[Closed] "New" Grammar Schools... Thoughts?

Another way to look at grammar schools is they select based on other things as well as academic ability. Part of this will include work ethic, ability to perform under pressure aspiration to succeed. None of which is exclusive to middle class parents but is more likely to be found amongst that group. Why is that the case, probably to become middle class you need to have those characteristics and a drive to better yourself in the first place, probably instilled in you by your parents.

The big question is how do you get more working class people to embrace these characteristics (assuming it's not morally wrong to dictate to people how they should live their lives). The grammar school isn't the problem it's the lack of drive to give it a go.

So generally there is nothing stopping anyone from applying themselves apart from their own self perception. The only caveat is the cost of tutoring but even that is not beyond most people if they really want to find the money, give up smoking / booze for a couple of months, maybe one year not have a holiday, if that's too much of a sacrifice then you've probably just reinforced social immobility in your child.

Nobody objects to selection in the workplace. Nobody objects to selection at University. Nobody objects to selection (streaming) within individual schools.

What people object to is consigning kids to lifetime second class status at age 11.

What people object to is consigning kids to lifetime second class status at age 11.

...but it's ok at A-Level time?

Selective schools could be tweaked to answer pretty much all the concerns, but the fundamental problem - some kids having a **** start in life is hard to address. Has any country ever brought kids with a rubbish background up to the same standard as kids with an excellent start?

NO country can redress the balances caused by natural variations

Then again no country can end crime but that does not mean we dont try

The big question is how do you get more working class people to embrace these characteristics (assuming it's not morally wrong to dictate to people how they should live their lives).

The grammar school isn't the problem it's the lack of drive to give it a go.

So generally there is nothing stopping anyone from applying themselves apart from their own self perception.

The only caveat is the cost of tutoring but even that is not beyond most people if they really want to find the money, give up smoking / booze for a couple of months, maybe one year not have a holiday,

if that's too much of a sacrifice then you've probably just reinforced social immobility in your child.

Has any country ever...

Finland?

When it comes to cycle infrastructure, if you're not copying The Netherlands, you're doing it wrong.

When it comes to engineering a groovy happy well-educated society, it's Finland.

I've read half the thread will catch up on the rest

To startl with @aa's comment which I think is highly relevant

Evidence is pretty clear on balance Grammar schhols are not helpful.

Helpful in what respect ? Where selective schools are extremely relevant is in producing excellence. Whilst we are pouncing around discussing social mobility etc the Chinese, the Indians are busting their balls in striving for excellence in highly selective schools and it I they we will be competing against in the future for jobs and in designing and developing products.

Our move away from Grammer schools has been one of the biggest supprters of private education. That's actually helped the state sector as these are kids the state doesn't have to pay to educate.

We abolstely should have selective schools and we should have entry at 13 or 14 too, where this will be controversial as it's likely some kids will be sent the other way.

Of course parents more engaged in education have kids who are more motivated and more successful. You will see this in areas and stats like the school meals one, intelligence is hereditary and kids from poorer backgrounds are less likely to have grown up in an environment which values education and academic study and achievement

What we had before with Secodary Modern and Grammar wasn't "right" IMO primarily due to lesser resources
The French have an almost entirely state education sector and it's highly selective.

The world is a highly competitive place and becoming more so. We need to grasp this and decide how to adapt. An education policy overly focuses on based on false notions of social mobility or afraid of competition is in my view a grave error.

I would read that and reply but you [ literally it seems on the PMQ thread] just ignore it when folk show [literally and without doubt]you are spouting the usual factually incorrect BS - shame i syou know you were found out and lack the character/confidence to change your views

you have my pity but you know you were wrong again dont you ...shameful and shameless

Oh dear junky that was so predictable. No I don't think grammar schools should adjust their aspirations downward. I do agree the less inspired kids should have help to increase their aspirations but that needs to happen before the kids get anywhere near the grammar school.

I knew I shouldn't have used class as a lazy way of describing different groups, yes you're right not everyone wants to be middle class, equally not everyone wants aspiration forced down their throat, there's a fine line there.

Yes you are right about it being a bit of a circle but again dumbing down the grammar schools is not the answer, this is merely enforcing the race to the bottom mentalitity.

