Corporatisation of Schools
Trigger doth quoth:
For me, there are two key parts of Job's comment. The first is that the the principal should have more control over their staff. That I certainly agree with.
While I went to a comprehensive state school, it was brand new went I started - I was in the first year 7 at that school. One of its key advantages was that all the staff were handpicked by the principal and they were, on the whole, very good. As the screw grew older, there was a slow decline in the quality of the staff because the school was at the mercy of the department and its staffing. Forced transfers, the stupid point system, blah blah blah. Its bloody stupid. Bad and difficult teachers are just moved around from school to school when they shouldn't be teaching at all.
The problem with pay-for-performance with teachers is how do you define good performance? What are the parameters for success? Is a great teacher one whose selective-school-class all get over 95 in their English Exam? Or is it one whose middle-of-nowhere class actually, like, pass? Freakonomics has a very good chapter on teachers who cheat to improve their classes test results so they also get improved pay.
Because success and performance are relative, then it should be the school community itself who defines what they are. Thats why it should be the Principal (accountable to the School Board*) who has control over their staff and any pay-for-performance.
What I do oppose is having performance-pay criteria controlled & designed by a central body -- because it will be politicised by the interest groups (on both the left and the right) who lobbied for it.
The other key aspect of Jobs' comment was that it was about unionization going too far ("worst possible way"). I don't think unionization is a de facto good. I'm wary of all consolidation of power.
FWIW, while I'm a dirty leftie pinko socialist, I'm believer in small communities over large ones**. I'd happily abolish the states in Australia IF (and only IF) local government had much greater power over its own affairs. Sustainability and autonomy are what I'm interested in now.
* At my High School, the School Board included teacher, community and student representatives. I was the school council rep when I was in year 12. Hmm. Power. I want Power!
** Largely because I don't believe large communities are communities in any meaningful sense. Which is something I"ve written about before in Empire Without an Emperor.
I can't believe you are agreeing with him. [Steve Jobs saying schools have become too unionised] Do you actually want to corporatise schools?
I too agree with the comment, but I dare say this is more in keeping with my philosophies than with yours (I could be wrong).
Generally if there is no incentive to work harder, the average person will not work harder, regardless of whether it is for a good cause or not.
For me, there are two key parts of Job's comment. The first is that the the principal should have more control over their staff. That I certainly agree with.
While I went to a comprehensive state school, it was brand new went I started - I was in the first year 7 at that school. One of its key advantages was that all the staff were handpicked by the principal and they were, on the whole, very good. As the screw grew older, there was a slow decline in the quality of the staff because the school was at the mercy of the department and its staffing. Forced transfers, the stupid point system, blah blah blah. Its bloody stupid. Bad and difficult teachers are just moved around from school to school when they shouldn't be teaching at all.
The problem with pay-for-performance with teachers is how do you define good performance? What are the parameters for success? Is a great teacher one whose selective-school-class all get over 95 in their English Exam? Or is it one whose middle-of-nowhere class actually, like, pass? Freakonomics has a very good chapter on teachers who cheat to improve their classes test results so they also get improved pay.
Because success and performance are relative, then it should be the school community itself who defines what they are. Thats why it should be the Principal (accountable to the School Board*) who has control over their staff and any pay-for-performance.
What I do oppose is having performance-pay criteria controlled & designed by a central body -- because it will be politicised by the interest groups (on both the left and the right) who lobbied for it.
The other key aspect of Jobs' comment was that it was about unionization going too far ("worst possible way"). I don't think unionization is a de facto good. I'm wary of all consolidation of power.
FWIW, while I'm a dirty leftie pinko socialist, I'm believer in small communities over large ones**. I'd happily abolish the states in Australia IF (and only IF) local government had much greater power over its own affairs. Sustainability and autonomy are what I'm interested in now.
* At my High School, the School Board included teacher, community and student representatives. I was the school council rep when I was in year 12. Hmm. Power. I want Power!
** Largely because I don't believe large communities are communities in any meaningful sense. Which is something I"ve written about before in Empire Without an Emperor.
posted by stu willis at
5:10 pm
1 Comments:
There are anomalies re: performance pay. I had a moron of a Year 12 Modern History teacher who arguably had no idea what he was doing, yet our class performed well above average.
By
Damien, at Sat Apr 14, 06:06:00 pm AEST
Post a Comment
<< Home