New teachers strike wtf

[Mr Snap]

SpeedMattersNot said:

Indeed, it's pointless to have 3A*'s at A-Level if you lack some of the other traits that make an employee.

This is significant. Why do people expect a bright 18/19 year old to be good employees? Whatever you think, most 18/19 year olds lack confidence - even when their outward attitude suggests otherwise, they're probably crapping themselves. PH type company directors tend to forget how bleeding useless they were themselves at that age.

Schools try their best to turn out well rounded individuals but A Level results have to take precedence. You can't blame teachers for this, they're forced to push hard on exam results because that's how schools and teachers are measured and that's down to government, not teachers.

Most teachers would love to widen the curriculum, to get 'the real world' into their teaching, but they can't because they're chasing Gove's [exam] result driven curriculum. It's possible to be well rounded with 3 A* but not a given. Some kids will put everything into their exams but have nothing left for anything else.

If you want well rounded kids, don't expect an exam/qualification driven curriculum to deliver.

[SpeedMattersNot]

Rovinghawk said:

Countdown said:

I have to be honest - if he isn't "right" for you I'd be wondering how he managed to get through your recruitment process.

Note my words "I was given".

Schools seem to be giving kids a very narrow education specifically geared towards passing an exam & nothing else.
Their knowledge of anything not within the curriculum is pretty much non-existent yet they believe massively that their 3 A* certificates mean they're omniscient.

As I said, the less educated ones tend to be better raw material to work with. This does not reflect well on the education system.

Why do you think this is? I bet you can answer it better than I can.

[Mr Snap]

turbobloke said:

One of the things Gove has done - or is trying to do more on - is to make it easier to remove the weakest teachers. As expected, the Unions don't agree with this and dislike Gove even more as a result, but when have Unions had a monopoly on reasonableness! Gove is right on this score, pupils typically get one chance.

While appreciating the point made earlier about applications for teaching posts being thin on the ground, including zero responses, there are 'non-teaching' headteachers in many secondary schools and other senior leaders with lighter loads than average who ought to be getting out of their offices and taking the strain if a weak teacher is dismissed and a replacement isn't easy to find, and for as long as it takes.

The problem is, would they be any better...you would have to hope so.

Removing weak teachers sounds good but you'll run into even more recruitment problems. From experience of mentoring, I reckon it takes between two and three years for a teacher to begin to bed in fully. Some of the most troublesome candidates turn into the best teachers (It's to do with empathy. Some of the most brilliant candidates make the worst teachers; they can't understand why people less intelligent than themselves can't understand!). Getting rid of bad ones is ok if the training and support is there. But if it takes two to three years to get a teacher fully competent, then some kids are bound to suffer, that's life. It doesn't matter whether you prefer to get rid more quickly or to put more effort into CPD, both options will cost money.

Plus, you have to remember that lots of trainee teachers have taken loans on their training. You'll really need to beef up the college admissions policies to prevent the also rans taking up places and incurring unwarranted levels of debt. You have to believe that people go into TT in good faith; they may be mistaken and fail but punishing them with debt as well as labelling them as failures isn't easily justified, especially if better support might be the answer. Otherwise, the only viable system is status quo - removing unsuitable teachers by attrition.

With respect, I think you need to talk to more heads. Those that I know miss being in the classroom terribly and relish the times when they can get back in there. The reason they don't is the demands of the job. I haven't a clue what the budget for, say, an average 1500 child comp is, but I'm sure it's in the millions - and if the whole education process were to be fully monetised, the budgets would be eye watering. Would you really expect the MD of a similarly sized business to spend his/her days on the factory floor polishing widgets?
Head teachers are mostly too busy dealing with admin to teach, I've never worked under one who had time on their hands, quite the opposite in fact.

[turbobloke]

Mr Snap said:

With respect, I think you need to talk to more heads. Those that I know miss being in the classroom terribly and relish the times when they can get back in there.

Trust me on this I talk to HTs. Some do some don't, and some shouldn't be allowed anywhere near pupils by their own reckoning in terms of quality of teaching. Not too dissimilar to the point where Sirralex is (was) great on strategy and on the bench and in the team talks and picking the squad, but as for stepping out onto the pitch...not enough energy left and the young 'uns would run rings round him OK not a perfect analogy but not a bad one either.

I take it the lack of mention means you agree with the point about the best teachers and school leaders being woefully underpaid

Mr Snap said:

Head teachers are mostly too busy dealing with admin to teach, I've never worked under one who had time on their hands, quite the opposite in fact.

