ASTI members vote for industrial action over Covid issues

Dav010

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

What's the definition of a good teacher? Exams, assessment results?

I saw how performance related pay tore teaching apart in England while I was over there. The collegiate nature of it disappeared in the race to get one over on the teacher next door.

If that meant kids got better education and results, I can live with that. If you are poor at your job in other sectors, you get moved on, that is not an option when it comes to crap teachers.

Donald Trump

Dav010 wrote: »

If that meant kids got better education and results, I can live with that. If you are poor at your job in other sectors, you get moved on, that is not an option when it comes to crap teachers.

Some employers in some sectors are ruthless at cutting the bottom ranked x% of their staff every year. It doesn't matter how good they are at their job in the absolute sense - they just have a cut-off and if you fall into that then you are gone. You could earn the company 100k one year and be alright because you are at the 10th percentile but then the next year you increase what you earned them to 1m but get cut because you fell to the 5th percentile relative to everyone else. And it's not usually on something so clear cut and objective as numbers earned. Can just be down to some arsehole new managers dislike of you causing them to mark you down on some subjective metric

wirelessdude01

Dav010 wrote: »

Same here, maybe there is another sector where two people doing the same job employed 10 years apart have to be paid the same rate.

So you honestly think that a teacher with let's say two years permanent experience and a teacher with ten years permanent experience are paid the same?

When I worked in the private sector you got paid whatever you could get out of the company. Alot of metrics were probably paid but basically it came down to negotiation skills and confidence in your ability. We weren't meant to know what the others had but we all talked. Generally someone recruited from outside got better initial salary than someone promoted internally as there was greater competition for people with experience.

wirelessdude01

Dav010 wrote: »

If that meant kids got better education and results, I can live with that. If you are poor at your job in other sectors, you get moved on, that is not an option when it comes to crap teachers.

See education isn't always just about results. I always drill it into my primary kids that academics isn't the be all and end all. This mentality has led to the situation where people think going to do a trade is somehow a step down on or beneath them.

I remember when I got my first job in IT after college I was told to forget everything we'd learned in university as the real learning started now.

wirelessdude01

Donald Trump wrote: »

Welcome to the real world. That is what most people in any large organisation have to go through.

The real world ehh. Some of us have experience of more than one sector and therefore have a more rounded view of things.

Education at primary or secondary level is not suitable for performance related pay. Each child, each class, each school, each region have their own unique quirks.

Donald Trump

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

The real world ehh. Some of us have experience of more than one sector and therefore have a more rounded view of things.

Education at primary or secondary level is not suitable for performance related pay. Each child, each class, each school, each region have their own unique quirks.

Of course it is. It just suits the lazier ones that it doesn't. Any industry or role could argue or make excuses why it isn't appropriate for them but they have to get on with it.



Pay teachers based on their performances. BUT balance that with payments to the school as a whole. An underperforming school will get more funding in terms of extra support teachers and lower teacher/pupil ratio etc. but the individual underperforming teachers can be paid less.

wirelessdude01

Donald Trump wrote: »

Of course it is. It just suits the lazier ones that it doesn't. Any industry or role could argue or make excuses why it isn't appropriate for them but they have to get on with it.



Pay teachers based on their performances. BUT balance that with payments to the school as a whole. An underperforming school will get more funding in terms of extra support teachers and lower teacher/pupil ratio etc. but the individual underperforming teachers can be paid less.

Go on so, outline your vision so with detail on the criteria.

Dav010

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

So you honestly think that a teacher with let's say two years permanent experience and a teacher with ten years permanent experience are paid the same?
.

Of course not, what I mean is in other sectors, people who start jobs years apart do not always earn equal amounts at the same stages of their careers.

Donald Trump

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

Go on so, outline your vision so with detail on the criteria.

However the boffins want to implement it so that the minions can understand it is up to them.


you can do simple statistical tests to spot outliers and underperformers etc. Something like correlation or point biserial tests (which are used in standardised tests to identify "bad" questions) etc.



Here is a simple example. You can statistically look at all the students in a class and if you see that students tend to do worse in Mr. Murphy's class then they do in their average classes, that Mr. Murphy is likely doing something wrong. If that happens one year then maybe it is a blip. If it happens every year or is happening in all his classes then you say "hold on now a minute - there is something going on here". If Mr. Murphy tries to say that it is a more difficult subject, then you look at the distribution on an overall countrywide basis for that claim.

