Teachers demanding a payrise

[Paul]

The biggest revolution in teaching needs to happen at the top. Leadership is not strong enough or professional enough. All heads should the level of control that Academy heads have to make decisions about the curriculum and staffing.

 

As for Ofsted, as I said before, it's a flawed system as it currently stands. I think it needs a balance between the old regime and the new one. They should continue to look at results and school self assessment, but they should also get back to more thorough and in-depth lesson observations. I'd also ditch the whole notice system and also the "every three years" thing - schools can basically work out when they're due and then present a false face when they come. It's true that kids are asked about lessons and if they are representative, but it's still crass to make judgements on teaching performance from a 15 minute snapshot. It's not meaningful.

[andymc]

You can't compare an English GCSE to a PGCE, especially seen as how you have to have a degree to do the PGCE, a qualification a lot of people don't have and would like to. Secondly, I know for a fact what notice ofsted have to give, it is 48 hours, and the reason why they don't turn up unannounced is because of the stuff they ask us to get ready for them, the main thing is detailed evidence of what we have been doing as a school. The place I work at has recently gone into special measures, because quite frankly we have too many supply teachers due to a really high turnover of staff caused by an incompetent head. To be honest I would get rid of the ofsted system altogether because I don't think it works, I had an inspector observe me for 15 mins and tell me I was a satisfactory teacher, which is insulting as I have a good value added, great relationship with my pupils and have never gotten below a good on a lesson observation, I don't see how you can make a judgement on someone in 15 minutes! It is not difficult to fail ofsted, if anything it is extremely difficult to get a top grade, they have a set checklist of what they are looking for and if your lesson doesn't meet that checklist then you are deemed inadequate. I know teachers who have had pupils turn up to a lesson 10 minutes late and fail, how is that their fault? There seems to be a lack of common sense in addressing some issues, I would seriously suggest educating yourself on this a little further rather than jumping to conclusions, I respect your opinion but it seems to me that you are making an awful lot of assumptions with nothing to back up how you have reached that opinion.

 

Personally I don't know what the answer is to getting rid of ofsted and getting another system in place as I'm sure other teachers on here would find reasons why my suggestions may not work.

 

I wasn't really making direct comparisons, more using analogies to emphasise a point.

 

I suspected teachers would have some reason why they need to be given notice of inspection, but didn't suspect it would be as lame as the one you have given. Any info of the sort you describe could surely be a follow-up to an inspection? I've yet to hear any decent reason why teachers can't be genuinely spot-checked, which makes me suspect it's to give them a chance to get their act together so the figures look better. It seems typical of the breed that even this is not good enough for teachers who still find cause for complaint with a system that seems unfairly geared to actually making them look better than they are!

 

I also don't know any teacher who will admit to being a shit classroom practitioner. It's always the weak head's fault, or the supply teachers, or the ofsted people.

 

I know loads of teachers, and not one would struggle to name a good percentage of their colleagues who should have left teaching a long time ago.

 

Despite the bluster, teaching is not difficult, but there are way too many people involved in the profession who seem to make more effort in convincing us otherwise when they should be looking inwards at the calibre of themselves and their colleagues and seeing the real reason that standards have gone down.

 

I'm going to address what you are saying point by point as you are obviously to thick to understand any other way:

 

1. Ofsted give 2 days notice for their inspection but we can be spot checked, I am a 2nd in dept and as well as being spot checked by my head and deputy heads, I am also spot checked at least once a term by my head of department. We also bring books and lessons to departmental meetings to share good practice and check each others work, so as far as people not routinely checking me goes your point is proven wrong there. Also where have I said we should not be spot checked ever? For me inspections are important as not only do we find out who is a lazy fucker, but we can use them in a good way to support new teachers on managing the classroom, or how to use AFL more effectively.

