A new economy

I was having a bit of a think this morning.

An issue with vocations, charity and volunteer work is that monetary reward is rarely satisfying for those involved, it "cheapens" the attempt.  As soon as money is involved, the real motive of the practitioner is questioned. We can see the effect of this currently in newspapers with the media challenging the motives of teachers after recent pay rises.

Pay is not a motivator - and extra $5 per week does not motivate a person to greater performance.  All it does it help pay the mortgage faster.

Yet for those that attempt these activities, motivation and burnout is an issue.  Vocations tend to be poorly paid due to the nature of the people involved - money is not the reason for starting a vocation, if money doesn't motivate them there is no reason to increase wages.  Is it possible to create a new economy better suited to those that find money a poor reward, yet still need some form of recognition such that they know that their efforts are achieving an outcome and are worthwhile?

For many of these people the line between home and work is blurred, they consider their occupation to be part of who they are, part of the enjoyment of life and relationships in society.  I think they have it right too.. after all we spend most of our productive hours in the workplace - not at home! 

To find a suitable reward we could identify their primary motivators and predict future motivating factors.  Possible factors are public recognition of achievement, immediate recognition by peers, measurable improvement in conditions, happiness, more team involvement, socialisation activities, new learnings, leadership opportunities, co-working with family, improvement in public standing or improvement in home conditions.  I'm sure the list is much longer than just pay them more and they will be happy.

Perhaps this new economy could have a currency that is not money - my initial thought is the "contribution point".  Contribution points would recognise those that have achieved something in their field and after achieving a number of contribution points they would be redirected to an activity that would be aimed at recharging their motivation.

An example would be of the social worker, who is burning out caring for their cases, being sent to a resort where those employed know of the way the person earned their contribution points and can relate to the needs of the person.  A psychologist helps them rebuild their confidence, a fitness trainer engages them physically, social functions are designed, so on and so forth.

Is there any reason in today's day and age that we can't identify those that are contributing to society and reward them (and similarly penalise those that aren't contributing!).  The more contribution, the more often the reward.  This removes the commodity of the dollar (the idea of basing a society on gambling on the stock exchange is backward if you think about it) and ties reward closer to actual effort and outcome.

The ways of accruing and spending the points for each person are defined at the start of the year.  Then each year the formula is modified to suit the tasks required by society.  If the outcome is not as expected, yet the task is completed, the goal is re-inspected the following year (and if ineffective may not be re-offered), the points are still accrued by the contributor, the rewards are still obtained.

I look at kids in classes that can't see what their futures are and they are despondent. Jobs that they could once fill are now mechanised, jobs that are available are more demanding - beyond the average student. Many can't recognise opportunity and seem resigned towards unfulfilling lives of poverty.

As a society we are moving towards a point where we will need to question whether we are all needed as workers 40 hours a week. We need to move our society to a stage where mutual happiness is the currency rather than the dollar.  To get to this point, we need to consider whether the dollar as capital is going to be effective and consider needs of the individual instead.

Whoa! I hear you say - what of the cost to set up and maintain all of this?  We maintain a banking sector, stock brokers, financial advisers, superannuation providers, real estate agents and the wealth of people that interact to facilitate swapping of capital.  It's just a new economy with a different driver, one focused on valuing the 'self image' of the person and their achievements rather than their personal net worth.  Larry Niven and Robert Heinlein have written on this issue and their predictions don't seem far off.  We're not short on people - but we are coming to a point where they'll be short on things to do.

Issues with League Tables

An interesting account of the effect of league tables to date.

Click Here

National map of Professional learning and development

Today the federal government released the following report on professional learning.  I haven't read much of it, but have noticed that interest groups were included in the panel such as professional learning providers and universities.  Unsurprisingly it has found that professional learning is a key driver for change in schools.

In the past I've been critical of PD for it's usual ineffectiveness.  The survey confirms my suspicions.

Here are some important findings:

Most teachers are looking for ideas to incorporate in the classroom.

For all the money spent, 78% of the time, PD only affects at best, a bit of teaching practices.  Critically this implies that most of the time it is a big load of useless.



I'm not saying that what people want is necessarily what they need, but it does raise the question - why spend so much money on ineffective training?  Why do training if it has no impact? 

I would suggest because the results of PD is rarely analysed.

Most of the time the goals of PD are ill defined and are sometimes/rarely followed up (74%)!

And who is responsible for all of this rather ordinary PD?  Sadly it's schools theselves.  In many cases the blind leading the blind with hastily prepared presentations for scheduled PD days with little or no budget and little time for finding quality speakers.  PD days are scheduled at the start of term for all schools causing difficulty in organising quality presenters.


I am not saying that all PD is bad, but typically useful PD has been forward planning sessions or information desemination sessions about school policy (which is not the PD identified as most needed).  If you calculated the hours spent, the cost of a PD day for all staff is scary.

Let's face the truth - if there are new ideas introduced at a school, it is either by new teachers to the school implementing something they already know, an administration lead/forced initiative or by practicum students - rarely is it via PD.  With the changes in curriculum (especially in senior school) proper implementation of new ideas by teachers for the classroom have been shelved.

So, what's the answer?  More PD?  I hope not, it's a poor use of funds.  Perhaps encouragement for teachers willing to take short term placements at effective schools to encourage cross pollination of ideas (perhaps in a TA/team teaching type role) or for teachers to engage in further higher education to improve their skills (with tertiary providers able to provide effective courses).

Lack of respect for schools by government

Statements like "The Rudd Government believes it’s time we stopped averting our eyes from poor performance and ensure every Australian child is receiving a world class education" underlines a government directing blame for poor policy onto schools. Julia Gillard, you should be ashamed (see media announcement here). You are oversimplifying a complex problem and right about now you should be realising that this policy decision should quietly disappear.

Government is responsible for the performance of schools and "name and shame" is far from the most effective way to govern schools. In fact it is the clearest sign that government is unable to govern schools if it has to resort to such crass tactics. The Rudd government in particular has shown itself to be a big "criticise all, promise nothing, deliver nothing" blowhard.

To imply that schools are averting their eyes is to ridicule the very basis of public education - that schools and teachers are seeking to bring about the finest education possible for our children. Schools have been handed some very shonky curriculum and behaviour management practices by government - via ill-conceived, poorly researched, implemented and ill-managed government policy. If I was to point the finger it would be there!

To run something into the ground and then put the boot in lacks integrity. It seems to be another attempt at grabbing headlines and a couple of votes.

The best thing is that for Julia another ill conceived notion is backfiring and parents continue to see through the smoke and mirrors (see news poll here where 70% of parents believe league tables should be kept private).

If our community has a lack of respect for their own schools, we should expect the same from our students. Our leaders need to stand up and show leadership through public support for our schools and for the future development of our schools.