Midlife

Donald Trump wrote: »

Of course it is. It just suits the lazier ones that it doesn't. Any industry or role could argue or make excuses why it isn't appropriate for them but they have to get on with it.



Pay teachers based on their performances. BUT balance that with payments to the school as a whole. An underperforming school will get more funding in terms of extra support teachers and lower teacher/pupil ratio etc. but the individual underperforming teachers can be paid less.

To be honest this is a really bad idea and shows a misunderstanding of the teaching process.

I'm not sure what you would like to achieve with performance related pay?

wirelessdude01

Donald Trump wrote: »

However the boffins want to implement it so that the minions can understand it is up to them.


you can do simple statistical tests to spot outliers and underperformers etc. Something like correlation or point biserial tests (which are used in standardised tests to identify "bad" questions) etc.



Here is a simple example. You can statistically look at all the students in a class and if you see that students tend to do worse in Mr. Murphy's class then they do in their average classes, that Mr. Murphy is likely doing something wrong. If that happens one year then maybe it is a blip. If it happens every year or is happening in all his classes then you say "hold on now a minute - there is something going on here". If Mr. Murphy tries to say that it is a more difficult subject, then you look at the distribution on an overall countrywide basis for that claim.

What a simplistic view you have of the differing dynamics in a class.

Donald Trump

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

What a simplistic view you have of the differing dynamics in a class.

If you can't understand it then don't worry about it.

wirelessdude01

Donald Trump wrote: »

If you can't understand it then don't worry about it.

Okay Donnie. It's you who doesn't understand but that's okay. Not everyone who goes to school understands what goes on underneath the bonnet.

Damien360

As a non teacher, I think the ASTI heads of the union got the message to the public all wrong. I read the ballot and the results and some of them make sense, some ridiculous and not possible but most of the utterly mad requests were rejected by the teachers. Doing it this way gives it the appearance of the Life of Brian scene of what have the Romans done for us. Rattling off demands trying to find purchase among their electrorate for anything that will do.

If they had any sense, the ballot should have concentrated on no more than 3 workable issues. If equal pay is one then so be it. Safety is an odd one as your average Tesco worker sees more people and more agressive people refusing to wear masks every day. Schools appear to be quiet compliant in that regard.

I remember a vote by teaching unions to create this split and they accepted lower pay for newcomers to protect their existing payments. Did ASTI vote for this also ? What's the percent of old school payments teachers vs newcomer payments teachers ? Are the newcomers in the majority now ?

Donald Trump

Midlife wrote: »

To be honest this is a really bad idea and shows a misunderstanding of the teaching process.

I'm not sure what you would like to achieve with performance related pay?

Is that an actual question? I can't tell whether serious or not?


With performance related pay then the teachers who put in more effort and get better results, get paid more than those who do not. Those who are good at it are encouraged to stay in the profession, those who are not have an incentive to move on and let someone in who is.



As I said, you can do this statistically across students ans classes and identify outliers. If Mary has 5 students for her English class and they get 2B's 2C's and a D overall, and if John has 5 students for his English class and they get 2B's, 2C's and a D overall then you can still easily identify, for example, that Mary's students overperformed while Johns underperformed (if that is the case).

It also wouldn't be done on one class - it would be done over all your classes and over time.


Surely most teachers would have a few classes sitting state exams in any given year - no?

Donald Trump

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

Okay Donnie. It's you who doesn't understand but that's okay. Not everyone who goes to school understands what goes on underneath the bonnet.

That's ok. If you don't rank yourself as better than any of the other teachers in your school in terms of ability or effort then that is fine.




When I was in school there were good teachers, average teachers and useless teachers and everyone knew who was which. The students knew, and it was understood that the principal knew too (because of the way that classes were sometimes allocated .......)

jrosen

Surely it wouldn't be difficult to implement measures to track teachers performance?

Donald Trump

jrosen wrote: »

Surely it wouldn't be difficult to implement measures to track teachers performance?

It would be very easy.




There would be plenty that don't want it to be tracked though.............. you can make up your own mind as to why they might not want to be compared to their peers

wirelessdude01

Donald Trump wrote: »

Is that an actual question? I can't tell whether serious or not?


