Strike Day

[featured_spectre]

#5 in the list of 15, if the teachers drop their standards after their CPD, as I've said before, they are banned for life.

[sparkeh]

Wanting teachers to be the best they can be, and preventing them from teaching if they simply aren't good enough is not negativity. It is ensuring kids don't get damaged by mediocrity.

The way to help teachers to be the best they can be is to support them and give them give them what they need to develop, not to threaten them with the sack if they don't perform. That just lowers morale and discourages people from joining the profession. I can't say I know a lot about the Finnish system but I can't imagine they pile a huge workload on their teachers, subject them to minute scrutiny and constantly question their worth, then fire them it they aren't good enough. If someone isn't up to scratch after getting a lot of support and help to develop then I agree that they probably aren't cut out for teaching and should leave the profession in a dignified fashion.

 

Incidentally, the negativity comment was actually referring to the enthusiasm shown to toward teachers being sacked. It wasn't a constructive point or a development of the argument but a straight up cheer at the idea. To me it is sad and very negative that someone would find a teacher being sacked something to rejoice in

Edited March 27, 2014 by sparkeh

[localzuk]

The way to help teachers to be the best they can be is to support them and give them give them what they need to develop, not to threaten them with the sack if they don't perform. That just lowers morale and discourages people from joining the profession. I can't say I know a lot about the Finnish system but I can't imagine they pile a huge workload on their teachers, subject them to minute scrutiny and constantly question their worth, then fire them it they aren't good enough. If someone isn't up to scratch after getting a lot of support and help to develop then I agree that they probably aren't cut out for teaching and should leave the profession in a dignified fashion.

 

As much as that idea sounds great, it has a couple of flaws that I can think of. Firstly, by putting in some complex support system to prop up poor teachers you are potentially knowingly damaging the education of their students. Why do the students of poor teachers who are trying to improve deserve to have their entire lives potentially altered by a poor teacher who needs more hand-holding? Secondly, what other profession does this hand-holding? If you're a poor accountant, you'll be sacked. If you're a poor baker, no-one will want your bread so you'll be sacked. If you're a poor cleaner, you'll be sacked. Why does being a teacher change that process? It isn't the responsibility of a school to educate its staff. It's the responsibility of the staff themselves! Not to mention, why should schools have to shoulder the cost of what is effectively another 2 years of training?

 

Look at our own little slice of life. If we do our jobs badly, we will be caught out and we will end up being given the boot. We won't get 2 years to improve, that's for darn sure!

 

Incidentally, the negativity comment was actually referring to the enthusiasm shown to toward teachers being sacked. It wasn't a constructive point or a development of the argument but a straight up cheer at the idea. To me it is sad and very negative that someone would find a teacher being sacked something to rejoice in

 

Maybe that says something about personality here. I am probably being innocent about it, but I read it as meaning "yay, a system is in place which gets rid of poor performing teachers!"

Edited March 27, 2014 by localzuk
typo

[sparkeh]

Ok the world had truly gone mad. Gove says teachers should be paid more!?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schoolreport/26768138

It's interesting that Gove has said something things outside the party line recently such as how it's ridiculous that so many members of the cabinet are old Etonians. Seems to be trying to position himself as his own man recently.

Leadership pretensions...?

Edited March 28, 2014 by sparkeh

[Bananas]

Got an email from Unison today, they're balloting us for strike action over the 1% pay rise that's on the table again this year.

 

The lower grades have gone up more as for the first time minimum wage has overtaken them, which says a lot

[zag]

Its funny how the unions portray Gove as some kind of evil incompetent devil, while in that interview he seems very humble, intelligent and funny.

[SpuffMonkey]

As much as that idea sounds great, it has a couple of flaws that I can think of. Firstly, by putting in some complex support system to prop up poor teachers you are potentially knowingly damaging the education of their students. Why do the students of poor teachers who are trying to improve deserve to have their entire lives potentially altered by a poor teacher who needs more hand-holding? Secondly, what other profession does this hand-holding? If you're a poor accountant, you'll be sacked. If you're a poor baker, no-one will want your bread so you'll be sacked. If you're a poor cleaner, you'll be sacked. Why does being a teacher change that process? It isn't the responsibility of a school to educate its staff. It's the responsibility of the staff themselves! Not to mention, why should schools have to shoulder the cost of what is effectively another 2 years of training?

 

Look at our own little slice of life. If we do our jobs badly, we will be caught out and we will end up being given the boot. We won't get 2 years to improve, that's for darn sure!

 

 

 

Maybe that says something about personality here. I am probably being innocent about it, but I read it as meaning "yay, a system is in place which gets rid of poor performing teachers!"

 

Your point presupposes that there is an inexhaustible supply of "good" teachers clamouring for jobs that "bad" teachers are preventing from taking up. Alas, this is no more the case in teaching than in any other profession, you'll get a distribution from the fantastic to the underperforming. I would argue that it makes sense to try and raise up the bottom of the curve as much as you can else you will run short of staff - already schools are finding it quite difficult to recruit both at the lower levels and at the top of management.

 

Firing underperforming staff without giving them a chance to improve would, I suggest, lead to increasing polarisation, where the "poor" schools are only able to hire "poor" teachers and fall even further down the league tables, underlining this trend. Its certainly what happened in the school I used to work in - which was seen as the local "sink" school - they couldn't attract the best teachers, fell even further, had unfilled student rolls and were forced to take all the kids other schools had expelled and went down in a nasty spiral.

 

I'd also say that I think performance related pay will have a similar effect - its difficult to get good results from kids in a school that is seen as "failing", so standards drop, wages drop, you can't recruit because of the low wages and you're again locked in to a downward (or conversely upward if you're at the other end) spiral - producing de facto grammar/non grammar schools - which is great for those that get into a good school - not so great for those that don't - which is where we were in the 1960s, before the middle classes kicked up when their kids got sent to the local secondary modern.

[localzuk]

Your point presupposes that there is an inexhaustible supply of "good" teachers clamouring for jobs that "bad" teachers are preventing from taking up. Alas, this is no more the case in teaching than in any other profession, you'll get a distribution from the fantastic to the underperforming. I would argue that it makes sense to try and raise up the bottom of the curve as much as you can else you will run short of staff - already schools are finding it quite difficult to recruit both at the lower levels and at the top of management.

 

This is cause for better teacher training then surely? Not on-job, whilst damaging students' futures training?

 

Firing underperforming staff without giving them a chance to improve would, I suggest, lead to increasing polarisation, where the "poor" schools are only able to hire "poor" teachers and fall even further down the league tables, underlining this trend. Its certainly what happened in the school I used to work in - which was seen as the local "sink" school - they couldn't attract the best teachers, fell even further, had unfilled student rolls and were forced to take all the kids other schools had expelled and went down in a nasty spiral.

 

That's where the "banned from teaching" bit comes in... You get sacked for being a poor teacher? You can't teach elsewhere, unless you've gone off and done more training and have proof you've improved.

 

I'd also say that I think performance related pay will have a similar effect - its difficult to get good results from kids in a school that is seen as "failing", so standards drop, wages drop, you can't recruit because of the low wages and you're again locked in to a downward (or conversely upward if you're at the other end) spiral - producing de facto grammar/non grammar schools - which is great for those that get into a good school - not so great for those that don't - which is where we were in the 1960s, before the middle classes kicked up when their kids got sent to the local secondary modern.

 

That's a slightly different argument. In my mind, it comes down to what metrics are used to measure success. If a school takes kids in who are under-performing and they improve (but still miss the 'average' target the government has set, the school is marked as being a bad school. That's wrong in my mind. If students are shown to be making greater than average progress then the school is pretty obviously a good school.

[AngryTechnician]

Its funny how the unions portray Gove as some kind of evil incompetent devil, while in that interview he seems very humble, intelligent and funny.

I think they've got 2/3 right. I don't think he's incompetent; he knows exactly what he's doing and how to achieve his goals. The problem is that his goals are ideologically-driven and fundamentally opposed to the system of not-for-profit state education that I think most of today's teachers support.

 

He's also more than intelligent enough to know how to play the game; that most of the general public don't realise how dangerous his cherry-picking of evidence is; that you can easily win parents' support by consistently painting strikes as teachers vs. parents (due to them having to get childcare in when the schools are closed); that his department's policy of constant law-breaking over FoI will go unpunished due to a toothless regulator; that his wife working for the Daily Fail means he has the most popular middle-class fish-wrapping on side... I could go on.

 

In my view he's a two-faced, manipulative toad with his eye on the party leadership. I can only hope he never makes it that far.

Edited March 28, 2014 by AngryTechnician

[pcstru]

Secondly, what other profession does this hand-holding? If you're a poor accountant, you'll be sacked. If you're a poor baker, no-one will want your bread so you'll be sacked. If you're a poor cleaner, you'll be sacked. Why does being a teacher change that process? It isn't the responsibility of a school to educate its staff. It's the responsibility of the staff themselves! Not to mention, why should schools have to shoulder the cost of what is effectively another 2 years of training?

Most performance management processes that I have been involved in, start by looking at the issue from both sides. Are expectations clear? Is appropriate support in place? Are there training needs? It's usually a long way down the road, typically a minimum of 6 months before someone is dismissed. In many cases, performance management is successful in that poor performance is corrected. There is often failing on both sides (management and employee). The situation with teachers is more complex, there are at least three sides (management, employee, students). That naturally leads to more complexity in addressing perceived performance issues.

[X-13]

(due to them having to get childcare in when the schools are closed)

 

If you're not prepared to look after your kids, don't have them.

[witch]

If you're not prepared to look after your kids, don't have them.

 

Get you head out of your fundament, dear

If you work, (you know, to pay the mortgage and bills etc) you may not be able to take time off to look after your children and finding childcare at the last minute is extremely difficult - fine if you have family locally, but if not - you can't suddenly find a childminder with a space available. Taking the day off unpaid is also often not an option.

[localzuk]

Get you head out of your fundament, dear

If you work, (you know, to pay the mortgage and bills etc) you may not be able to take time off to look after your children and finding childcare at the last minute is extremely difficult - fine if you have family locally, but if not - you can't suddenly find a childminder with a space available. Taking the day off unpaid is also often not an option.

 

To be a little controversial - if you can't afford to either not work or to have childcare, should you be having children?

 

I suppose it comes down to the default view that society has - at the moment it appears to be "go forth and procreate". However, we now live in a world with limited resources and overcrowding. Should we be encouraging people to have kids if they simply can't afford to look after them fully by themselves?

 

Yes, this means we end up with the 'poorer' classes being childless in favour of the richer classes having kids, but as it stands it is the opposite way round and we can't afford it.

[Ephelyon]

I think one thing to bear in mind about teaching, which distinguishes it a little from most (though not all) other professions, is the bond that can arise between teacher and pupil.

 

The "rip and replace" model generally does not work well for teachers. It's not the case that "this person is a B-grade teacher, so is that person, so swapping them around should yield the same results". Nor will results necessarily be improved by swapping in an "A-grade teacher". Teachers are role models for their pupils too and they get to know the kids; they're not simply interchangeable.

 

Poor teaching should be improved or eradicated (a mixture of both approaches will be needed), but I'd argue there are some cases where getting rid of e.g. a form tutor and replacing them with another teacher who is technically better (and by whose definition when the goalposts keep changing?) could potentially have more of a negative impact than a positive one.

 

It's arguments like these that the NUT uses against Performance Pay when they're not in soapbox mode (i.e. Blower isn't speaking), and they're not invalid. The only difficulty is that it can create a culture of unaccountability and complacency if improperly managed (the "proper management" issue there is one reason why I believe we should keep Heads as experienced teachers rather than SBMs, though only if they are supported by a diverse leadership team). As always, a balance must be sought and that's a tricky game.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Ephelyon

[featured_spectre]

To be a little controversial - if you can't afford to either not work or to have childcare, should you be having children?

 

I suppose it comes down to the default view that society has - at the moment it appears to be "go forth and procreate". However, we now live in a world with limited resources and overcrowding. Should we be encouraging people to have kids if they simply can't afford to look after them fully by themselves?

 

Yes, this means we end up with the 'poorer' classes being childless in favour of the richer classes having kids, but as it stands it is the opposite way round and we can't afford it.

 

There are many who own their own homes, have plenty of money at the end of the month before payday, and then when children come along and can't cope...then there are others who rent, do lots of agency jobs and cope perfectly well and raise normal well rounded children.

 

I've been in and out of work a lot since my child was born, I have a second on the way. By your standards I shouldn't have had children...also, you suggest a class based apartheid...which is disgusting

[localzuk]

There are many who own their own homes, have plenty of money at the end of the month before payday, and then when children come along and can't cope...then there are others who rent, do lots of agency jobs and cope perfectly well and raise normal well rounded children.

 

I've been in and out of work a lot since my child was born, I have a second on the way. By your standards I shouldn't have had children...also, you suggest a class based apartheid...which is disgusting

 

We live in a world filled with problems - we should be building our society based upon what we have, and what we can sustain. Everyone having kids whenever they want them is not sustainable. Where does it end? At current growth rates, we will have a population of nearly 74 million people in 20 years time!

 

 

 

As I said, being controversial on purpose here. Why should we be producing a huge number of people who struggle to find jobs (as manual jobs are slowly but surely being replaced by automation and technology)? Yes, this means a sort of 'class' divide but it doesn't really - it just means people need to actually afford their own kids.

 

"By themselves" - I mean "without having to get state assistance".

 

The comment was made that taking a day off unpaid wasn't an option. If you can't get childcare, and you can't afford to take a day off to look after your child, how does that mean you can afford to take care of your children?

 

I just don't see procreation as a responsibility or right though. Maybe I'm just odd.

Edited March 28, 2014 by witch

[pcstru]

We live in a world filled with problems - we should be building our society based upon what we have, and what we can sustain. Everyone having kids whenever they want them is not sustainable. Where does it end? At current growth rates, we will have a population of nearly 74 million people in 20 years time!

What makes you say we can't sustain more people? Seems to me the world can probably sustain quite a few more people (and locally the UK can certainly cope with growth). The problem isn't the raw number of people, it is the number who demand to live lifestyles that are unsustainable

[localzuk]

What makes you say we can't sustain more people? Seems to me the world can probably sustain quite a few more people (and locally the UK can certainly cope with growth). The problem isn't the raw number of people, it is the number who demand to live lifestyles that are unsustainable

 

We can't sustain what we've got now! Unless we all stop using computers and cars, and move to a world where we don't eat meat and don't ship foods all around the world... Which is never going to happen.

 

The developing world are all progressing towards the globalised model of consumerism and capitalism - which by its very nature is ravenous for resources, resources we simply don't have.

[matt40k]

Remind me not to skip to the end of topics any more - it's gone from

 

TECHI FIXIT DAY

YAY

 

to

 

We can't sustain what we've got now! Unless we all stop using computers and cars, and move to a world where we don't eat meat and don't ship foods all around the world... Which is never going to happen.

 

The developing world are all progressing towards the globalised model of consumerism and capitalism - which by its very nature is ravenous for resources, resources we simply don't have.

[pcstru]

We can't sustain what we've got now! Unless we all stop using computers and cars, and move to a world where we don't eat meat and don't ship foods all around the world... Which is never going to happen.

 

The developing world are all progressing towards the globalised model of consumerism and capitalism - which by its very nature is ravenous for resources, resources we simply don't have.

You seem to be agreeing it's about the way we use resources and not, as you initially suggested the number of people. The average USA'ian uses 200 times the energy of someone in Bangladesh. If we in the west halved our wasteful consumption, there would be plenty to go round.

 

Of course I agree with you, us selfish westerners will never contemplate doing that. We will make sure we sup from the teat of excess and lay waste to the world for our descendants. There seems very little hope that we can change.

[pcstru]

Remind me not to skip to the end of topics any more - it's gone from

Thread drift is an important aspect of forum culture. Celebrate it with an EduHobnob!

[localzuk]

You seem to be agreeing it's about the way we use resources and not, as you initially suggested the number of people. The average USA'ian uses 200 times the energy of someone in Bangladesh. If we in the west halved our wasteful consumption, there would be plenty to go round.

 

Of course I agree with you, us selfish westerners will never contemplate doing that. We will make sure we sup from the teat of excess and lay waste to the world for our descendants. There seems very little hope that we can change.

 

Yup. I'm only arguing from within the system we live in right now. If we somehow manage to make the world a more equal place and stop everyone being obsessed with buying stuff, then what we can sustain will change dramatically. Its just that that is very unlikely. Unless we have some form of apocalypse...

[jinnantonnixx]

Thread drift is an important aspect of forum culture. Celebrate it with an EduHobnob!

 

Quite. You come for the technical advice, but stay for the arguments.

[localzuk]

Quite. You come for the technical advice, but stay for the arguments.

 

This isn't an argument...

[X-13]

This isn't an argument...

 

Give it time...