Policy Exchange: Teachers Could Say Yes to Performance-related Pay

Results of a poll on 1,000 teachers revealed the possibility of teachers’ taking in the performance-related pay. Conducted by the London-based think tank, Policy Exchange, this insight was found at the heart of the 55% figure.

Under this figure, the condition by which teachers may consider applying for a PRP or performance-related paying school consists of the statement:

If it also resulted in a reduction in your administrative, reporting and bureaucratic workload.

Furthermore, as Policy Exchange pointed out, the key to such “change of heart” is the ability of institutions to persuade teachers that such workload or “paperwork” can, in fact, be reduced.

The reverse implication

Christine Blower of NUT proffered a different, if not the opposite, effect of PRP to teachers’ workload. Instead of actually easing up the workload, teachers are bound to face more paperwork as performance-related pay entails the regular quantifying of teacher’s performance.

Blower’s exact words were as follows: “Yet in many schools the introduction of PRP will lead to a much greater bureaucratic workload as head teachers introduce new forms and evidence gathering.”
Indeed, last April, guidelines were already distributed among schools in England as to how teachers’ performance is to be gauged. Proposed parameters consisted of the pupil’s progress and outcomes; teacher’s improvements, effectiveness, and contribution to school.

A bleak prospect

This lack of clear benefits, particularly, towards teachers’ perspective is alarming. Unsurprisingly, teachers are bound to bring their grievances to the streets this coming Tuesday, covering areas such as the Midlands, Humber, East of England and Yorkshire.

Led by different unions (ie, NUT, NASUWT, and ATL), the strike’s objective is veered towards continuously balking at the lack of evidence: the correlation of teachers’ performance-related pay with students’ raised standard of education.

Opposite the union of teachers’ ring are the Department of Education and the National Association of Head Teachers. While these entities laud PRP for its flexible features, the union accused its application to teachers’ pay as a tip of the cost-cutting iceberg.

Is flexibility an exclusive feature?

While there is intrigue as to the union’s claim on the PRP ploy, its flexible feature was by no means a fake. This claim is also reinforced by Policy Exchange’s findings:

… more than half (52%) said performance pay would make it easier to dismiss poor teachers.

Apart from a mechanism that will actively facilitate the head teacher’s job (ie, that eliminating facet); PRP is envisioned to put “pressure” towards better performance. Collectively, this makes PRP an important subject for debate: it has considerable pros and inevitable cons.

What do you think? Are the figures behind Policy Exchange’s claim sufficient to indicate what’s to become of teacher’s pay? Is PRP a potential fix for eliminating poor-performing teachers and raising the standards of education?