Forum menu
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".
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.
3. Head teachers are often dreadful, dreadful managers. All of the negative aspects of public sector management philosophy, but without the oversight.
I think this is political point, abut the public sector, that displays bias, unless you have some specific evidence to back this up.
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!
The "research" above highlights the problem as being of implementation not concept. Hardly surprising.
nice endorsement of comprehensive education THM.
Kline, it's neither an endorsement nor a criticism.
are we a little confused ?
No. Why?
1. There's very little (realistic) prospect for talent to transfer into teaching.
Is that true? My kids were taught by several teachers who came into the profession after successful careers elsewhere. There were also considered among the best teachers too.
Their personal experience within the private sector may not be reflective of education in general.
I think that was why you were paying for it