The child born to a druggie vs. a millionaire is extremes at both ends, not really very helpful. You are of course right it's not the child's fault if their parents don't give them a great start but hey let's drag everyone down to the bottom to make it all fair.

And you went for the holiday comment, ok ignore holiday and concentrate on the drink, most people could afford some tutoring if they really wanted to, yes some really can't but denying everyone else isn't right either.

There's 2 sorts of people, those that seize opportunities and make the most of them and the rest that don't. We were lucky, our daughter got into the local grammar last year, she worked hard and got through the exam. Many others in her primary didn't,including a number who were allegedly brighter. Yes they all had tutoring but they were from a mixed bunch of backgrounds. Some with the wealthier parents didn't get in,the kid with a single mother who made a big effort did get in. Are we in an affluent area, no, we're in Bacup, you're local enough to know the area.

I don't agree with your world view and I'm fairly sure you don't share mine. In the meantime the world continues and the harsh reality is life's opportunity isn't handed to you on a plate, blaming those lucky / hard working / whatever enough to make the most of the opportunities isn't going to help those that don't.

Maybe coming from parents who did move up the aspirational ladder I get rather annoyed with being told I've got it easier, my grandparents were firmly working class and so were my wife's parents. The real shame is a lot of the genuine social mobility opportunities have been destroyed in the quest to make everything fairer, tution fees for example.

Maybe schools should be 'selecting', but in a different way. Select out the disruptive and troublesome kids for a different education, more suited to them. Then watch as the regular secondary schools breath a collective sigh of relief and get on with the job.

A virtue is that they help separate those kids who want to work from those who don't. Having spent the last 2 weeks in a class where 7 little sh*** are wrecking the education of the other 22 I see this as a virtue.
In the arse end of Gloucester where most of my supply work is, the grammar schools are seen as a way out. Most by the Asian families. There is more to school than grades, somewhere nice to learn is worth a lot.

Oh yeah, I have seen many a kid pass without tutoring. Those were the satisfying ones.

Kind of my point. Adjust the schools by fishing out he 7 sh***.

Guys, guys, guys,you can't do that, it's not their fault their screwed up lives are adversely impacting everyone around them. Everyone else should be feeling guilty that they are so lucky because they aren't a drain on society.

Unfortunately mocking them or beating them to death with a straw man wont improve anything for anyone in that class.

Oh dear junky that was so predictable.

The alternative to grammar schools is not a race to the bottom no matter how often you say it

NO not everyone can afford private tutoring if they really wanted to- what you going to say next they sell the 50 inch tv ? Lazy stereotypes 🙄

blaming those lucky / hard working / whatever enough to make the most of the opportunities isn't going to help those that don't.

Who is blaming them? What I am saying is they are not the ones who need the most help so why are we targeting them?Its the equivalent of giving gym membership [ at the very best gym available]to all the healthy people and ignoring those who dont exercise. It just exacerbates the difference/problem rather than offers a solution. Its great for those that get it but shit for everyone else

Maybe coming from parents who did move up the aspirational ladder I get rather annoyed with being told I've got it easier, my grandparents were firmly working class and so were my wife's parents.

The real shame is a lot of the genuine social mobility opportunities have been destroyed in the quest to make everything fairer, tution fees for example.

Not helpful in improving the overall education sulystem. On balance they make it worse.

e grammar school isn't the problem it's the lack of drive to give it a go.
So generally there is nothing stopping anyone from applying themselves apart from their own self perception.

ChristcI give up..whens the rugby come back on?

What I am saying s they are not the ones who need the most help so why are we targeting them?

That argument works both ways. If you segregate out the ones who need least help into selective schools you can target the ones who need most help.

I genuinely laughed at that

No offence but no one anywhere is claiming we have grammar schools to help those who dont get in its ....well..... erm laughable.

Night all no ones opinions are going to get changed are they.

No, you're right, as I said our world views are very different.

In the meantime I'm going to continue to encourage my kids to do their best as long as they don't actively disadvantage others. If they make more of the opportunities in life than others because I've given them a better start in life so be it and I'll be happy with that. I'm sure you'll consider that selfish but meh, that's life.

no ones opinions are going to get changed are they.

Mine has.

When I first read this thread I was broadly more in favour of non-selective than selective but with a bit of thinking and reading I became broadly more in favour of selective than non-selective.

