that a leader is taking a risk, in terms of career progression, in taking on a low-attaining school. It is significantly more difficult to be judged to be outstanding in such schools. Lower-ability children make slower progress. Barriers to progress and learning, such as behaviour, literacy levels and low aspirations, tend to be more entrenched and difficult to overcome. There is a growing concern that ambitious and aspirational leaders will think twice before taking on that challenge, for fear of the blot of an unsatisfactory judgement on the CV.

If it is the case that it is harder to be judged successful if you work in a low attaining school, whether as a leader or a classroom practitioner (this is certainly a real perception and there is evidence to support the view), is there a risk that some teachers will consider it easier to be judged successful and receive the benefit of performance-related pay (PRP) if they work in a successful school, at the outstanding end of the performance spectrum?

And if so, is there a danger that the more ambitious and aspirational teachers will gravitate towards the ‘good’ schools, rather than the struggling schools, in order to maximise the chance of a higher salary?

More at:  Performance pay will stop struggling schools attracting top teachers

So do you think there is a real danger that the more ambitious and aspirational teachers will gravitate towards the ‘good’ schools, rather than the struggling schools? What implications will this have over time? Or will it be valuable and important for teachers to show they have made an impact at more challenging schools? Please share your thoughts in the comments below, on Twitter or by using this form 

It's not teenagers' fault they are grumpy: 'Growing up drains their energy from the age of nine'
Video: 'Everything I love about teaching is extinct' - emotional resignation by veteran teacher slams 'depressing gradual downfall of public education'
Categories: Employment and Teaching.

Comments

  1. 5N_Afzal

    SchoolsImprove I just commented. By the way form’s a good idea. Lets you write more than 140 characters.

  2. andylutwyche

    SchoolsImprove PRP has the potential to be both good and bad. Good teachers deserve rewarding but cronyism will be a factor in some schools

  3. KateRich28

    SchoolsImprove any SLT worth their own salary should be supporting failing teachers, not booting them out for another school to pick up.

  4. From @5N_Afzal via contact form: 
    Performance needs to be judged on the basis of progress made between start & end rather than the grades achieved by pupils at the end. In other words performance of a teacher whose student whose student progressed and obtained a C, for example, when he would have obtained a lower grade without that teacher has performed better than a teacher whose student started and ended the year at A. Teachers in outstanding schools may have to work much harder to show progress as their students will already be performing near the top of whichever scale you use as a measure

  5. Organic_Jane

    SchoolsImprove I think it is going to come down to budgets.We have many outstanding but budget won’t stretch. Retention will be issue 4 us.

  6. New comment via form from http://twitter.com/#!/@rrunsworth via contact form:
    PRP isn’t only about pupil progress related targets, should also include individual CPD targets and perhaps a whole school target. Much depends on context of school ie tiny village primary different from large secondary so we cannot be too prescriptive.http://twitter.com/#!/@5N_Afzal makes valid point about pupil progress. Re concern expressed by http://twitter.com/#!/@andylutwyche about cronyism, even current system open to abuse by unscrupulous individuals. Governors need to ensure clear concise policy in place AND SLT has good evidence to support whatever recommendation it makes with respect to pay decisions for each staff member.

  7. Mom34

    This has already happened at an academy I worked at. Slt gathered ‘evidence’ against teachers whose students were not progressing in line with national expectations and coupled with requires improvement observations put six teachers through capability to get rid of them. None of those teachers were, in my view, inadequate; they had just been working in extremely challenging circumstances and just ao happened to be near the top end of the mainscale. Fortunately, I believe all the teachers in question found other jobs, but I think the change in capability procedures and PRP will make it easier for schools to move on staff but also will make it harder to recruit, especially in low performing amd challenging schools. If it is true that children need stability and routine, a high turnover of staff on temporary contracts will not facilitate progress of children but may safeguard slt positions. Am I sounding too cynical? If children are to be the priority I am not convinced these new systems will succeed: children are not just statistics, in my humble opinion.

Let us know what you think...