 

2. As far as blaming the head goes, well when she took over the school was regarding as a good school and now is a failing school, the buck has to stop somewhere. If a business is failing the manager takes the blame, you may not like it but that is the way the world works, those in charge make decisions, if those decisions are incorrect they have to pay the price. Same way that I am in charge of my classroom and if I make a decision that makes a situation worse I would expect some comeback on that.

 

3. If you read my post you will see I did not blame ofsted but said that for me the system does not work something which you have alluded to yourself.

 

4. Having a lot of supply teachers within a school obviously has an impact on results, I worked supply for a few months before I moved to London, and they are not treated with the same respect as permanent staff by pupils so obviously that has an impact on behaviour which in turn affects pupil learning (this is not rocket science).

 

5. It is very easy to point at someone and say you have an easy job, people could very easily do that to anyone e.g. police, nurses even fireman, however until you actually do that job yourself for me your not qualified to comment. Personally, I regard myself to be very lucky, I am on decent money, have good career prospects, enjoy what I do, and yes love the holidays, however you can't ignore the problems that we do face on a day to day basis.

 

6. I would also like to know why you think teacher standards are falling, personally I think education has moved on a lot since I was a kid, I don't know of anyone now who could get away with thinking that answer questions 1-4 from the book is a good lesson.

[kelster]

If the government was serious about getting mature applicants from other professions or careers into teaching, they'd make the entry level pay significantly higher and pay it from the second training begins.

 

But who is that going to attract? Schools already have a very good standard of liberal arts teachers. It is in the sciences that they lack. And to be very blunt, unless the actual person had always considered teaching as a vocation, the majority of scientists are not going to give teaching a second glance.

 

Firstly it is won't pay as much as they are earning, and to rectify that would take wages well beyond what would cause mutiny in other teaching areas and probably other government funded professions. Secondly, unless you can fully commit to the job, it is a dead end. You are out of the research loop, which may be difficult to climb back on board if it doesn't work out. And finally, the intellectual challange which is important to the majority of good scientists just isn't there. The maths, physics or chemistry you teach at GCSE and A Level isn't going to change.

 

The science teachers at my school (BI of all places) were anonomous. I can't even remember them. Fotunately I got lucky by doing my A Levels in Preston and got a couple of old dears who were whiling away their last 10 years before retirement in higher education after distinguished industrial/academic careers. In fact, I can't look at purple cloth without thinking of one of them.

[andymc]

But who is that going to attract? Schools already have a very good standard of liberal arts teachers. It is in the sciences that they lack. And to be very blunt, unless the actual person had always considered teaching as a vocation, the majority of scientists are not going to give teaching a second glance.

 

Firstly it is won't pay as much as they are earning, and to rectify that would take wages well beyond what would cause mutiny in other teaching areas and probably other government funded professions. Secondly, unless you can fully commit to the job, it is a dead end. You are out of the research loop, which may be difficult to climb back on board if it doesn't work out. And finally, the intellectual challange which is important to the majority of good scientists just isn't there. The maths, physics or chemistry you teach at GCSE and A Level isn't going to change.

 

The science teachers at my school (BI of all places) were anonomous. I can't even remember them. Fotunately I got lucky by doing my A Levels in Preston and got a couple of old dears who were whiling away their last 10 years before retirement in higher education after distinguished industrial/academic careers. In fact, I can't look at purple cloth without thinking of one of them.

 

this post is very true which for me is very worrying, the science dept in my school has had real trouble in attracting new teachers, in last 2 years have started each year understaffed, one year we had a year 11 class sent home as there was no one to teach them, for me that is a fucking disgrace. If you were a parent your first thought would be to get your kids out of the school

[Paul]

But who is that going to attract? Schools already have a very good standard of liberal arts teachers. It is in the sciences that they lack. And to be very blunt, unless the actual person had always considered teaching as a vocation, the majority of scientists are not going to give teaching a second glance.

