Pay And Promotion A Criticism Of High School Proposals

Press, Volume C, Issue 29504, 4 May 1961, Page 6

Pay And Promotion A Criticism Of High School Proposals

(Specially written for "The Press bp M D 3.1

As a moderately youthful former science teacher, recently retired from that profession, I think I am qualified to comment on whether or not £400,000 spent on salary increases is likely to attract many more potentially good teachers and improve the quality of high school teaching. I think it will hot—and there are a variety of reasons why it will not. Over-time pay for sports supervision on Saturdays is long overdue and I agree with that particular proposal. But there will still be gome teachers who want liiore leisure rather than more pay. Few professions leave one less free to live one’s own life than teaching. Top graduates Most top-grade graduates do not enter teaching because they know in advance that it is a bureaucratically organised profession and, like most bureaucracy, thoroughly second-rate. Unimaginatively applied pay increases will therefore accomplish nothing, for they will not get rid of the defects of the system. As long as the system exists, a young man of spirit and enthusiasm will continue to be compelled to abide by an archaic syllabus which does its best to kill the subjects he loves. As long as the system is unchanged, the young man with an urge to improve things will continue to find himself supervised by minds set in habits of conventionality, and blocked by lack of spare time and lack of support. I know a brilliant young maths teacher who is trying to devise sets of examples which will inspire his pupils to go forward individually on their own. His system has proved itself spectacularly successful. Yet that young man works under a head who makes him pay for all his stencils out of his own pocket. Initiative is not rewarded, but punished. I also, for my two maths classes, introduced changes in my time-tabling of geometry, algebra and arithmetic. The change affected nobody but myself and my pupils and ought to have been my own business, particularly since on this system my two top boys obtained (in a common exam) higher, marks than the top boys in a higher intelligence stream. This was not, however, the official view, and the following conversation among the head, myself, and the head maths teacher occurred:— “All other teachers have always done it in the standard way.” Me: “I believe my system has certain advantages, sir.” The Head: “We are not interested in your system.

We are only interested in the school's system. You are to change back to the school's system.” Me: “I don’t believe in conforming for the sake of conforming.” The Head (becoming angry): "What’s wrong with conformity?” Me (responding to anger with anger): “It leads to dictatorship! According to Aldous Huxley. . .”

The Head; “I am not interested in Aldous Huxley. . .” After this incident, I was made to appear before the school board, rebuked for insubordination, and made to promise humbly that my attempts at conformity would in future be more sedulous. The unpleasantness of this sort of thing cannot be compensated for by pay increases. I know from P.P.T.A. meetings that the teacher who pushes most vigorously for extra increases in flat pay-rates is seldom the teacher who is likely to leave the teaching profession. Prospects “When a teacher gets to the top grading, what has he got to look forward to?” asked an ageing teacher in a quavery vioce at one such meeting as he seconded a resolution for pay increases to older but not to younger teachers. This teacher, I knew, took little interest in individual pupils and seldom inspired their affection. Yet he felt that a pay increase should be like a gift from heaven to brighten his failing years. “What has the poor working man got to look forward to?” I interjected, ironically. It was a relevant comment, but the “wise old men” who tend to dominate P.P.T.A. meetings (and the young former-pupils who are now teachers at their old school) pushed their illogical resolution through without much opposition. That day’s resolution, and the flimsy arguments put forward to back it up, typified a system where “seniority” and “service,” rather than dedication and creativity, dominate. If things are to improve, the promotion-by-years-of-“service” system must be smashed. It must be smashed in the teaching profession. It must be smashed throughout Government departments. It must be smashed before it is too late. There is a limit to what the people will pay in taxes. If we spend money wrongly now, no money may be granted to spend rightly in the future. If the Government really believes in encouraging initiative, let it be bold enough to challenge the entrenched structure of bureaucracy. Let it leave the

present pay-scale as it is—the top salaries are amply adequate—but change the promotion system radically. Let it say to young prospective teachers: “You can reach a topgrade salary just as rapidly as the quality of your teaching reaches a top-level standard. You must teach the syllabus (which we will try to improve) efficiently. But you must also try to teach it so as to give your pupils a love of the subject. Since we believe in democracy, we intend to introduce a little of it into schools and allow pupils as well as inspectors and exam marks to rate the quality of your teaching. When pupils are enthusiastic about most of your lessons and are learning with near maximum efficiency, then you will receive the maximum ordinary teacher’s salary. For positions of responsibility or valuable original ideas for innovations you will receive further increases.” Abolish, in short, payment on length of service completely for incoming teachers. Give them no increases except on an incentive basis. But make the incentives more effective than they are now, not by increasing pay-rates; but by allowing able and inventive young teachers to move up the pay-scale rapidly. Academic qualifications, on which the P.P.T.A. wants some of the increases to be based, are important. I can think of one absolutely dedicated high school teacher with five children who is probably, in some ways, a better teacher than I (with two degrees) could ever be. Because he has no degree, he is miserably paid, and yet he teaches with a skill and bold originality which makes the observer feel humble. He says he would like the time to plan his lessons in even more detail. But he has to work in the holidays to make ends meet. Proposals to Cabinet To such men the proposals before the Cabinet would give nothing. Is this justice, or to the advantage of the country’s young people? Obviously it is not. Quality should be rewarded whercever quality is found. Educationally, this country stands at a very important cross-roads. The Government has a choice between acting with originality and decisive vision, or fumbling and blundering on in the same second-rate fashion as before. This problem, therefore, will be an interesting test of the Government's quality and should be watched closely by the people, especially those ordinary people who will have to pay for the increases and may or may not get anything for them.