Critical Review of Performance-Related Pay for Teachers Article by Forrester - Essay Example

CRITICAL REVIEW and CRITICAL REVIEW OF AN ACADEMIC JOURNAL ARTICLE Forrester, G. (2001). Performance-related Pay for Teachers: An examination of the underlying objectives and its application in practice, Public Management Review, 3:4, 617-625. Forrester’s article brings into perspective an interesting argument about performance-related pay. In particular, the article focuses on teaching professionals with the aim of assessing the impact of performance-related pay on teaching practices. According to the author, performance-related pay is already existent and beneficial to the teaching profession. However, there are issues and challenges with performance-related pay as Hyun-Jun, Ssang-cheol, and Sung-soo (2012) maintain. This paper undertakes a critical review of Forrester’s article, with the aim of identifying hits and misses in regards to approach to the study, arguments raised in the article, framework of topic analysis, and the general applicability of the author’s insights. In the introductory part of the article, Forrester is keen to highlight as much information as possible in regards to the practice of performance-related pay. The author, however, fails to trace the history of this practice and its critical emergence in the modern society. In other words, Forrester makes a number of assumptions in the introduction. To start with, Forrester assumes that readers are aware of the emergence of performance-related pay. While this assumption does not necessarily jeopardize the flow of the paper, it fails to produce adequate background to the subject matter in the article. Secondly, Forrester notes in the introduction part that performance-related pay in England and Wales would reflect a restructured pay for teachers. What this means is that there is an expected transition or shift from one pay structure to another. The current pay structure is only described as traditional, but it is not discussed in detail. This flaw makes it difficult to assess the potential benefits of performance-related pay. If the current pay system is failing or ineffective, it is important to capture that failure of ineffectiveness. Thirdly, Forrester maintains that the modernization of teaching profession and the implementation of performance-relate pay practices were controversial in both England and Wales. The underlying controversies, however, are not discussed. On the same note, references or directions to obtain information about the said controversies are not provided. In this respect, the reader lacks points of additional references to the fundamental controversies that surround performance-related pay in the context of the teaching profession. Amid the highlighted misses at the start of the article, the introduction of the article is successful in a number of ways. One, it presents teachers’ concerns for a shift in pay system. Secondly, Forrester substantiates how the performance-related pay would work for teachers. The author lets the reader understand how teachers would progress in terms of performance and pay following the implementation of the performance-related pay. Most importantly, the author does not overlook the benefits and challenges that the modernized teaching profession would face in the context of performance-related pay. In arguing the performance-related pay case, Forrester employs the framework developed by Kessler and Purcell. The framework focuses on managerial objectives, an aspect that Forrester considers critical to the modernization of teaching profession. In light of the Kessler and Purcell framework, academic institutions function just as any other organization, thus making it useful in the performance-related pay context (Goldhaber, 2002). It is important to highlight that the framework by Kessler and Purcell divides managerial objectives into two categories, namely: traditional factor and organizational transformation. Organizational transformation informs the underlying change to modernize teaching practices. Even though Kessler and Purcell’s framework is relevant to performance-related pay, it does not address the magnitude of the expected change adequately (Belfield & Heywood, 2008). In particular, the article notes that this framework holds both objectives and key applications for the teaching population. However, its use in the article does not fully substantiate the pros and cons of adopting performance-related pay for the teaching population. In light of the traditional component of the framework, Forrester contends that performance-related pay promotes both recruitment and retention. In fact, the article argues that the achievement of recruitment and retention is over and above rewarding employees for their individual performance. Based on the arguments presented in the article, the employed framework would enhance the realization of the prospects of performance-related pay. Over and above rewarding performance, competitive and highly skilled teachers would get attracted to the pay for performance system (Hulleman & Barron, 2010). The recruitment process, therefore, would only attract the best and those desiring to perform highly. Even though the author and the article in general sell this idea throughout the article, such outcomes are not guaranteed. In fact, the author does not provide supporting data or information to that effect. The article only takes Kessler and Purcell’s framework as the main word for the entire arguments made for or against performance-related pay. According to Chingos and Peterson (2011), another critical factor accounted for in Kessler and Purcell’s framework is motivation. The two argue that performance-related pay would serve as a motivating factor for teachers. In the article, Forrester highlights that teachers suffer low moral for many different reasons, among them: enormous workloads, intensified duties and responsibilities, government regulations, inadequate teaching resources, and poor pay among others. The idea of motivation in light of these issues appears vague because performance-related pay would not necessarily address all the outlined problems in the teaching profession. In addition, the article makes use of empirical evidence claims to argue that a child’s development is more important to a teacher than monetary gains. While this view may be