 

Firstly it is won't pay as much as they are earning, and to rectify that would take wages well beyond what would cause mutiny in other teaching areas and probably other government funded professions. Secondly, unless you can fully commit to the job, it is a dead end. You are out of the research loop, which may be difficult to climb back on board if it doesn't work out. And finally, the intellectual challange which is important to the majority of good scientists just isn't there. The maths, physics or chemistry you teach at GCSE and A Level isn't going to change.

 

The science teachers at my school (BI of all places) were anonomous. I can't even remember them. Fotunately I got lucky by doing my A Levels in Preston and got a couple of old dears who were whiling away their last 10 years before retirement in higher education after distinguished industrial/academic careers. In fact, I can't look at purple cloth without thinking of one of them.

I suspect there are many people who are in jobs they dislike, see teaching as a vocation and would love to change career, but can't because of their financial responsibilities. Clearly teaching cannot ever compete with the private sector for remuneration, but as has been highlighted on here, it has significant other benefits. There will never be financial parity between public and private sector pay, but moving things in the right direction at entry level might just nudge those who want to switch but can't afford to to make the leap.

[andymc]

as has been pointed out though if you change it at entry level how many people will kick off who have been teaching for 30 years and think they are entitled to more because entry level pay has increased. It is not at the NQT level they need to address pay but when people are training for PGCE's.

[Stu Monty]

Good thread but if people don't start quoting properly then there's going to be virtual claret getting spilt.

[kelster]

I don't know if this is a new thing, but I have noticed a number of degrees that combine teaching along with a chosen flavour of maths/physics/chemistry/biology and probably other subjects, so as to equip the student with the ability to teach to A Level. While that might do something to combat shortages, it isn't going to do anything for standards. All I imagine that does is produce graduates without a deeper understanding of their subject who can teach it by numbers. Probably great for OFSTED I imagine.

 

Edit: examples, - UCAS course search, UCAS course search

[Stu Monty]

Oh, and Noos regularly faces abuse from his desk; less so since I've had PC problems but the point stands.

 

And I'd happily stab him if I could do it over the internet, whether he was screaming victim at the time or not.

[mars]

I know loads of teachers, and not one would struggle to name a good percentage of their colleagues who should have left teaching a long time ago.

 

Despite the bluster, teaching is not difficult, but there are way too many people involved in the profession who seem to make more effort in convincing us otherwise when they should be looking inwards at the calibre of themselves and their colleagues and seeing the real reason that standards have gone down.

 

On the one hand you are saying that lots of teachers can name many poor teachers (I'm not challenging this) but then you are also saying that teaching is not difficult. If teaching is easy why are there many poor teachers?

 

Teaching is not difficult for some people - some just have a talent for it, to a greater or lesser degree, while others simply haven't and no amount of coaching will alter that. However, in my opinion the job itself is demanding and stressful whether you find the teaching easy or difficult. The 10% pay rise idea is crazy, it is proposed by only one union, and it won't have 100% support.

 

Paul, I have more lesson observations now than I've ever had. Officially I should have 3 a year but in practice I can have that many in a fortnight. I can't see how more will help. I observe everyone in my department at least once a term, but to be honest I don't need to - any pupil I ask will instantly tell me who our weak link is.

 

My school was Ofsteded two months ago - I thought the findings were spot on. Our results had slipped so the whole focus was on why.

 

I think that like many other professions teaching suffers from ambitious people who are eventually promoted to a job they can't do (I nicked this idea from my brother in law who works for Manchester police). None of the headteachers I have worked under have been up to the job, so the thought of giving them greater power scares me.

[MAC5]

I would love to go into teaching, but at the moment i have a mortgage and family to pay for and i have no savings to currently be able to take the leap into teaching.

[Dan Vito Corleone]

10% still wouldn't actually fairly pay us for our workload.

[Elmyn Noos]

But who is that going to attract? Schools already have a very good standard of liberal arts teachers. It is in the sciences that they lack. And to be very blunt, unless the actual person had always considered teaching as a vocation, the majority of scientists are not going to give teaching a second glance.

