Merit and Performance Based Scheme and Implications - Case Study Example

Introduction The concept of merit pay was evolved to facilitate the teachers; the concept was previously applied in different professions. The concept of merit pay is challenge to the concept of performance related pay which has been widely practiced in the private academic institutions, the purpose of which is to create an incentive in the employee i.e. teacher to improve his or her work performance, in order to improve the quality of output i.e. education that customers i.e. students receive (Lawrence, 2007). The merit pay is however based upon the literacy and mathematical scores of students, whereas the performance related pay has been an opportunity for the proponents of market-based governance seek to introduce private-sector management techniques into the public sector to lead to better out-puts, greater cost-efficiency, and a customer service ethos (Susan, 2006). The characteristics of the New Public Management involve the performance related pay which is considered to be interpretation of the public policy solution, with its focus on outputs, competition and in-centivisation (Lawrence, 2007). The performance related pay has materialized due to the implementation of the New Public Management, which has provided the public and the private sector with any opportunity to experience the competitive forces of the market, the introduction with the private sector management practices has the ostensible aim of increasing efficiency, creating an output focused culture and discouraging rent-seeking (Susan, 2006). The performance based pay practice is widely popular in the private sector, and has been a medium for the improvement of the results through the creation of the incentives for the employees (Terri, 2000). Performance Based Scheme & Implications The concept of performance related pay is common in Australia, and the majority of the teachers and professionals associated with the academia have been paid pupils’ results as assessed in examinations, tests, and visits by invigilator (Susan, 2006). The implementation of the system was aimed at the improvement of the performance of the teachers, and to enhance the quality of education. It was believed that through provisions in the pay package of the teachers, the educational standard can be improved. The amendments in the performance based package were lastly proposed by the Federal Ministry Education, Science and Training, as per which the performance related pay is expected to be measured by principals, parents and students alike (Lawrence, 2007). In Australia, the teachers are offered annual increment, with advancement to the next increment reliant on the teacher passing a review by the school principal and based on performance management appraisals. Currently the teachers are also being economically facilitated; the teachers are offered additional non-teaching responsibilities i.e. administrative nature in exchange. The formal agreement Awards or Collective Agreements has established the salary and conditions relevant to the pay increment progression and additional entitlements from professional knowledge, training or supplementary duties (Susan, 2006). The government of Australia has renounced its failure to achieve development of the public education in the country, notwithstanding the billions of dollars invested in schools in Australia, there is evidence that standards have declined, particularly in the teaching of the fundamental areas of literacy and numeracy (Lawrence, 2007). The government of Australia has stressed over the practice of accountability, which is fundamental for consistency and strengthening of the public confidence in the educational system of the country. The need for the revision of the salary practices of the teachers was felt soon after the declination of the educational standard was complained by the business groups, the government since then has taken, or is intended to take, preventive and precautionary measures i.e. revision of the salary structure, accountability of the employees(Lawrence, 2007). The parents of the students also submitted complaints against the educational practices adopted in the school; they particularly expressed their concerns towards diminishing expectations of students and also by the vague curriculum guidelines (Caroline, 2004). The practices of the accountability and public scrutiny has provided parents with an opportunity for compare the schools on the basis of their staff, qualification, examination scores and turnover. Such New Public Management scheme has ‘empowered the parents as customers and thus encourage them to make a rational market choice in where to send their child to school i.e. an underlying foundation of the performance-related pay proposal’ (Susan, 2006). The teachers of the Australian public school have played crucial role in the preparation of the future generations of the students, the significant contribution of these teachers have been responsible for the success of these students as individuals and as members of a decent and prosperous society (Lawrence, 2007). According to the statistics the students of the Australian schools have performed well in the international tests, but the below average results on the insignificant population of the students have given rise to the inequity in Australian schools (Susan, 2006). The results can be improved if the equilibrium is maintained between the expectations sought from the teachers, and the incentives offered to them, therefore there is direct relation between the professional standards of teaching to the salaries of accomplished teachers and the conditions of teaching and learning in the Australian public schools (Susan, 2006). Merit Based Scheme & Implications The concept of the Merit Pay scheme has been devised which is aimed at the recognition of the experienced teachers, for this purpose the services of the teachers are to be evaluated on the basis of their teaching knowledge and practice. It is believed that the Merit Pay scheme will improve competency, and inspire the professional excellence which will keep the best teachers associated with the Australian education services for longer. The Merit Pay scheme is expected to establish a set of professional standards for teaching beyond current processes. The Merit Pay Scheme is awarded through series of vigorous exercises, and assessed by an independent and fair process (Susan, 