While some teaching unions and individuals appear to have been pacified by a new emphasis on rewarding teachers for acquiring new skills and meeting "personal professional development" targets, the proposals still face considerable opposition. BBC News Online presents two opposing views on the subject.

Michael Murphy is headteacher of Hurlingham and Chelsea School in London, where the Education Secretary, David Blunkett, will reveal his proposals. The school already operates a performance-related pay scheme, and Mr Murphy says it works.

Nigel de Gruchy, General Secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers, explains why the union is opposed to the government proposals.

Michael Murphy, headteacher of Hurlingham and Chelsea School:

In my view the principle of performance-related pay is a good one.

It allows school managers to reward good and effective teachers in a tangible and responsive way. It is one of the strategies deployed in order to ensure that the teaching profession becomes a highly paid prestigious profession attracting the best graduates.

Performance-related pay actually adds an element of fairness to the pay structure within the profession.

At the moment teachers with the same level of experience and the same qualifications and same responsibilities are paid the same. This does not allow us to take into account the relative effectiveness of those teachers.

I believe it is inherently unfair that teachers who work longer hours, engage more effectively with students and achieve better results should be paid the same as teachers who are not prepared to make the same effort and who achieve poorer results.

A great source of division in staffrooms up and down the country is in fact that inherent unfairness. In many schools this has led to discontent and divisiveness.

There is an undeniable consensus that teachers can make a difference; to be specific, good and effective teachers make a difference.

The difference those teachers make is in the ability of students to achieve their potential, which in many cases means that they exceed their own expectations.

Effective teaching leads to improved qualifications which provide enhanced opportunities for students. That is indeed the core task of a teacher.

Bench-marking

I firmly believe that those teachers who fulfil that task successfully should have it recognised in their pay as a performance bonus.

Critics of performance-related pay have suggested that such a system would penalise those teachers who teach low-ability pupils and pupils who suffer from multiple disadvantage. There is no doubt that academic achievement is influenced by inherent potential and socio-economic factors.

However, that does not mean that you cannot judge performance; the performance of the teacher is contextualised in terms of the students' prior attainment and in terms of socio-economic background.

A considerable amount of work has already proceeded on bench-marking in order to provide such a basis.

Therefore performance-related pay is not simply "payment by results", but effective teaching resulting in real progress by pupils, related to pupils' individual circumstances.

Therefore, there should be no problem in judging the effectiveness of those teachers in an inner-city school such as Hurlingham and Chelsea, or a suburban school, or indeed a selective school. You compare like with like.

I would be surprised if there was any school in the country not managing the performance of staff. Schools are already making professional judgements about the quality of teaching and learning, the standard of marking and the preparation and planning of individual teachers.

Therefore, it does not take an unimaginable leap to translate that information into considerations affecting pay.

Nigel de Gruchy, General Secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers:

A "cultural revolution" proclaimed the prime minister. The government is pushing for it, the teaching profession crying out for it. Why, then, has what should have been a common objective become so fraught with difficulty and disagreement?

The great tragedy is that one issue has dominated the debate surrounding the green paper, Teachers: meeting the challenge of change.

One might be excused for believing that crude payment by results, performance-related pay forms the totality of the green paper proposals.

For NASUWT, the notion of teacher appraisal is not a bad thing. It is an essential part of a new salary structure for teachers.

NASUWT adheres to a policy of collegiality in schools. Collegiality, like the green paper's fundamental principle, focuses on the importance of the classroom teacher. Our collegiate salary structure incorporates a fair, sensible and manageable system of appraisal.

The appraisal must take place at appropriate intervals, but not every year, and should be based on judging the skills and qualities that teachers bring to their work.

'Variety of factors'

NASUWT strongly opposes the government's proposal to judge teachers according to output or pupil outcomes. That is payment by results, by the national tests and public examinations.

Teachers, while having some influence over these matters, cannot control them. It is extremely difficult to single out the contribution of one teacher.

Pupils' results depend on a variety of factors with the quality of teaching being just one. Others are outside the direct control of the individual teacher. It is unfair therefore to link the pay of an individual teacher to a pupil's progress while ignoring the impact of family life, ill-health or social exclusion.

The 41,000 responses to the government's green paper consultation totally vindicated the NASUWT submission. 61% of respondents supported rewarding good performance by teachers (a NASUWT NOP survey found 57% of teachers in support).

But 66% of respondents opposed the government's way of achieving this through pupil outcomes (73% of teachers opposing in the NASUWT survey).

While the government has made some concessions, it has remained dogmatically committed to retaining an element of performance-related pay, despite such overwhelming opposition.

The government is wasting a glorious opportunity to reach agreement with the teaching profession. NASUWT is not simply whinging at the sidelines. We, too, want change, have offered positive and constructive alternatives and are still willing to talk. It is now up to the government to listen.