 

Firstly it is won't pay as much as they are earning, and to rectify that would take wages well beyond what would cause mutiny in other teaching areas and probably other government funded professions. Secondly, unless you can fully commit to the job, it is a dead end. You are out of the research loop, which may be difficult to climb back on board if it doesn't work out. And finally, the intellectual challange which is important to the majority of good scientists just isn't there. The maths, physics or chemistry you teach at GCSE and A Level isn't going to change.

 

The science teachers at my school (BI of all places) were anonomous. I can't even remember them. Fotunately I got lucky by doing my A Levels in Preston and got a couple of old dears who were whiling away their last 10 years before retirement in higher education after distinguished industrial/academic careers. In fact, I can't look at purple cloth without thinking of one of them.

 

It would attract people like me. I was gifted at the sciences and maths at school and could get up to speed (most certainly up to GCSE level) in a very short time. You would not need, and in fact should possibly not consider, career scientists to teach up to A-Level Physics.

 

I would have done this a long time ago but for the prohibitive financial implications of studying for a year or two.

 

There is a problem that is endemic to the public sector that has been touched on here in that even though there is a clear shortage of a given skillset which is to the detriment of the schools and the pupils, there would be outcry from the moaning bastards in staff-rooms all over the country if someone were to suggest the obvious solution of paying more to get someone in to do the job. Unfortunately, no-one has the knackers at the top of the tree to tell the moaners to shut the fuck up or come up with a better workable solution of their own.

[kelster]

I'm not sure I have got the right end of the stick with regard to becoming a teacher. From what Paul and a few other have written, it seems as if it doesn't matter how much real world experience you have, you start off at the bottom and have to work your way up. Is that right?

[andymc]

I'm not sure I have got the right end of the stick with regard to becoming a teacher. From what Paul and a few other have written, it seems as if it doesn't matter how much real world experience you have, you start off at the bottom and have to work your way up. Is that right?

 

yes

[kelster]

yes

 

Well fuck that then. No wonder nobody bothers. Starting off at the bottom. How attractive would that be to be below a nearly fresh graduate with 3 years experience.

 

BC6EGeEc0F0

 

Edit: This doesn't apply to teachers in from the beginning. Just couldn't imagine why anyone would want to jump in at the shallow end unless they had run out of options.

[mars]

SCITT training - 1 year on the job training. You need a degree or equivalent qualification. Suitable work experience would count if you want to teach maths or science.

 

http://www.tda.gov.uk/Recruit/thetrainingprocess/typesofcourse/postgraduate/scitt.aspx

 

You don't necessarily start off at the bottom - Heads have some flexibility so that they can recruit good staff.

[mars]

[YOUTUBE]Vys_sKX94pw[/YOUTUBE]

[Paul]

I'm not sure I have got the right end of the stick with regard to becoming a teacher. From what Paul and a few other have written, it seems as if it doesn't matter how much real world experience you have, you start off at the bottom and have to work your way up. Is that right?

 

No. Mars has put up relevant info. I started higher up the pay scale due to my experience of "reality".

 

Teaching is not difficult for some people - some just have a talent for it, to a greater or lesser degree, while others simply haven't and no amount of coaching will alter that. However, in my opinion the job itself is demanding and stressful whether you find the teaching easy or difficult.

 

Paul, I have more lesson observations now than I've ever had. Officially I should have 3 a year but in practice I can have that many in a fortnight. I can't see how more will help. I observe everyone in my department at least once a term, but to be honest I don't need to - any pupil I ask will instantly tell me who our weak link is.

 

My school was Ofsteded two months ago - I thought the findings were spot on. Our results had slipped so the whole focus was on why.

 

I think that like many other professions teaching suffers from ambitious people who are eventually promoted to a job they can't do (I nicked this idea from my brother in law who works for Manchester police). None of the headteachers I have worked under have been up to the job, so the thought of giving them greater power scares me.