2006), the reward is mainly monetary. The criterion is further evaluated through interactive sessions between invigilators and the teachers, in which they are required to demonstrate how their teaching experience and professional development is contributing to the improvement of educational outcomes for students (Susan, 2006). The funds required for the implementation of the process are expected to be provided by the federal and state/territory governments. The evaluation scheme has been already prepared by the authorities, and relevant officials of Ministerial Council of State and Federal Education Ministers in the form of National Framework for Standards in which the four parameters for the evaluation based on the career perspective include Graduation, Competence, Accomplishment and Leadership, whereas the evaluation based on the performance of the teachers is decided upon Professional Knowledge, Professional Practice, Professional Values and Professional Relationships. Account of Australian History Previously the performance based incentives were offered, but such offer failed to improve to educational standards of the country, scheme has failed virtually everywhere it has been attempted (Leanna, 2005), it is misleading to offer financial incentives on the basis of the results secured by the students, or assessments made by the parents. The performance of the student can not be assured by the teachers solely, it is the mutual responsibility of the parents and the teachers to work in the best interests of the students, and provide the students with the vision and resources required to undertake successful venture. The performance based package placed the mutual responsibility solely upon the teachers, and parents instead of being asked for undertaking of the proactive role were adjudicator. The performance based system incorporate the services of the parents and teachers, and the assessment of the teachers is solely primarily based upon their personal motivation and initiatives, therefore professional pay is a reform proposal to ensure that quality teaching is the right of all students in public schools (Lawrence, 2007), the government of Australia has decided to offer financial rewards by review of the responsibilities undertaken by the teachers and their involvement. The report released by the Australian Council for Educational Research concluded that, many pay for performance schemes have been tried over at least 150 years, and most have failed because they have not gained the support of the stakeholders who are most closely involved in the processes, most notably teachers and school administrators. The legacy of these failed attempts lingers in school cultures where teacher skepticism is deeply entrenched (Lawrence, 2007). Merits of the Systems The performance based scheme has been also adopted to halt the exodus from the classroom and attract highly capable and motivated young people to the profession, there is growing interest among stakeholders in Australia in pay systems that provide incentives for highly accomplished teaching (Leanna, 2005). In this regard, the implementation of the merit based scheme was focused, which was adopted in United States, as per which the teachers were graded on relative basis, and the teachers had a competition to achieve and secure the limited amount of funds in the form of bonus for their relatively improved and better performance. The consequences of the merit based scheme were severe, and was responsible for the staff dissatisfaction and dissension, and teachers were concerned that it eroded the collegiate and team based nature of teaching and encouraged favoritism and cronyism (Robert, 2006). In comparison with the performance based scheme, the merit based scheme emerged as failed policy, therefore the execution of the performance based scheme was evident which has demonstrated improvements in teacher practice in particular, improvements that will lead to enhanced learning outcomes for students (Leanna, 2005). The performance based scheme is expected to influence the learning capabilities of the students positively. The scheme has led to the participation of the teachers for the development of the academic standards and revision of the assessment standards, therefore positive changes were incorporated soon after the system was imposed in the country (Brown, 2002). Conclusion The only concern with reference to the implementation of the performance based scheme has been in the determination of the extent of the professional expertise, and level of the recognition of the highly qualified faculty. Presently, the country has no advanced certification system which can support and assist the teachers in identification of the gray areas where extreme focus has to be done. The success rate of the practices adopted by the teachers qualified on the performance based scheme is positive, which is because the teachers are content with the substantial and valued recognition secured through performance based scheme, based on the ‘evidence of professional development to high teaching standards, which includes evidence of student learning outcomes’ (Lawrence, 2007). The homework needs to be done on the requisition of the performance measures and assessment procedures based on the appropriately researched reliable and valid procedures for gathering evidence which indicates whether teachers have met those standards (Leanna, 2005). References 1. Lawrence Ingvarson, Elizabeth Kleinhenz and Jenny Wilkinson. Research on Performance Pay for Teachers. ACER Website http://www.acer.edu.au/resdev/17_performance_pay.html. Dated 31st July, 2007. 2. Susan Hopgood. Pat Byrne. Professional Pay and Quality: Teaching for Australia’s future: the AEU Proposal. Australian Education Union Publication. 2006. 3. Michelle Brown, John S. Heywood. Paying for Performance: An International Comparison. M.E. Sharpe Publication. 2002. 4. Terri Seddon. Beyond Nostalgia: Reshaping Australian Education. ACER Press. 2000. 5. Robert I. Sutton, Jeffrey Pfeffer. Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths, and Total Nonsense: Profiting from Evidence-Based Management. Harvard Business School Press. 2006. 6. Caroline Wragg, Edward Conrad Wragg. Performance Pay for Teachers: The Views and Experiences of Heads and Teachers. Routledge. 2004. 7. Leanna Stiefe. Measuring School Performance and Efficiency: Implications for Practice and Research. Purdue University Press. 2005. Read More