With performance related pay then the teachers who put in more effort and get better results, get paid more than those who do not. Those who are good at it are encouraged to stay in the profession, those who are not have an incentive to move on and let someone in who is.



As I said, you can do this statistically across students ans classes and identify outliers. If Mary has 5 students for her English class and they get 2B's 2C's and a D overall, and if John has 5 students for his English class and they get 2B's, 2C's and a D overall then you can still easily identify, for example, that Mary's students overperformed while Johns underperformed (if that is the case).

It also wouldn't be done on one class - it would be done over all your classes and over time.


Surely most teachers would have a few classes sitting state exams in any given year - no?

Again I asked this earlier, not sure who the poster was. How do you apply your performance pay structure to primary?

Donald Trump

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

Again I asked this earlier, not sure who the poster was. How do you your performance pay structure to primary?

You could implement a different system in primary. There would be less objective measure available there. That doesn't mean that you can't implement it at secondary. It might not be possible (or as necessary) at primary to have a very similar system.





At primary, the only real thing you could do is have more inspections or "managers" who come in to assess. Not necessarily to fine-grade pay but to identify outliers.


Primary teachers already have to pass inspectors don't they before they become fully qualified - no? Maybe they could have similar 5-year checks etc.

Teaching is not just as simple as sitting a child in a classroom and passing on the information.

How would you factor in the different students' abilities, how many in the class have learning disabilities, and also the likes of grinds, etc, in ranking teacher performance?

In some areas, you'll find mammy and daddy have no problem forking out for grinds to boost their offsprings results, and in other areas, getting the parents to send the kids to school regularly would be a miracle in itself, let alone getting them extra help.

So, how would you rank the performance of a teacher up against these factors?

(Disclaimer: not a teacher, and no children of school age).



Just curious.

wirelessdude01

Donald Trump wrote: »

That's ok. If you don't rank yourself as better than any of the other teachers in your school in terms of ability or effort then that is fine.

I work in a single stream primary school. In your system how do you propose to performance manage me?

I worked in the private sector before I was retrained. Performance management doesn't faze me as I've done it previously but there are too.many variables in education.
Each child, class, group and school are different. Home and school location also a factor.
An A for one student could be the same as a pass for another. Exam results are not a measure of success. They are a snapshot on a given day.

Damien360

Donald Trump wrote: »

You could implement a different system in primary. There would be less objective measure available there. That doesn't mean that you can't implement it at secondary. It might not be possible (or as necessary) at primary to have a very similar system.

At primary, the only real thing you could do is have more inspections or "managers" who come in to assess. Not necessarily to fine-grade pay but to identify outliers.


Primary teachers already have to pass inspectors don't they before they become fully qualified - no? Maybe they could have similar 5-year checks etc.

The manager is the principal. They have an in depth knowledge of the class dynamic and the teacher in question. They just need more power to remove poor teachers. But, just like any normal workplace, there are the correct procedures to do this. We all worked with useless people in other jobs. They normally move on of their own accord but often they can't be removed. Schools are no different.

Donald Trump

Deleted User wrote: »

Teaching is not just as simple as sitting a child in a classroom and passing on the information.

How would you factor in the different students' abilities, how many in the class have learning disabilities, and also the likes of grinds, etc, in ranking teacher performance?

In some areas, you'll find mammy and daddy have no problem forking out for grinds to boost their offsprings results, and in other areas, getting the parents to send the kids to school regularly would be a miracle in itself, let alone getting them extra help.

So, how would you rank the performance of a teacher up against these factors?

(Disclaimer: not a teacher, and no children of school age).



Just curious.

You would have to look at each child's performance overall.


If John is getting A's in all his subjects and gets a C in Mr. Murphys georgraphy class than that might be just a blip for that subject. But if every student in Mr. Murphy's geography class is doing worse than they do in every other subject, and if that is repeated across all of Mr. Murphy's classes, and you have the same pattern year after year, then you can see there is a problem with Mr. Murphy


You can have two students getting B's in their English exam and know that it is a bad result for one and a brilliant result for the other. It's not a revolutionary concept nor is it an unidentifiable one.

wirelessdude01

Donald Trump wrote: »

You could implement a different system in primary. There would be less objective measure available there. That doesn't mean that you can't implement it at secondary. It might not be possible (or as necessary) at primary to have a very similar system.


