Special Pleading

Education As A Special Case, With Special Rules

The institutional view of teachers is that they are a breed apart from ordinary mortals.  In most Western countries the profession is controlled by teacher unions who, with one side of their mouth profess undying commitment to the educational welfare of children, whilst with the other they militantly protect selfish interests. 

Very cleverly the union propaganda machine has been able to link both sides of the mouth so that in the common, unthinking mind the two interests are the same: a successful education for their children is inextricably linked to giving in to union demands.  This has made the political traction of teacher unions very powerful, since parents generally want the best possible for their children.  If turkeys never vote for an early Christmas, parents rarely vote against the self-interest of teacher unions, believing that were they to do so they would be harming their children. 

Generally speaking, the teacher unions have made an art form out of the Oliver Twist technique when it comes to failings in the education system.
  If pupils are "graduating" from the system unable to read or write and without any academic qualifications the standard teacher union solution is to ask for "more".  More taxpayers' money, that is, to be poured into the state education system.

Teacher remuneration is where most of the spending in the state education system goes--about seventy-five percent of it.  Remuneration levels are based upon longevity in the system.  The longer you stay teaching, the more you get paid.  There is no other profession or career that is paid this way.  In New Zealand proto-steps were taken to change this about three decades ago.  For a time, the government promoted "bulk funding" of schools.  Under this system, school principals received a dollop of taxpayer money and they could spend it as they wished.  The teacher unions howled like lupine banshees at full moon.  Why, one asks?  Because bulk funding represented the potential that teachers might get paid according to merit and performance as well as longevity.  What a wicked, nefarious notion.  The supine government eventually backed down, and bulk funding has been banished to the outer badlands.  But only in government schools.  It operates perfectly acceptably in other huge-budget government departments, such a health. 

In the UK, tentative steps are being taken to change this remuneration by longevity model.  This, from The Guardian:

Performance-related pay for teachers will begin from September, the education secretary, Michael Gove, has confirmed, a move unions warned would demoralise the profession and be as likely to produce salary cuts as increases.

Here the union propaganda comes forth: bulk funding will "demoralise" teachers.  In reality, it will demoralise only underperforming, sub-standard teachers. Good, effective, ambitious teachers will relish the challenge represented in bulk funding to excel in order to advance their careers and remuneration.  The sub-text of the union's contention is that if teachers are demoralised, the education of children will suffer.  Therefore, bulk funding is against the interests of your children. 

Gove said late last year he was minded to accept recommendations from the School Teachers' Review Body (STRB) that headteachers be given more freedom on deciding pay, something he argued would reward good staff and help schools in disadvantaged areas recruit and keep the best teachers. A final decision was delayed pending a consultation period for unions and others to submit their views on the idea.

Gove has now written to Dame Patricia Hodgson, the chair of the STRB, to confirm the change, which will affect schools in England and Wales.  He wrote: "I am clear that these changes will give schools greater freedom to develop pay policies that are tailored to their school's needs and circumstances and to reward their teachers in line with their performance."

The teacher unions are also trying on arguments which only serve to expose their ignorance of economics and market places, and to make clear that teacher unions are always trying to tell the world that education is a "special case" with special rules.   Try this argument for size:

The NASUWT teachers' union called the consultation a "sham", pointing to a gap of just six days between the deadline for submissions and Gove's decision.  The union's general secretary, Chris Keates, said: "From now on the only pay existing teachers can expect is the salary they are on. New entrants to the profession can aspire no higher than their starting salary.  "At a time of severe economic austerity and where there is already stark evidence that schools are using existing pay flexibilities to deny teachers pay progression however well they perform, the claim that these recommendations will result in good teachers being paid more is risible."

Our challenge to Mr Keates is a simple one: name any other profession or occupation in which this would be remotely the case.  Let's take, oh anything, but banking will do.  The banking industry can reward good performance with bonuses, promotions and other rewards and recognitions.  Is it true in the banking industry that new-entrant employees "can aspire no higher than their starting salary"?  Banking as an industry has been very hard hit as a result of the global financial crisis: even in these most difficult of times has it been true that good banking staff have not been able to advance their careers and get paid more?  Of course not.  So, if these dire consequences threatened by Mr Keates have not applied in banking, why ought we to think it will be the case in teaching?  Mr Keates wants us to believe that the teaching profession is a "special case".  Well, it's not.

Here is another false argument:

The other main teaching union, the NUT, which with the NASUWT represents around 90% of rank-and-file teachers, has argued that predictable pay scales are one of the main attractions for new entrants to the profession.  Christine Blower, general secretary of the NUT, said: "Some 25,000 schools deciding their own pay structures is a real distraction from the teaching and learning that should be the focus of schools' work. Individual pay decisions will result in unfairness and less mobility in the teacher job market."

Ms Blower's argument proves too much.  Predictable pay scales where advancement and increased remuneration has nothing whatsoever to do with performance is understandably very attractive--to a certain kind of employee.  That is one of the root problems of the current scheme.  Imagine two new teacher candidates applying for a position.  One is reluctant because future remuneration would depend upon professional, effective performance.  The resultant uncertainty worries them.  The other candidate sees it as a wonderful opportunity to get ahead in his or her career.  Which would you rather have working in your school? 

Ms Blower demonstrates why performance pay is necessary to weed out teachers that enter the profession without ambition or desire to excel and do a great job.  But she also went on to engage, once again, in the special pleading arguments on behalf of teaching:

She added that performance-related pay was "fundamentally inappropriate" for teaching. "Contrary to Department for Education claims, there is no evidence that linking pay to performance increases results."

On the contrary, Ma'am there is no evidence that teaching is a special case, to be treated differently from any other calling and career within creation.  

What will be the impact in New Zealand?  Will the Gove reform flow through to the Antipodes?  We will have to wait and see.  Our cynical expectation is that the bulk funding of UK government schools will not survive when a Labour government is eventually elected.  The teacher unions will want payback for their electoral support of Labour.  Doubtless they will get it.  Teaching will once again be consigned to being a special case where the normal rules and conventions of human action and economic motivations do not apply.