As soon as a poster above pointed out that University is selective it hit me that education is 100pc selective from ~16 onwards and selective in terms of streaming as soon as kids are out of primary school. Which makes the whole debate a bit futile. The selection argument has been emphatically decided. Now we're just quibbling over the correct age to select, and whether or not we select into different buildings or just different rooms.

I'm sure you'll consider that selfish but meh, that's life.

No it seems like the logical choice for an individual to make. I will do thecsame for my kid.

No offence but no one anywhere is claiming we have grammar schools to help those who dont get in its ....well..... erm laughable.

It already happens. One example: The kids with the biggest problems often get 60 hours of a teaching assistant's time to themselves over a month. I suspect that's still available in the areas with selective schools and you can bet the selective Schools don't get much of that kind of budget.

Moreover what is a Pupil Referral Unit if not a selective school where less academic kids get high levels of resources...

In the meantime I'm going to continue to encourage my kids to do their best as long as they don't actively disadvantage others. If they make more of the opportunities in life than others because I've given them a better start in life so be it and I'll be happy with that. I'm sure you'll consider that selfish but meh, that's life.

I do the same, and I don't think it selfish - unfair, maybe, and I do what I can to enable others to have the same opportunities. That means recognising that some kids are not as lucky as we've been, and don't deserve to be punished their whole lives for a poor choice of parents.

Work hard, grasp any opportunity in front of you, read and then read more and be respectful and grateful - ignore the rest of the noise

Oh and if a teacher tells you not to extend yourself beyond the curriculum, ignore them. Don't let their hang ups rub off on you. Make the most of every opportunity....

...and read

Who you talking to thm? Whats this advice for?

"Guys, guys, guys,you can't do that, it's not their fault their screwed up lives are adversely impacting everyone around them"

Maybe, maybe not
But much more importantly it is not the fault of the behaving kids when their schooling is buggered through no fault of their own.
Why should they suffer at the whim of the few?
When you have 10 year olds asking for their class mates to be removed so that the rest can work it sort of boils your piss. And sadly our system doesn't care about the hardworking majority.

"don't deserve to be punished their whole lives for a poor choice of parents"
But it's ok to punish those who work?

Oh and if a teacher tells you not to extend yourself beyond the curriculum, ignore them.

Who is this teacher you keep referring to?

As soon as a poster above pointed out that University is selective it hit me that education is 100pc selective from ~16 onwards and selective in terms of streaming

yes but its not pass or fail selective is it.

and I like the idea of second chances at 13 & 16, considering some secondary moderns didn't even teach other languages the concept is comical.

Who is this teacher you keep referring to?

Me. Its his tiresome personnel dig that he uses when trying to scrabble around and rescue his arguements from the bottom of the barrel. I once said something alongvthe lines of its pointless reading around the subject to aid a level grades because the exams do not go beyond the specification. Everytime i point out something about his somewhat strange views regarding educational opportunity he brings this out. Not doubt hoping I'll tell him what I think of his digs and get banned. To be honest that doesnt bother me. I only restrain myself more these days as I dont really like making work for the mods.

Ps. What are my hang ups THM?

In much the same way he use the word sweaty to duckman as he knows this annoyed him once and he calls me a troll*. I guess we all must have quirks eh and his is to try and press buttons to get emotional reactions.

On the plus side I am in the great position of being able to comment on his gibberish and not receive any of it back.

Thanks for the WIn win

* never really annoyed me but it did make me chuckle at the irony.

ignore the rest of the noise

Tbh thm, best advice you've ever given out. Although, probably not in the way you intended.

next move is we get some emoticons as he is pleased that some folk mentioned him
Wont happen now I have mentioned it

yes but its not pass or fail selective is it.

I have plenty of sympathy for he argument that 11 should not be the age where there is a definitive selection, there should be other opportunities for transition. However, there should be selection. Life is selective and its competitive.

It is NOT a primary objective of schools to provide social mobility. They are there to provide opportunity. Our state system does not provide sufficiently for excellence which is why our private school system is so vibrant. Nothing would please me more than for our state system to mirror the excellence we see elsewhere in Europe or indeed the US where private schools are virtually non existent.

I see the usual suspects are showing the weakness of their arguments by focusing on individuals rather than issues. common guys come come back on the issues.

