Comments, corrections, clarifications, and c*ckups

What’s a teacher worth?:

Paul Hampton-Smith writes: Re. “What’s a teacher worth? Pay and politics” (yesterday, item 4). Geoff Maslen’s criticism of performance-monitoring for teachers overlooks the situation right now where schools and teachers suffer subjective, unreliable and negative monitoring from students and parents. A properly designed set of performance metrics would be a useful tool to combat the parental gossip in the school yard and the emergence of teacher ratings on student internet sites. And why would principals abuse the system with cronyism? If their performance is properly linked to the performance of the school, then they will identify and select the best teachers.

Adam Rope writes: I’m just wondering if Geoff Maslen, or even federal Education Minister Julie Bishop, has ever read or heard of Freakonomics? In it economist Steven D. Levitt shows one consequence of introducing performance pay for teachers in public schools — that in at least one case, in order to reach their KPIs, teachers themselves were found to be cheating. In his research on state school teachers in Chicago, after the city introduced high-stakes testing in 1996, he discovered that 5% of the city’s teachers inflated their pupils test scores. Still, it could result in (pardon the pun), albeit temporarily, better state public school exam results, about which Ms Bishop could then gloat about proving her point.

Betsey Brister writes: I’ve been one. The frustration is/can be gigantic when the principal is a big bowl of mashed potatoes with no desire to rock the boat. I recommend that the first step be to fire all the principals, and then let the teachers/ parent body hire one. If he is answerable to the consumers he might put in a bit more effort. (And that includes helping poor teachers do better, helping poor students improve, and having a discipline policy that works).

Jenny Morris writes: Very interesting stats on teacher salaries. I agree society needs to recognise the important role of teachers, and as the saying goes you can’t spend thank you. Our appreciation should be reflected in dollars. But those starting salaries don’t look too bad to me. The salaries are higher than a law graduate commencing in the public service with two Bachelors degrees. For example, the Victorian Legal Aid Commission is advertising articles of clerkship for 2008, with a salary of $34,554 p.a. (see here). Obviously the mega sized private law firms pay a higher salary, commensurate with their kind of work and clients (big corporates). But suburban lawyers earn much less than their city cousins (see the Property and Business Services Award here — just a bit less than persons engaged in routine or repetitive work under direct supervision). And before anyone says lawyers’ salaries will go up exponentially in the early years, which certainly isn’t the case for public service lawyers, who can expect a similarly snail-like increase to that enjoyed by teachers. I don’t think there’d be too much sobbing into the weetbix on $49k a year, first year out of university with a B.Ed!

Randy Rose, associate professor (retired), University of Tasmania, writes: All teaching academics are evaluated for their teaching (at UTAS every two years at least). Teaching excellence is a major criteria for all levels of promotion including to that of Professor. Therefore, all teachers at high school have been evaluated by teachers at university who themselves have been evaluated and awarded with performance pay (or not if undeserving). Of course it could be subverted by toadying etc … But what system can’t? This is not a reason for not going ahead. I would have thought it would be relatively easy to determine a good teacher; I’ve had to do it many times!

Denis McIvor writes: What is Julie Bishop’s evidence that performance-based pay works in the professions? There is none! I have 30 years’ experience in HR-related fields and I can assure you there is no reliable evidence. Corporations talk about performance or merit-based systems but it is all spin. None of them works; they are all corrupted by poor measurement, failure to have the hard conversations or plain fear. The payments to top executives are a prime example of non-performance based pay systems. Politicians aren’t on performance-based pay! How could they be or otherwise we would have effective transport, education, health and communication systems, we would not have a crisis on the Murray-Darling, a Third-World broadband network and a depleted environment. In a high-performing workplace, tough decisions are made to ensure long-term sustainability and survival, the current Government(s) have failed on this criteria of performance. Try performance-based pay for teachers after the politicians have piloted the scheme on themselves.

Jared Pearson writes: Julie Bishop’s party believes in performance-based pay levels for teachers. Let’s see the Government show the public sector the way, with politicians accepting a low base wage supplemented by performance pay calculated on their share of the primary vote. Polling day can then become wage review day.

Meanjin:

Mike Martin writes: Re. “Meanjin debate goes via comma to the point” (yesterday, item 8). William B E G H ‘B’ de McGuffin reports that “David Salter” claims that “Meanjin” is Aboriginal for “Take Your Hand Off It”. Quite apart from the fact that Aboriginal languages never recognised capital letters, he is obviously unaware of the 1996 report by then Meanjin editor Christina Thompson that Frank Moorhouse had previously reported that “Meanjin is Aboriginal for rejected by the New Yorker”. The latter gloss seems more consistent than McGuffin’s with the current ego crisis.

Richard Brand writes: Ian Britain’s comments about editing “petty things” like commas and semicolons was hyperbolic and ripe for parody, and David Salter’s send-up was amusing up to a point — the point when it became too long, laboured and transparently intended to hurt. Because, let’s see: David Salter (ex-exec. producer of Media Watch) — is writing The Media we Deserve — to be published by Louise Adler at MUP — which is having the stoush with Meanjin — which is edited by Ian Britain. You don’t have to be an old Media Watch cynic to join the dots: Salter’s parody has mutual benefits for himself and his publisher. But to the point, the startling one — crying to be followed up — made by Peter Craven (Age, 6 June), that ” The board has not told Britain, whose contract ends in July, whether he will be reappointed nor whether the position will be advertised.” Which goes with this: “The suggestion, which remains unconfirmed, is that MUP would actually appoint future editors of the magazine.” So here’s Meanjin, an institution whose editor (who has been receiving plaudits for his work) does not know if he is getting the boot in a couple of weeks’ time. And that MUP may become the appointer of Meanjin editors in the (very near) future. Join those dots! The old David Salter would have been on this like a rat up a drainpipe, but he’s made a smart career move — from journalism into comedy. By the way, as Media Watch would point out: in Salter’s piece he spelt the name BRITTAIN. It’s BRITAIN. If you can’t check the facts, at least check the spelling. Because you may you get the editing you deserve.

Paul Baxter writes: In all the recent articles about Meanjin not much has been said about exactly what Louise Adler’s vision is for the magazine. Online? An offshoot of MUP? An editor at her bidding? All three? Well, it is my view that nothing should be done on such vague and flimsy plans. Meanjin is a great magazine that performs an extremely important function in Australia’s arts and literary world. Its current editor, Ian Britain, has taken it to a new level with a new look and new levels of interest. Why should something as successful as Meanjin is be tampered with and altered? Power trip or empire building, Louise Adler? And all for an on-line death. If MUP wants to start an online magazine they should do so – but not at the expense of the flourishing and important Meanjin.

Jim Hart writes: The concept of a university press being reviled as the evil predator threatening the independence of a literary magazine would be laughable if it were not so tragic. I have to wonder if anyone has told Rupert Murdoch that instead of throwing untold billions at the Bancroft family, he could probably pick up Australia’s leading literary journal for slightly less than half the price of the Wall Street Journal.

Organised crime: