Test results are an incomprehensive tool on which to base teachers' bonus pay. Photo: Jason South
Victorian state Education Minister Bronwyn Pike's confirmation that national literacy and numeracy test scores will be used as part of a trial next year to determine teacher eligibility for bonus pay will be of concern to many of Victoria's teachers. In August, she said the system ''is not about rewards for results. I'm interested in rewarding people for passion, commitment and professional competency.'' So, what has changed?
Most teachers know that quantitative methods, such as the latest proposal, will rarely provide a true reflection of what takes place in classrooms. They are right to fear that use of these test results may well be the thin edge of the wedge in a long-term drive to have teachers working under a performance pay regime, weighted towards quantitative data, such as test results.
As competition for tertiary places and employment opportunities has escalated over the past three decades at least, teachers have come under pressure to ''deliver'', finding themselves increasingly sandwiched between the expectations of government, their school, parents and students.
It is odd that Australian teachers seem to be held in lower esteem at home than in other countries, where they are frequently praised for their knowledge, enthusiasm and professionalism. Certainly that was the case when I taught in Zimbabwe as an Australian Volunteer Abroad in the mid-1990s.
Successive governments have contributed to this state of affairs by either failing to promote the great work most teachers already do and have done for years, or by lazily and immorally reinforcing negative stereotypes of teachers for political advantage.
Pike is coming good on the promise made to voters after negotiations with teacher unions that resulted in a series of mediocre pay rises were concluded last year - teachers would pay a price in terms of ''improved productivity''.
Ill-conceived initiatives such as this only serve to reinforce the skewed yet commonly held belief that many of Victoria's teachers are not up to scratch and this is a major factor contributing to poor educational outcomes for too many students.
Yes, there are teachers who need to lift their game and others who need to find a different occupation. However, in both tangible and intangible ways, through interactions immeasurable in a quantitative sense and rarely recorded for posterity, the vast majority of teachers make a meaningful contribution - in both the short and long term - not only to the academic progress of their students but to their development as human beings. I have seen it every day of my almost 20-year teaching career. It is the great and largely untold story of Australian education.
The performance management program instituted by my school requires teachers to reflect with a senior teacher, who acts as mentor, on what they have done, what has gone well and what hasn't, to set some goals for the year and to check later whether those goals have been achieved, and, if not, what the barriers were.
Although I was a little sceptical at first, I found it to be a non-threatening exercise. Such qualitative processes build on what most teachers do already. The formal nature of the task was helpful in forcing me to draw together the threads of what had taken place in recent years and pin down what I actually wanted to do.
I cautiously concede that such qualitative data, evaluated over an extended period of time, could provide evidence for a bonus pay system, if it were desirable and practical, which is doubtful. Yet, only such an approach can hope to provide at least a sense of the complex role an individual teacher plays. It should include quantitative data such as test results, but analysed qualitatively in the appropriate context. For example: ''Her students' grades for the past two years have been lower but are good, given that she took the weakest class in both years.''
However, a performance pay system significantly dependent on test results could potentially destroy the collegiality exhibited in many schools as the quality of class lists becomes a divisive issue and teachers feel reluctant to share resources.
A colleague becomes a competitor under such a system. Teachers will have a strong incentive to teach towards whatever test(s) influence their pay and a strong disincentive to challenge students and teach beyond the minimum standard.
Over the past decade, it has been my pleasure to teach many international students, mostly from Asian countries such as China and Korea. On the rare occasions I meet the parents of my students, I am typically taken aback by the humble approach of Asia's elite (most of whom earn many times my salary) towards the teachers of their children, and the effusive support they offer. The important role of teachers is hardwired into Asian culture, it seems.
Perhaps Australian society has something to learn from our Asian neighbours; the Victorian Government could make an excellent start by vigorously promoting the good work teachers already do.
Perhaps, if the base pay of teachers is raised to genuinely reflect their expertise and experience, gifted people would be attracted to the profession, fewer good teachers would leave and there would be no need for bonus pay. Then Pike's idea would be rightfully discredited as an anachronistic mimicking of a competitive corporate world, at odds with the collegial context in which teachers thrive.