@klunk University is 100% pass or fail, you either get in or you don't. Jobs are selective, you get the job or you don't.

sorry but it isn't the same is it, you have resits, second choices as with jobs there are others to apply for, no resit with the 11+ no second chance fail and you were condemned to academic black hole called the secondary modern.

and I like the idea of second chances at 13 & 16, considering some secondary moderns didn't even teach other languages the concept is comical.

this seems strange in an environment where the £ per pupil is likely to be higher as the number of kids on FSM (and therefore attracting the pupil premium) is likely to be higher according to the anti's

so why is a school with a higher budget going to serve it's pupils less?

It is NOT a primary objective of schools to provide social mobility. They are there to provide opportunity.

is it the poverty of ambition of the teachers? or the parents? or is it Thatchers fault?

are "secondary moderns" sink schools for teachers before the kids even get there?

jambalaya - Member
I see the usual suspects are showing the weakness of their arguments by focusing on individuals rather than issues. common guys come come back on the issues.

Better than an argument based on a mis-read quote.

t is NOT a primary objective of schools to provide social mobility.

No but it is to provide education of a good standard which helps social mobility. I see my job as trying to keep as many options open to a pupil as possible.
However grammar schools are currently having a negative effect on social mobility where they are so should we accept that? I dont think so.

are "secondary moderns" sink schoo

This is a big issue, not just in grammar systems but for all schools with lots of pupils from poorer backgrounds.

That should say "sink schools for teachers"

From last year's ONS study

[b]The level of parental qualifications has been proposed as one of the most important factors in the intergenerational transmission of poverty[/b] (Blanden & Gibbons, 2006; d’Addio, 2007). In the UK, evidence suggests that parental qualifications are more important to future outcomes than income and social class (Field, 2010).[b] Parental education is generally viewed as the most important predictor of a child’s educational outcomes [/b](Ermisch & Pronzato, 2010; HM Government, 2014) affecting the likelihood of a child being well-educated in a number of ways; more educated parents are more likely to engage their children in educationally stimulating activities, are better able to help their children with education and have higher aspirations for them (Sylva et al., 2004; Bird, 2007). However, the precise nature of the relationship between parental qualifications and children’s attainment is uncertain and the transmission mechanism may be through genetic traits or a relationship between educational success and parenting ability (Field, 2010).

So yes, DD, a lot of the rest IS noise.

more educated parents are more likely to engage their children in educationally stimulating activities, are better able to help their children with education and have higher aspirations for them

How very dare they?? Shocking.....

Proposed, suggested, generally viewed, more likely and uncertain.

Nailed down

Not sure what your point is, THM? The results of the research you quote seems obvious to me (i.e. fit my prejudices) but they don't provide an argument for filtering off kids at an early age and setting their prospects in stone.

[quote=jambalaya opined]I see the usual suspects are showing the weakness of their arguments by focusing on individuals rather than issues. common guys come come back on the issues.

Indeed we should be so much more like you and make factually incorrect statements then run away too embarrassed to either comment or say anything

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/have-we-done-todays-pmq/page/2#post-7243482

You really do have no shame
Interesting you say nothing about THM's repeated digs to AA though - that actually required a question he did not answer - GIven this why are you shouting at the usual suspects [ as is this is not focusing on individuals] rather than on him Hypocrisy and an inability to handle the data
Chuckles

THM you did not claim it was the educational levels of parents that was the crtical factor you claimed it was

Whats wrong with asking people to invest in their child education? I'm not talking financially, but I am talking emotionally
Nothing lunge, it should be encouraged. It's THE most important driver.

You even emboldened it
However it is not what you claimed was most important.
We are not worthy of your genius nor personal digs

Still at least you are lucky to have the colossus Jamby at your back.
With friends like that eh 😆

OK enough big hitting for one day
Have a nice weekend y'all

The argument is simple DrJ. There are more important factors driving educational achievement than the type of school. Of course they fit less well with the cliched class arguments, hence they often get overlooked.

Not sure what your point is, THM?

You wouldnt be the first or the last. What I dont understand is that his points are pretty much the same as mine. Parental education and wealth ade more likely to make kids achieve better and grammar schools make it worse. B
However I think this can and should be reduced to give kids with less well off/less well educated parents more opportunities to do well, he seems to think the either it cant be changed or it shouldnt be changed, although it is admittedly hard to be sure what he is trying to say.

here are more important factors driving educational achievement than the type of schoo

Wow a moment of clarity and I agree but the state can easily control the type of school and not choose types that provide worse out comes for the majority.