I agree completely with your first and last points. On the bit in bold, I'm not suggesting observation makes teachers better on its own. However, it can do when it feeds into a proper mentoring and development system (the like of which the private sector does well but the public sector doesn't even have). As for my comments about Ofsted inspections, I think they must observe more of lessons to be be both fair to teachers and to uncover the full picture in a school. At the moment, it is possible to hide significant flaws if you tick a few boxes and say you're dealing with it on your SEF. I have seen one massive issue go completely unseen by Ofsted under the new inspection criteria and that can't be right.

[mars]

On the bit in bold, I'm not suggesting observation makes teachers better on its own. However, it can do when it feeds into a proper mentoring and development system (the like of which the private sector does well but the public sector doesn't even have). As for my comments about Ofsted inspections, I think they must observe more of lessons to be be both fair to teachers and to uncover the full picture in a school. At the moment, it is possible to hide significant flaws if you tick a few boxes and say you're dealing with it on your SEF. I have seen one massive issue go completely unseen by Ofsted under the new inspection criteria and that can't be right.

 

I see what you mean, Paul. I agree with the point on observation helping development. As for Ofsted observation, I think it is less useful than the casual sort of observation that goes on daily (I know a few teachers who are poor but you wouldn't know that from an observation they can plan for) but accept that Ofsted can get it wrong; in the case you mention you would hope that they follow up issues that the SEF claims are being dealt with.

[Paul]

I see what you mean, Paul. I agree with the point on observation helping development. As for Ofsted observation, I think it is less useful than the casual sort of observation that goes on daily (I know a few teachers who are poor but you wouldn't know that from an observation they can plan for) but accept that Ofsted can get it wrong; in the case you mention you would hope that they follow up issues that the SEF claims are being dealt with.

The two are separate issues for me mate - a school uses lesson observation in order to ensure children are getting a great education, but Ofsted use it in order to make sure the school is being run properly; their job is not to help schools but to hold them to account.

[Lupin]

The two are separate issues for me mate - a school uses lesson observation in order to ensure children are getting a great education, but Ofsted use it in order to make sure the school is being run properly; their job is not to help schools but to hold them to account.

 

...is correct, which means all you have is a 'conflict' situation. Ofsted should be about going into schools and improving them across a number of criteria, having powers to recommend increases in staff/material/structural spend etc, aides in strategy development to up the ante rather than basically being a watchdog, and a highly politicised one at that.

[Paul]

...is correct, which means all you have is a 'conflict' situation. Ofsted should be about going into schools and improving them across a number of criteria, having powers to recommend increases in staff/material/structural spend etc, aides in strategy development to up the ante rather than basically being a watchdog, and a highly politicised one at that.

Sorry mate, I obviously wasn't clear enough. I think Ofsted's role is exactly what it should be. Head teachers need to run their schools more effectively and Ofsted need to make sure they're doing so.

 

Obviously teaching and learning are the key fundamental issues in any school, so a head needs to do everything he/she can to improve them. In my experience, most heads don't - they're entirely passive about addessing issues with individual teachers or feeble at best. If Ofsted identify issues with teaching and learning and the school can't provide compelling evidence to show what they're doing to address it then I think the school should fail its inspection in the category of leadership.

[TheHitman]

It's interesting reading through the posts their seems to be a narrative running through and I'm as guilty of this as well from time to time. We seem to state I don't get this holiday, I don't get this final salary pension, I will not be getting an increase of a similar magnitude.

 

We all seem to put our own individual needs and wants first. I guess this is what is fundamental to our individualist society we live in. Maybe the bottom line is that some professions offer more to society and rather than scrutinise and degenerate their profession we embrace this.

[tokyojoe]

I can't be arsed to read through the whole thread, but government employees. Just more money get's stolen for them, they don't have to compete.