I take it you don't find the traditional HT morning-afternoon joke very funny...Q/ why do HTs not look out of their office window in the morning A/ if they did there'd be nothing to do in the afternoon

Naughty and not in line with workload but that's humour, YMMV!

[Mr Snap]

turbobloke said:

I take it the lack of mention means you agree with the point about the best teachers and school leaders being woefully underpaid

I stopped beating my wife ages ago.

I'm not against PRP in principle but in the UK there's no consensus as to what education is supposed to achieve. You can't measure performance if you don't know what performance is. When everyone agrees what education is for PRP will be acceptable.

[turbobloke]

Mr Snap said:

turbobloke said:

I take it the lack of mention means you agree with the point about the best teachers and school leaders being woefully underpaid

I'm not against PRP in principle but in the UK there's no consensus as to what education is supposed to achieve. You can't measure performance if you don't know what performance is. When everyone agrees what education is for PRP will be acceptable.

With headteachers, who are responsible for whole-school performance, there are two metrics that can't be swerved in my view. One is the issue of whether, overall, pupils leave their school at a standard which has improved in terms the national picture compared to when they were admitted. The other is whether the first metric is getting better or worse over time.

These aren't perfect but they are reasonable, and where perfection isn't possible then reasonable will do.

There are softer measures such as pupil voice and parental feedback which will shine a modest light on how the school does what it does, but what it does can be measured as above in a way that's reasonable and the same for all.

[SpeedMattersNot]

TB - one flaw. My wife consistently receives students into Y9 who have been marked as though they are a 4 out of 9 (for example, I don't know the actual boundaries). This would mean they are of roughly a grade 3 in Piano, or a grade 5 in guitar (again, for example) and it predicts them a C. What when they arrive, they can't play any instruments but still decide they want to take Music - and still, don't learn an instrument.

Is that fair?

It will also discourage lots of teachers who currently do extra curricular work, unless it benefits the child's grade. Again, something you've expressed multiple times on this forum, aren't always a fair gauge of how well the students have done (or indeed teacher) and others in this thread have suggested that they are still useless.

What about the teachers who 'help' their students?

What about teachers who have to deal with personal matters of hormonal teenage girls, that they don't want to discuss with their friends or family? Is this sort of stuff taken into account or not? Because I perceive student welfare and happiness almost above their academia.

Edit to add: I am not ruling out totally. As a mechanic bonus wasn't always straightforward. But I earn't it frequently. It was an easier task to judge how long a tech should spend on any one vehicle, than it is to judge a child's ability and mood. Kid's aren't just nuts and bolts

Edited by SpeedMattersNot on Friday 2nd May 16:38

[Mr Snap]

turbobloke said:

With headteachers, who are responsible for whole-school performance, there are two metrics that can't be swerved in my view. One is the issue of whether, overall, pupils leave their school at a standard which has improved in terms the national picture compared to when they were admitted. The other is whether the first metric is getting better or worse over time.

These aren't perfect but they are reasonable, and where perfection isn't possible then reasonable will do.

There are softer measures such as pupil voice and parental feedback which will shine a modest light on how the school does what it does, but what it does can be measured as above in a way that's reasonable and the same for all.

Seems good, but some of the very best public schools might score poorly compared to an urban comp in that system? (Although, they'd be exempted, of course).

And you're missing the 'turning nasty little scrotes into relatively normal human beings' metric. Work usually done by teachers working with kids who will probably achieve extremely poor academic results (that absolutely doesn't mean writing them off).

One of my specialisms was 'embedded teaching' - i.e. getting kids who won't do exams to learn stuff they wouldn't normally tolerate in formal lessons. In that kind of scenario, getting a kid to remove his earphones and not call you a represents real progress. Not easy to measure, though. I don't see why I should have got less pay while I was providing respite for the teachers who were doing more academic stuff with more amenable kids? SN increments don't cover it; some teachers will still 'perform' better than others in that environment. It's back to measuring 'soft skills'

This is the kind of thing that makes PRP far more complex than it seems at face value.

[NPI]

Mr Snap said:

With respect, I think you need to talk to more heads. Those that I know miss being in the classroom terribly and relish the times when they can get back in there. The reason they don't is the demands of the job. I haven't a clue what the budget for, say, an average 1500 child comp is, but I'm sure it's in the millions - and if the whole education process were to be fully monetised, the budgets would be eye watering. Would you really expect the MD of a similarly sized business to spend his/her days on the factory floor polishing widgets?

In the local schools I know, there's a burser / business manager doing the numbers stuff. As best I can gather, the head of our most local school is a good salesman for the school but he keeps himself well away from the day-to-day stuff. He's working at another school helping them too, so he's not even 100% at his own school.

I wonder if the number of pretty highly paid teachers who don't teach much is financially sustainable? A colleague's wife is an associate head in a big primary in the SE and she doesn't have any set teaching hours at all.

[Rovinghawk]

SpeedMattersNot said:

Why do you think this is? I bet you can answer it better than I can.

I'll defer to others with more experience but would suggest
1) The schools only care about league tables, not about actual education
2) Once out of school the kids can't be bothered with anything outside the realms of their phone, Xbox or facebook. The less academic ones play football, tinker with cars and actually go & do things.

As I said, the less educated ones seem to have a massively better grasp of how the world works and this relects badly on the educators.

[Mr Snap]

NPI said:

Mr Snap said:

With respect, I think you need to talk to more heads. Those that I know miss being in the classroom terribly and relish the times when they can get back in there. The reason they don't is the demands of the job. I haven't a clue what the budget for, say, an average 1500 child comp is, but I'm sure it's in the millions - and if the whole education process were to be fully monetised, the budgets would be eye watering. Would you really expect the MD of a similarly sized business to spend his/her days on the factory floor polishing widgets?

In the local schools I know, there's a burser / business manager doing the numbers stuff. As best I can gather, the head of our most local school is a good salesman for the school but he keeps himself well away from the day-to-day stuff. He's working at another school helping them too, so he's not even 100% at his own school.

I wonder if the number of pretty highly paid teachers who don't teach much is financially sustainable? A colleague's wife is an associate head in a big primary in the SE and she doesn't have any set teaching hours at all.

Do you expect the MD of a relatively large business to do the accounts and admin and do a full stint on the shop floor as well? Good PR is as critical to a school these days as it is to any other business.

The chap who's working at two schools is termed an 'executive head'. He will be supported by deputies with greater than normal responsibilities than they would have under a normal head.

Both cases are arguing from the particular to the general. You think you know but you don't know.

[Countdown]

I'm genuinely not being contrary for the sake of being awkward but we do seem to have had quite different experiences of the school system.

Rovinghawk said:

1) The schools only care about league tables, not about actual education

For some, perhaps. However others spend a great deal of time and money on "Enrichment" activities such as sports, after schools clubs, trips out etc. Certainly far more than when I was at school, and it costs a fortune

Rovinghawk said:

2) Once out of school the kids can't be bothered with anything outside the realms of their phone, Xbox or facebook. The less academic ones play football, tinker with cars and actually go & do things.

Again our experiences differ. All of my kids have strict limits on the amount of time they can spend watching TV or on their games consoles. Mobiles are harder to police but even they get locked away after 9pm. And their homework gets checked every night. My son plays basketball for his school team and the local town team, daughter does gymnastics and netball so I'm not sure why you think academic children have fewer extra-curricular interests. Equally I'd be extremely surprised if "less academic" kids spent less time playing "Call of Duty" or SnapChatting their girlfriends - if anything it's probably more.

Rovinghawk said:

As I said, the less educated ones seem to have a massively better grasp of how the world works and this relects badly on the educators.

Could it be that your industry is more suited for the "less academic" ones? Looking back at my primary school mates the ones who were less academically inclined went into trades such as builders/roofers/labourers. The more academically inclined ones became Doctors, lawyers, and the cream of the crop became accountants . So maybe it's not the quality of education, more the "square pegs in round holes" syndrome?

[Mr Snap]

Rovinghawk said:

As I said, the less educated ones seem to have a massively better grasp of how the world works and this relects badly on the educators.

Educators don't design the system, politicians and bureaucrats design the system. If you don't think it works, get arsey with Gove, he's the bloke in charge who's pushing exam grades above education for life.

[SpeedMattersNot]

Mr Snap said:

Rovinghawk said:

As I said, the less educated ones seem to have a massively better grasp of how the world works and this relects badly on the educators.

Educators don't design the system, politicians and bureaucrats design the system. If you don't think it works, get arsey with Gove, he's the bloke in charge who's pushing exam grades above education for life.

"And boom goes the dynamite". Cleveland.