Grammar school 0 : Comprehensives 1 (thm - o.g.)

what you haven't answered is why in an environment where the £ per pupil is likely to be higher as the number of kids on FSM (and therefore attracting the pupil premium) is likely to be condemning them to an "academic blackhole"

I do the same, and I don't think it selfish - unfair, maybe, and I do what I can to enable others to have the same opportunities. That means recognising that some kids are not as lucky as we've been, and don't deserve to be punished their whole lives for a poor choice of parents.

the pupil premium is designed to counter this, so what is the excuse for poor schooling in deprived area's when the school clearly gets more cash?

what you haven't answered is why in an environment where the £ per pupil is likely to be higher as the number of kids on FSM (and therefore attracting the pupil premium) is likely to be condemning them to an "academic blackhole"

Asked

poor schooling in deprived area's

Answered.

Next question?

the pupil premium is designed to counter this, so what is the excuse for poor schooling in deprived area's when the school clearly gets more cash?

Oh, and don't assume the good teachers want to go to the schools in the best areas. I know a lot of teachers and many much prefer to work in schools in a lower demographic.

Hang on, so I work hard to get my child into a good school in a good area and they get less money spent on them? How is that fair?

So why don't you send them to a school in a poor area, if you think those kids get a better deal? Are you going to do that? No - didn't than so!

DrJ - you just be very pleased with the result. Congrats and enjoy the warm glow.

Lunge 😉 indeed.

Oh, and don't assume the good teachers want to go to the schools in the best areas. I know a lot of teachers and many much prefer to work in schools in a lower demographic.

This is not what I see and experience every day in schools wherecI have taught. It is nuch tougher recruiting teachers in schools in deprivedcareas than more affluent areas. I'm sure that lots of data exists to back this up too if you were to go and look for it.

Hang on, so I work hard to get my child into a good school in a good area and they get less money spent on them? How is that fair?

Because your kids are in a better school with less SEN or emotional problems and most likely a more experienced set of teachers.

So why don't you send them to a school in a poor area, if you think those kids get a better deal? Are you going to do that? No - didn't than so!

Second, equal opportunity for all is just that, equal for all irreverent of their family or economic background, you either want that or don't.

Err, yes, I think we all want that (apart from thm, anyway). The question is whether grammar schools deliver it. Instead of batting the question around like a ping pong ball, we could just look at the data:

http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2013/01/28/grammar-school-myths/

sorry if it's already been posted

[url= http://www.stir.ac.uk/media/schools/management/documents/workingpapers/SEDP-2012-10-Hart-Moro-Roberts.pdf ]http://www.stir.ac.uk/media/schools/management/documents/workingpapers/SEDP-2012-10-Hart-Moro-Roberts.pdf[/url]

8. Conclusions
The single most important policy decision under the 1944 Education Act was to provide free secondary education to children from all classes of British society. However, for two main reasons, the implementation of the policy was largely a failure. First, there was a wide chasm in the quality of secondary school provision as between grammar/technical schools and modern schools. The former provided nationally recognised qualifications to one-third of children and led to distinctly improved chances of achieving post-school higher qualifications. The latter offered two-thirds of children virtually no opportunity for within-school qualifications and provided a platform of learning that was not able to support a broad set of further education and training qualifications. Second, selection into one or other of these secondary schools was predicated on performance in a series of IQ tests at the age of 11. Almost certainly the selection process was tilted in favour of children from middle-class family backgrounds. The absence of subsequent movement between grammar/technical schools and modern schools served seriously to exacerbate the results of this selection bias.

The biggest gainers from the free education provision were children from relatively disadvantaged family backgrounds who gained competitive entry into the grammar school system. These constituted only about 15% of all children attending tripartite schools. A further 20% of children were from more advantaged backgrounds and a high proportion of these may well have received a grammar school education in the absence of the new education policy. For the large majority of the remainder who were required to attend secondary modern schools the policy served generally to stifle educational and post-educational development and this in turn was reflected in relatively poor subsequent labour market outcomes.

Thank you Klunk.

