It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s… a HATS!

While I often marvel at the level of stupidity and ignorance in the reporting on and about education, I was incensed by the news articles that did the rounds on the so called “super teachers”. So, are they really that super?

For those who don’t know, the “super teachers” are officially called HATS (highly accomplished teachers). In order to retain their services in the public sector they are given a 20% bump on their pay up to $98,000 and get to spend less time teaching and more time mentoring other teachers and liaising with the community. Of course, there are fewer HATS but they are targeted at lower socio-economic areas to help address disadvantage in the community.

At this point, you’re probably asking why I have an issue with paying people to assist the disadvantaged. In fact, I agree with addressing the in-balance just not at the expense of all the other teachers. There are numerous problems with the scheme which I outline below.

The first major issue is the selection of the HATS. The article from the Telegraph says they underwent a “rigorous selection process” but then doesn’t explain what was so “rigorous” about it. Did they base it on test scores like NAPLAN? This would be unfair as teachers with better students would benefit while good teachers may be weighed down with poor performing students. Did they base it on student feedback? Apart from the difficulty of surveying ALL students, this ignores the fact that sometimes students may not appreciate the tough stance a teacher may take that ultimately leads to future success. What about peer feedback? If it comes down to a popularity contest among staff then this is perhaps the worst measure as many popular people are extremely inept or simply just talented at playing office politics.

The second major issue is the office dynamic of working with a HATS. Imagine this scenario if you will, your boss introduces you to a new worker X that does less of the same work as you but spends the rest of the time attending meetings. Then to top it all off, X gets paid 20% more than you and spends some of his/her time telling you how to do your job better. I know that I would feel jealous of such a worker, they get paid more than me for doing a similar job, and pretty pissed off too, where do they get off telling me how to do my job? Now combine this with the fact that teachers can be quite narky, I know because I am one and believe me most teachers can whinge with the best of them, and don’t get paid enough anyway, to me it’s a recipe for disaster. I can just imagine the staffroom conversations about the HATS that go on and I personally wouldn’t want to put down my own colleagues by demeaning them in such a manner and rubbing my fatter pay cheque in the faces to boot.

The third and last major issue is the claim that it will entice young people to go into teaching. Reality check morons: I went into teaching after finishing school on the promise of plenty of work and greater recognition. I now have to work in an administration role because I cannot find a full time role and with all the retirees coming out to replace funds lost by the GFC all those young teachers are stuck either working casual or maternity leave and hoping that another position is just around the corner. It sounds so enticing I’m sure everyone is just waiting to do a BEd so they can join the queue of under-employed teachers. Moreover, the HATS are a select group from the entire teaching force and thus the chance of a young person who becomes a teacher even achieving this status is even smaller. So I’m sure it will entice young people to become teachers: young people who can’t think through the likelihood of the event occurring and thus probably being a stupid candidate for a teaching job in the first place.

After all that you would think that I am against the scheme. On the whole yes. I would rather the government spread that money out to ALL public school teachers so that ALL teachers are made to feel special and super thus ALL public school students can perform better. Australia only needs to look at our academically bright neighbours in places such as South Korea to understand the secret to good education: appreciation and recognition. In this country, where I have taught, ALL teachers are revered and respected in the community and shown recognition for the important role they have in society. There is no shortage of quality teachers: in fact it is a difficult prospect to get into the public system because there is so much competition. So if Kevin “I wish I hadn’t voted for him” 07 wants an education revolution try this: revolutionise society’s respect for education and stop treating us like top performing sales executives that you selectively favour depending on your budget bottom line.