Rating teachers : you need to be certified madam : performance pay needs a proper system of assessment

The author notes two important distinctions that need to be made in the Australian performance pay for teachers debate if the protagonists are to talk to each other in ways that are ultimately productive in improving students' opportunity to learn. The first distinction is between an assessment system and an recognition system. There is an important separation between the system for assessing teacher performance and the system for giving financial recognition to teachers who gain certification. The Australian teaching profession lacks a national body that provides a certification service, unlike the United States. The second distinction is between two types of teacher evaluation. One is unquestionably the proper responsibility of employing authorities, in the public interest. A performance management approach within this context is based on the requirement that teachers should fulfil their contractual duties. The other type of evaluation is conducted by professional bodies and leads to some advanced form of certification, such a Certified Practising Accountant. Success in this type of performance evaluation leads to a portable qualification that is not tied to a particular employer or position. The author argues that the debate in Australia often fails to make this important distinction, for example by proposing that each school develop its own scheme for assessing teacher performance for high stakes decisions. This would be equivalent to every business developing its own certification scheme for accountants. What is proposed is bipartisan support to build a rigorous national certification system fit for a profession.