It's this bit that bothers me:

... For the large majority of the remainder who were required to attend secondary modern schools the policy served generally to stifle educational and post-educational development and this in turn was reflected in relatively poor subsequent labour market outcomes.

Indeed as with capitalism in order to have winners* we must have losers and grammar schools help only the winners who are the ones who need the least help.

*To some degree this is inevitable but we dont need to make it worse.

Hang on, so I work hard to get my child into a good school in a good area and they get less money spent on them? How is that fair?

So I work hard to eat well and exercise and look after myself and then the NHS spends more money on other unhealthy people than they do on me and these people still have poorer outcomes than me

how is that fair?

FTFY

this thread got me thinking about my middle school, which I was at in the mid 70's and it was in transition from a secondary modern, IIRC we were it's first comprehensive intake. They were big on woodwork, metal work, TD, Home Ec/Cooking. There was no foreign language provision in the first year and in retrospect the maths teaching was very poor and the sciences virtually non existent. That said I could have taken passed my O level TD at age 13 🙂

Lets ignore the implication that anyone who does not get there is not working hard?

Anyway grammar schools, it's a priority thing basically, do you prioritise helping the high achievers get higher possibly at detriment to those at a lower level or the do you prioritise getting everyone to a minimum standard possibly at detriment to those who could push on? It's not about class, wealth or the area you were brought up in, though I accept this can have an impact on where you are on the scale.

And that question is why it's such a decisive subject.

it's a priority thing basically

Well, in fact, it's not. Grammar schools are socially divisive, and educationally ineffective, as the link I posted up there ^^^^ demonstrates.

Anyway grammar schools, it's a priority thing basically, do you prioritise helping the high achievers get higher possibly at detriment to those at a lower level or the do you prioritise getting everyone to a minimum standard possibly at detriment to those who could push on? It's not about class, wealth or the area you were brought up in, though I accept this can have an impact on where you are on the scale.

And that question is why it's such a decisive subject

Hang on, so I work hard to get my child into a good school in a good area and they get less money spent on them? How is that fair? Why are they getting punished for my success? I thought we were trying to take parental position out of it?

what the teaching profession don't want to admit is that the issue is failing schools in deprived area's. Secondary Modern schools don't attract teaching talent where grammar schools exist

This is not what I see and experience every day in schools wherecI have taught. It is nuch tougher recruiting teachers in schools in deprivedcareas than more affluent areas. I'm sure that lots of data exists to back this up too if you were to go and look for it

this is despite having more money thrown at the schools

ergo: the problem isn't the selective nature of the schools for students, it's the follow-on selection of teaching staff. So selection of pupils is itself not the problem it is the lack of leadership and teaching talent in the deprived schools despite the extra funding

This probably stems from weak/ CBA governing bodies in these schools

hat the teaching profession don't want to admit is that the issue is failing schools in deprived area's.

No thats a big issue but its not necessarily anything to do with Grammar schools as its the same where there are no grammar schools.

o selection of pupils is itself not the problem it is the lack of leadership and teaching talent in the deprived schools despite the extra funding

The extra funding isnt necessarily spent on teachers its often spent on all the other things like getting kids into school in the first place or SEN provision etc. But given the chronic lack of teachers "selection" isnt a luxary we have. We have been looking for a science teacher for over a year now, cant get one and my school is a "nice" comp.
You could argue its lack of leadership but when its a national problem it suggests to me that other factors are involved too.

Extraordinary to imagine that anyone would organise education around the educational standards and needs of the children. 😉

The "research" above highlights the problem as being of implementation not concept. Hardly surprising.

Sorry THM whats your point?

Sorry THM whats your "point"?

fify

While we are at it

What's....

😉

No point then?

😆

😆

A little homage to your MO there THM 😉

And he stopped talking to me because he claimed I troll

Oh the ironing

Two actually. Very clear AA but the rugby must be too distracting. Just enjoy that instead.

We have been looking for a science teacher for over a year now, cant get one and my school is a "nice" comp.
You could argue its lack of leadership but when its a national problem it suggests to me that other factors are involved too.

Several major problems here...

1. There's very little (realistic) prospect for talent to transfer into teaching. As a practicing professional scientist, engineer & manager, I have looked into teaching on several occasions. Any mature entrant starts with the green new graduates with little opportunity to regain lost (salary) ground on the basis of your previous non-teaching experience.

