Teaching stars: transforming the education profession, our third education report, aroused suspicion, emotion and attention when we released it this week. We dared to say those two terrible words: performance pay. Yet, the argument is more nuanced than the emotive and provocative language would suggest.

This week, the New Zealand Post Primary Teachers' Association (PPTA) told this writer that teachers do not really care about money; it is not their main motivation. Indeed, New Zealand and international research shows that people are not attracted to teaching for the money, but rather to make a difference, because it is important for society, for the challenge, to share their passion for the subject, and to work with children and young people. 

However, by the same token, research shows that money helps to retain people as teachers. A 22-year-old straight out of university with very little financial burden may be pure in their altruism. Yet a 42-year-old saddled with a mortgage who wants to provide a good life for a family may well be enticed out of teaching by a better-paid job. More so if the teacher is highly capable.

Currently, teachers start on a base salary and move up incrementally each year for eight years. The career model for teachers announced by the Prime Minister in January will shatter the glass ceiling at the top of the salary scale for classroom teachers. This should go a long way to retaining the best.

But it does not deal with another major problem. Virtually all teachers (99 per cent) move up a notch on the salary scale each year, which does reflect that, on average, the learning curve for teachers is steepest in those first eight years. However, a thought experiment may help illustrate why this does nothing to encourage excellence.

Imagine that you are learning the piano, and making a living as a pianist. You receive a fixed yearly salary. Every year, you compete in a recital and your placing in the competition determines the increase in your salary. However, it does not matter how much you have practiced, or how well you perform for your audience. Your placing in the competition is fixed. The only variable considered is how many years you have been playing. Pity for the audience.
 
And a final point: if money really is not important to teachers as the unions say, then why the kerfuffle when you dare whisper those two words?