[mph1977]

Mr Snap said:

NPI said:

Mr Snap said:

With respect, I think you need to talk to more heads. Those that I know miss being in the classroom terribly and relish the times when they can get back in there. The reason they don't is the demands of the job. I haven't a clue what the budget for, say, an average 1500 child comp is, but I'm sure it's in the millions - and if the whole education process were to be fully monetised, the budgets would be eye watering. Would you really expect the MD of a similarly sized business to spend his/her days on the factory floor polishing widgets?

In the local schools I know, there's a burser / business manager doing the numbers stuff. As best I can gather, the head of our most local school is a good salesman for the school but he keeps himself well away from the day-to-day stuff. He's working at another school helping them too, so he's not even 100% at his own school.

I wonder if the number of pretty highly paid teachers who don't teach much is financially sustainable? A colleague's wife is an associate head in a big primary in the SE and she doesn't have any set teaching hours at all.

Do you expect the MD of a relatively large business to do the accounts and admin and do a full stint on the shop floor as well? Good PR is as critical to a school these days as it is to any other business.

The chap who's working at two schools is termed an 'executive head'. He will be supported by deputies with greater than normal responsibilities than they would have under a normal head.

Both cases are arguing from the particular to the general. You think you know but you don't know.

Here in lays the rub in some professions it is the expected norm for senior managers / leaders to maintain a hands on role

e.g.

Medicine
Law
Architecture

in other professions it seems to be the norm that taking on a managerial role is a way to avoid actual service delivery

e.g.
Teaching
Nursing
middle management in many industrial / logistics settings

my own recollections of the teaching load diminshing with seniority ( as a Student / pupil some 20 years ago and attending 2 different secondary schools)

ordinary teachers = 90 % of school hours = teaching

heads of dept / heads of year = 70 % of school hours = teaching - head of sixth taught a little less

of senior management team

the 2 'Assistant Principals' (1st school) / 'Senior Teachers'(2nd school) taught roughly half the week ( as did the supernumerary 'Senior Teacher'at the 1st school but his reduced class teaching load also reflected his role with careers / guidance /applications for FE/HE support)

the two Vice Princpals (in both schools one was the de facto 'head teacher' with respect to discipline and being the face of senior management to the student body, the other more of a manager ) had perhaps 20 -25 % teaching load mainly confined to 'upper school' (GCSE/ A level)

the principal at both schools had no timetabled teaching hours.

[turbobloke]

Mr Snap said:

Seems good, but some of the very best public schools might score poorly compared to an urban comp in that system? (Although, they'd be exempted, of course).

Probably so, and some would do extremely well if they were included.

Mr Snap said:

And you're missing the 'turning nasty little scrotes into relatively normal human beings' metric. Work usually done by teachers working with kids who will probably achieve extremely poor academic results (that absolutely doesn't mean writing them off).

Yes that's too subjective as a metric to be included, and outside the gates on leaving the reformed angel may regress to scrotehood. The two criteria I suggested still seem OK to me

Mr Snap said:

getting a kid to remove his earphones and not call you a represents real progress...

...This is the kind of thing that makes PRP far more complex than it seems at face value.

It need not make it more complex as it wouldn't figure in what I suggested. The same kid on an off day may well revert to type regardless of inputs. That's not the teacher's fault or the headteacher's fault.

mph1977 said:

Mr Snap said:

NPI said:

Mr Snap said:

With respect, I think you need to talk to more heads. Those that I know miss being in the classroom terribly and relish the times when they can get back in there. The reason they don't is the demands of the job. I haven't a clue what the budget for, say, an average 1500 child comp is, but I'm sure it's in the millions - and if the whole education process were to be fully monetised, the budgets would be eye watering. Would you really expect the MD of a similarly sized business to spend his/her days on the factory floor polishing widgets?

In the local schools I know, there's a burser / business manager doing the numbers stuff. As best I can gather, the head of our most local school is a good salesman for the school but he keeps himself well away from the day-to-day stuff. He's working at another school helping them too, so he's not even 100% at his own school.

I wonder if the number of pretty highly paid teachers who don't teach much is financially sustainable? A colleague's wife is an associate head in a big primary in the SE and she doesn't have any set teaching hours at all.

Do you expect the MD of a relatively large business to do the accounts and admin and do a full stint on the shop floor as well? Good PR is as critical to a school these days as it is to any other business.

The chap who's working at two schools is termed an 'executive head'. He will be supported by deputies with greater than normal responsibilities than they would have under a normal head.

Both cases are arguing from the particular to the general. You think you know but you don't know.