At primary, the only real thing you could do is have more inspections or "managers" who come in to assess. Not necessarily to fine-grade pay but to identify outliers.


Primary teachers already have to pass inspectors don't they before they become fully qualified - no? Maybe they could have similar 5-year checks etc.

So someone who doesn't know the dynamics of the class come in and apply some fixed metric and spit out a score out of ten ehh?

Shows how out of touch you are that you still think an inspector still comes in for the final dip. That's all gone.

Donald Trump

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

Each child, class, group and school are different. Home and school location also a factor.
An A for one student could be the same as a pass for another. Exam results are not a measure of success. They are a snapshot on a given day.

Did you not read my previous posts. I am referring more to secondary level. For primary, a simple system might just be those inspector checks at 5 year intervals etc. They don't have to be based on a single 20 minute visit. They can be designed to be whatever the need to be in order to validate the teachers level

Donald Trump

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

Shows how out of touch you are that you still think an inspector still comes in for the final dip. That's all gone.

Maybe it is. I know that a neighbour here in her 30's had to redo a few years in a few different schools before she got passed for whatever practical sign off they need. Its not 50 years ago that she was doing it!

wirelessdude01

Damien360 wrote: »

The manager is the principal. They have an in depth knowledge of the class dynamic and the teacher in question. They just need more power to remove poor teachers. But, just like any normal workplace, there are the correct procedures to do this. We all worked with useless people in other jobs. They normally move on of their own accord but often they can't be removed. Schools are no different.

In the private sector I worked with some useless plebs as well. Summer months were the worst. People gone off on their holidays and others meant to be covering their section for emergencies. Emergency would occur but they'd pull the whole not in my contract crap. Getting their director involved used to fairly quieten their cough.

Now there are useless teachers as well. I had some in secondary but I am firmly in the camp that pay related performance management is not appropriate in a school setting especially so when tied to results.

For years people have given out about the pressure of exams and now you have some on here calling for them to be tied to a teachers performance pay. Teaching to the rest would take on a while new meaning.

Donald Trump

Donald Trump wrote: »

You would have to look at each child's performance overall.


If John is getting A's in all his subjects and gets a C in Mr. Murphys georgraphy class than that might be just a blip for that subject. But if every student in Mr. Murphy's geography class is doing worse than they do in every other subject, and if that is repeated across all of Mr. Murphy's classes, and you have the same pattern year after year, then you can see there is a problem with Mr. Murphy


You can have two students getting B's in their English exam and know that it is a bad result for one and a brilliant result for the other. It's not a revolutionary concept nor is it an unidentifiable one.

I think you're oversimplifying.

I also think the almost forensic level of micro-management you are suggesting is unworkable, with the amount of variables involved.

History Queen

Donald Trump wrote: »

As part of the deals that are agreed, the teachers are usually later paid for the days they were on strike. It might not be guaranteed but is it untrue to say that it is usually the case? That is my understanding although I don't know for sure so you can correct me on that. I am only recalling what was on the news after past strikes in terms of what was agreed and I seem to remember agreements that the teachers would be backpaid.


Have you yourself ever been on strike? If so, were you ever eventually paid for any of the days you were on strike?



In the case of the girl I knew, she was not entitled to that because she was only getting paid for the hours she did. She was actually better qualified than any of the teachers for the work she was doing!



And as regards not getting paid for the days they are on strike, how much are you deducted for that? Because we always see teachers, for some reason, making a point that they aren't paid for the holidays but rather that their salaries are spread out over 12 months. If you strike for one out of the 167 days, are you (temporarily) deducted 1/167 of your annual wages and benefits. Or is it more like 1/250?


In relation to the unions being elected - well that just reflects badly on any "moral" or "principle" argument of the teachers. They are happy not to push for it as long as they aren't the ones affected. Hence my remark about the unions looking after their buddies.


Edit: I found a document for TUI that stated that for the teachers striking, they would lose 1/7th of their wages and casual ones would lose the days wages.
That means that if teachers went on a permanent strike, they'd still get 198/365 of their salary! :-)

Teachers don't get reimbursed for strike days. It does not happen. Correct re 1/7 deduction. Don't know what happens in cade of long term strike but I'd be fairly confident we would not be paid (nor should we be).