true to the underlying claim, the article does not provide actual examples, data, or information that back up this argument. In that point, the author does not refer to other sources that hold the same view. While performance-related pay could actually motivate some or even many teachers to either join teaching profession or improve on their performance, the degree or magnitude of the motivation therein is critically difficult to define (Figlio & Kenny, 2007). Modernizing education service and subsequently operationalizing performance-related pay translates to sectorial change and transformation of one way or another. In particular, the culture of teaching and education service in general would transform in a bid to accommodate the new changes. This means that a cultural shift would eventually take place. For teachers, this is a challenging undertaking that requires creative and critical implementation procedures and processes. Even though the article acknowledges that cultural change is inevitable, it fails to propose ways through which teachers and other stakeholders would cope with the effects of a cultural change. Highlighting the benefits of cultural change and overlooking the underlying problems creates a loophole in the system, because every stakeholder will not necessarily deem the resultant culture positive (Dolton & Marcenaro‐Gutierrez, 2011). This makes necessary for the author to go further into details and design coping and adaptability proposals for the major stakeholders affected by the implementation of performance-related pay. According to the article, implementing performance-related pay would result in individualization of employment relationships and increased individual financial control among teachers. These two outcomes have their positive and negative sides as expressed in the article. While the positives favour the prospects of the modernized pay system and boost the performance of education service, the negatives pose a threat to cripple the entire program or jeopardize the expected outcomes. Following the above observation, the article does not show any ways of mitigating the underlying negative effects. For example, the article acknowledges that performance-related pay could foster internal competition and minimize teamwork among teachers. If indeed internal competition for high performance and individualism over teamwork occurred, the author does not address how mitigation of such problems would occur. This leaves a lot of concerns and interests hanging or under speculation as far as performance-related pay is concerned. The actualization of performance-related pay is undoubtedly the most important part of the article. The actual application of this modernized pay system stands to revolutionize education service in both England and Wales. Applying the practical side of performance-related pay, however, is a challenging task (Education Research Complete, 2007). The operationalization of performance-related pay would require the installation of effective and efficient performance criteria and continuous performance assessment. Forrester’s article emphasizes the importance and key roles of performance criteria, performance assessment, and performance appraisals in relation to performance-related pay. However, Forrester does not identify critical variables or factors of interest as far as performance criteria, performance assessment, and performance appraisals are concerned. The article does not highlight any examples of what performance criteria or performance assessment would look like. Additionally, the article fails to include teachers’ contributions to the actual application of the system of pay. These observations make Forrester’s methodological approach to the article inadequate to ascertain the actual sector-wide implications of a modernized pay system for teachers. In conclusion, linking performance with pay requires the collaboration of a number of major stakeholders, among them: teachers, trade unions, the government, and other public or private interest groups (Liang & Akiba, 2011). In the article, Forrester successfully links performance with pay and highlights the role of the government in the entire process. On the same note, Forrester notes that trade unions are highly influential when it comes to matters that affect their members. In other words, there are stakeholder issues to overcome before performance and pay are linked. While such issues are easy to determine, the article does not provide an amicable ground upon which all interested parties would engage in collaboration. Concisely, Forrester could have used a case study or a hypothetical pay system for teachers to demonstrate an actual application of performance-related pay. References Belfield, C. R., & Heywood, J. S. (2008). Performance pay for teachers: Determinants and consequences, Economics of Education Review, 27(3), 243-252. Chingos, M. M., & Peterson, P. E. (2011). It’s easier to pick a good teacher than to train one: Familiar and new results on the correlates of teacher effectiveness, Economics of Education Review, 30(3), 449-465. Dolton, P., & Marcenaro‐Gutierrez, O. D. (2011). If you pay peanuts do you get monkeys? A cross‐country analysis of teacher pay and pupil performance, Economic Policy, 26(65), 5- 55. Education Research Complete. (2007). Performance-pay for teachers: Designing a system that students deserve, Carrboro, NC: Centre for Teaching Quality, Inc. Figlio, D. N., & Kenny, L. W. (2007). Individual teacher incentives and student performance, Journal of Public Economics, 91(5), 901-914. Forrester, G. (2001). Performance-related Pay for Teachers: An examination of the underlying objectives and its application in practice, Public Management Review, 3:4, 617-625. Goldhaber, D. (2002). Teacher quality and teacher pay structure: What do we know, and what are the options? The Georgetown Public Policy Review, 7, 81-137. Hulleman, C. S., & Barron, K. E. (2010). Performance pay and teacher motivation separating myth from reality, Phi Delta Kappan, 91(8), 27-31. Hyun-Jun, J., Ssang-cheol, L., & Sung-soo, J. (2012). Performance-based reward for teachers: Teachers’ perceptions of their motivation, Research in Higher Education Journal, 15, 1. Liang, G., & Akiba, M. (2011). Performance-related pay: District and teacher characteristics, Journal of School Leadership, 21(6), 845-870. Read More