Having read Stephen Ball’s article ‘The Teacher’s Soul and the Terrors of Perfomativity‘ it is surprising to read that so many professionals are against the change in the sector. This reform is not being driven from within the industry, but from politicians. Education is a public sector industry, funded by public tax money so there should be a case for teacher related pay. Parents see their tax money going into many different areas of the public sector but the most noticeable for them on a day to day basis will be their child’s education, so if they aren’t getting value for money then who should be held accountable but their child’s teacher. In private sector industries, if an employee isn’t bringing in the results expected of them then questions will be asked, so why isn’t this the same in the private sector?
Recently in local news, there has been stories of a a small number of teachers going on strike due to performance related pay. I would question who this actually benefits as it will be the pupils missing out on days of quality and essential learning when a teachers responsibility should be pupil welfare.
Teacher performance is largely based on test results, which has created the test culture of our education system where Jon Berry questions whether we are actually teaching our pupils or are we just training them to pass exams. However, I fail to see how else you can track the effectiveness of learning without testing. David Bell states that teachers should be given the freedom on the front line to teach how they see fit backed by an independent advisory body, as OFSTED is seen as an organisation whose whole tone and approach was, and remains, punitive and unsympathetic to teachers.
It seems as though education is now starting to be seen more like business as everything is related back to being ‘cost effective’. The introduction of performativity requires individual practitioners to organise themselves as a response to targets, indicators, and evaluations. For some, this is an opportunity to achieve success, while for others it provotes inner conflicts, in-authenticity and resistance.
Education ministers argue that performance-related pay rewards good teachers, makes the profession more attractive to good-quality graduates and raises standards of student achievement. However, the NUT strongly reject performativity, arguing that there is strictly no evidence to support that it improves pupil attainment while it does encourage teachers to work in isolation, rather than pooling their expertise.
Ball’s article raises excellent points on both sides of the argument for this reform. Arguments for the reform are coming from government ministers and large business’ who have financial interests in schools (academies) and this is understandable as they are looking for a good return on their investment. However, with all the research supporting the case that performativity offers no benefit in any education system in the world, then it is important to allow teachers to continue with the excellent job they already do in the classroom every single day.