Here in lays the rub in some professions it is the expected norm for senior managers / leaders to maintain a hands on role

e.g.

Medicine
Law
Architecture

in other professions it seems to be the norm that taking on a managerial role is a way to avoid actual service delivery

e.g.
Teaching
Nursing
middle management in many industrial / logistics settings

my own recollections of the teaching load diminshing with seniority ( as a Student / pupil some 20 years ago and attending 2 different secondary schools)

ordinary teachers = 90 % of school hours = teaching

heads of dept / heads of year = 70 % of school hours = teaching - head of sixth taught a little less

of senior management team

the 2 'Assistant Principals' (1st school) / 'Senior Teachers'(2nd school) taught roughly half the week ( as did the supernumerary 'Senior Teacher'at the 1st school but his reduced class teaching load also reflected his role with careers / guidance /applications for FE/HE support)

the two Vice Princpals (in both schools one was the de facto 'head teacher' with respect to discipline and being the face of senior management to the student body, the other more of a manager ) had perhaps 20 -25 % teaching load mainly confined to 'upper school' (GCSE/ A level)

the principal at both schools had no timetabled teaching hours.

Standard Operating Procedure and just as well in some cases. Teachers taking the same class that a Principal has just taught have been known to complain about having to peel the kids off the roof with tranquiliser darts before being able to teach a word. Not literally, of course.

[Mr Snap]

turbobloke said:

Too much stuff to parse

On an even playing field, I'd accept your metrics but we seem to agree that you can't easily assess the scrote factor. But it's hugely important. The difference that just one poorly handled scrote can make to the progress a form group, a year group or even a whole school is considerable. I don't see why I should have been paid less when I had an 'ology in scrotehandling, allowing others to benefit from my skills. Why should the teachers who have the luck to get kids who may have attained poorly in the past - maybe due to poor teaching - but who are willing to work and are amenable? Honestly, teaching them is a piece of piss.

You can do the french thing and move scrotes sideways at the first inklings of scrotiness, but that's not the english way. We like our teachers to be social workers and not driven solely by academic results (but we still want those academic results).

You don't get my vote until you solve the scrote factor and allow me to get paid for doing it well. There are a lot of scrotes. I love 'em dearly, but they're still scrotes.

[turbobloke]

Mr Snap said:

turbobloke said:

Too much stuff to parse

On an even playing field, I'd accept your metrics but we seem to agree that you can't easily assess the scrote factor. But it's hugely important.

Hugely important for the scrote perhaps but not necessary as a factor in determining HT pay. What's important overall...too many things. That's part of the reason for suggesting those two metrics that are measurable and important.

Mr Snap said:

The difference that just one poorly handled scrote can make to the progress a form group, a year group or even a whole school is considerable.

Totally agree, but if a boggo school environment isn't suitable then the young person should be educated elsewhere e.g. in alternative provision settings.

Mr Snap said:

I don't see why I should have been paid less when I had an 'ology in scrotehandling, allowing others to benefit from my skills.

Are you speaking as an ex-HT? My metrics were clearly stated as applicable to HT pay not all teachers.

Mr Snap said:

Why should the teachers who have the luck to get kids who may have attained poorly in the past - maybe due to poor teaching - but who are willing to work and are amenable? Honestly, teaching them is a piece of piss.

Although as above I was referring to HTs, my criteria did take low prior attainment into account as the first measure related to what goes out of the school in comparison to what came in.

Mr Snap said:

You can do the french thing and move scrotes sideways at the first inklings of scrotiness, but that's not the english way. We like our teachers to be social workers and not driven solely by academic results (but we still want those academic results).

Alternative Provision, onwards and sideways.

Mr Snap said:

You don't get my vote until you solve the scrote factor and allow me to get paid for doing it well. There are a lot of scrotes. I love 'em dearly, but they're still scrotes.

As a teacher you may well get better remunerated in TBPRP but I was referring to HTs and whole-school responsibilities linked to whole-school performance.

[NPI]

Mr Snap said:

Do you expect the MD of a relatively large business to do the accounts and admin and do a full stint on the shop floor as well? Good PR is as critical to a school these days as it is to any other business.

The chap who's working at two schools is termed an 'executive head'. He will be supported by deputies with greater than normal responsibilities than they would have under a normal head.

Both cases are arguing from the particular to the general. You think you know but you don't know.

The top guy in any well-organised structure shouldn't have to do too much day-to-day.

[whoami]

NPI said:

The top guy in any well-organised structure shouldn't have to do too much day-to-day.