2. Unlike other professions, there's no effective "market" for teachers, based on ability and experience. The market is based on "cheapness" - i.e. an NQT at the bottom of the pay scale is quite employable, whereas an experienced teacher is effectively stifled in their career mobility by this "inverse market".

3. Head teachers are often dreadful, dreadful managers. All of the negative aspects of public sector management philosophy, but without the oversight.

nlike other professions, there's no effective "market" for teachers, based on ability and experience. The market is based on "cheapness" - i.e. an NQT at the bottom of the pay scale is quite employable, whereas an experienced teacher is effectively stifled in their career mobility by this "inverse market".

I dont think this is true, we offered a big dollop extra on the basic wage to the last person. They still turned us down.

STEM teachers perhaps the exception to the rule?

There's very little (realistic) prospect for talent to transfer into teaching. As a practicing professional scientist, engineer & manager, I have looked into teaching on several occasions. Any mature entrant starts with the green new graduates with little opportunity to regain lost (salary) ground on the basis of your previous non-teaching experience.

is this any different in any other area?

If i train as a doctor i dont stop on top whack because of what I did beforehand

What jobs can I do, with no experience, that i get a premium for ?

2. Unlike other professions, there's no effective "market" for teachers, based on ability and experience. The market is based on "cheapness" - i.e. an NQT at the bottom of the pay scale is quite employable, whereas an experienced teacher is effectively stifled in their career mobility by this "inverse market".

3. Head teachers are often dreadful, dreadful managers. All of the negative aspects of public sector management philosophy, but without the oversight.

is this any different in any other area?

In some ways yes. The transferable skills brought in by mature candidates are not recognised - exacerbated by "advancement by time served". A 30-35 yr old transferring from another profession would be significantly junior to a mid 20s teacher, say grad +5yrs. That extra experience is likely to include budget and staff / team management skills that are of considerable value, but that are not valued.

I dont think teaching is the only job with agreed pay scales and not all of them have this problem. Secondly the experience is why they get better pay so you would be left with ability. Its very hard to measure.

But that advancement and increase in pay makes teachers less able to transfer between jobs - they're just seen as a bigger hit on tight budgets. There appears to me to be little or no incentive to recruit skilled, experienced teachers, so they sit tight and risk "going stale".

I think this is political point, abut the public sector, that displays bias, unless you have some specific evidence to back this up.

Absolutely no political point. I work closely with public sector clients (and hence have some exposure to various public sector management styles, and a number of close family members teach. As to evidence, well that wouldn't be for a public forum...

In some ways yes. The transferable skills brought in by mature candidates are not recognised - exacerbated by "advancement by time served". A 30-35 yr old transferring from another profession would be significantly junior to a mid 20s teacher, say grad +5yrs. That extra experience is likely to include budget and staff / team management skills that are of considerable value, but that are not valued.

Well those budget skills are not needed by a teacher in much the same way if a teacher left to be a manager or run a budget the years of classroom skills are not relevant/useful.
Again what job recognises skills not needed? If I change from being a well paid joiner to a banker would they recognise the skills acquired previously but of no use?

2)Secondly teachers change jobs all the time so I dont agree- I am sure it does happen in some cases but no one is recruiting inexperienced teachers as heads of departments and they all work there way up the pay scale by simply not dying. The staying put is a factor in most jobs tbh as folk tend to be well paid and not move on. Again "staleness" or lack of movement is just not a teaching issue

3)Lucky you are so experienced somewhat unfortunate you cannot mention it- sounds shitty but all i mean is you gave an opinion and presented no evidence though you did make an appeal to your own authority - I am not calling you a liar I am just saying its not convincing as its just your opinion. That does not read any better but I dont mean it to sound as shitty as it reads sorry.

A 30-35 yr old transferring from another profession would be significantly junior to a mid 20s teacher, say grad +5yrs. That extra experience is likely to include budget and staff / team management skills that are of considerable value, but that are not valued

Yeah but could you teach? You dont need these other skills in the first few years. You would have enough on your plate teaching.

There appears to me to be little or no incentive to recruit skilled, experienced teachers

Better results?

they all work there way up the pay scale by simply not dying

Not any more, performance related pay and all that!