Webbo Posted 27 March 2014 Share Posted 27 March 2014 Do any Tories actually rate Gove? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerrrFox Posted 27 March 2014 Share Posted 27 March 2014 Teachers want to have a look at the prison service before they moan about their lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charl91 Posted 27 March 2014 Share Posted 27 March 2014 If teaching is easy, with long holidays and 70k salaries, then why isn't everyone doing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleckneymike Posted 27 March 2014 Share Posted 27 March 2014 Exam results, in class monitoring etc. We're talking about teaching here, it's pretty easy to pick good teachers from bad. If we're giving up on such a good idea because of some minor difficulties in measurement then we're pathetic really, aren't we? Actually I think you'll find it isn't. The largest study of lesson observations found that there is a 50% chance that the data for pupil progress wont match the rating awarded. If you're rated as an 'inadequate' teacher then at BEST there is a 83% chance the value added data for your class would DISAGREE and at WORST >99% chance the data would DISAGREE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katieakita Posted 27 March 2014 Share Posted 27 March 2014 Teachers want to have a look at the prison service before they moan about their lot. Sure you lot get a poor deal as well, but at least we are all in this together Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 27 March 2014 Share Posted 27 March 2014 If teaching is easy, with long holidays and 70k salaries, then why isn't everyone doing it?Because that would involve socialising with teachers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Posted 27 March 2014 Share Posted 27 March 2014 Because that would involve socialising with teachers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooseBreath Posted 27 March 2014 Share Posted 27 March 2014 Actually I think you'll find it isn't. The largest study of lesson observations found that there is a 50% chance that the data for pupil progress wont match the rating awarded. If you're rated as an 'inadequate' teacher then at BEST there is a 83% chance the value added data for your class would DISAGREE and at WORST >99% chance the data would DISAGREE. All that proves is the need for a variety of assessment methods of which monitoring can be one, test results another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ttfn Posted 27 March 2014 Share Posted 27 March 2014 If teaching is easy, with long holidays and 70k salaries, then why isn't everyone doing it? Because barely anybody is getting paid 70k at the moment. Whether the 70k is a myth or not it relates to attracting better candidates for the future and not for now. To be honest after I qualified as an accountant I considered going into teaching and the only thing that stopped me was the salary. The problem was not the starting salary (which was better than what I started on as a graduate at one of the Big 4) but rather the lack of salary progression. Hopefully this new policy will begin to correct that in the medium term, albeit 70k seems to be unlikely to be achieved by many, if anybody. With any luck ambitious young graduates will see teaching as a meritocracy with genuine earnings potential to supplement those who see it more as a vocation. And whatever the ins and outs of school holidays, I can assure you that the work/life balance of a teacher is infinitely preferable to that of the professions sought out by many top calibre graduates (those which don't go into teaching anyway) such as the law and financial services. It is undoubtedly a troublingly right-wing solution but performance related pay will attract better candidates over time, so long as a clear career path is there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AoWW Posted 27 March 2014 Share Posted 27 March 2014 Because that would involve socialising with teachers. *glare* We're all too busy to have social lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleckneymike Posted 27 March 2014 Share Posted 27 March 2014 All that proves is the need for a variety of assessment methods of which monitoring can be one, test results another. So a system which has an average chance of being incorrect 50% of the time should be used as part of a decision over your pay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleckneymike Posted 27 March 2014 Share Posted 27 March 2014 Because barely anybody is getting paid 70k at the moment. Whether the 70k is a myth or not it relates to attracting better candidates for the future and not for now. To be honest after I qualified as an accountant I considered going into teaching and the only thing that stopped me was the salary. The problem was not the starting salary (which was better than what I started on as a graduate at one of the Big 4) but rather the lack of salary progression. Hopefully this new policy will begin to correct that in the medium term, albeit 70k seems to be unlikely to be achieved by many, if anybody. With any luck ambitious young graduates will see teaching as a meritocracy with genuine earnings potential to supplement those who see it more as a vocation. And whatever the ins and outs of school holidays, I can assure you that the work/life balance of a teacher is infinitely preferable to that of the professions sought out by many top calibre graduates (those which don't go into teaching anyway) such as the law and financial services. It is undoubtedly a troublingly right-wing solution but performance related pay will attract better candidates over time, so long as a clear career path is there. No one in their right mind would ever pay a teach 70k If you can kit out three classrooms for 70k and have them last you at least 5 years why would you pay a teacher 70k when they could disappear after one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Bentley Posted 28 March 2014 Share Posted 28 March 2014 I still think informal but formal testing is achievable at minimal cost. Assessing say 400k teachers say three times a year would require 1,600 assessors assessing five lessons per day for 30 weeks. Say 50k per year all in for each assessor plus a generous 25% for admin and overheads and you get to £100m. Out of an education budget of hundreds of billions, it's not that much especially if it really works. - The education budget is NOT "hundreds of billions", it is £53bn for 2015-16, including Higher Education; the schools budget is just over £40bn. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-23063018 The education budget for 2015-16 will "increase to £53bn and school spending will be protected in real terms", the chancellor announced. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/spending-review/8035164/Spending-Review-what-it-means-for-the-Department-of-Education.html - There are NOT 400k teachers; there are 448k in the public sector alone (or are we assuming that private school teachers do not need to be monitored?) - Even taking your figures, which seem like a massively heavy workload for inspectors (thinking time? report-writing time?): 1600 (assessors) x 5 (lessons) x 5 (days) x 30 (weeks) = 1,200,000 lessons assessed. Assuming that there are 600k teachers (inc. private schools), the pay for each teacher will be based on them being assessed for 2 lessons per year (3, if we take your 400k teachers under-estimate). Can't say that I'd want my annual pay to be based on assessment of 1.5 to 2 hours work per year! - To run a fair and efficient monitoring system would cost several times more than £100m, out of a budget of £40bn - I note that you've chosen to completely ignore my comments (based on real experience) that most primary school kids DO notice even unobtrusive SATS-type tests and many DO find them stressful - introducing loads more tests would cause massive long-term damage and disruption, at least at primary school level. Also, you ignore my comment that secondaries often scorn SATS as they're seen as unreliable assessments because teachers just "teach to the test" (as any profession/institution would do if it knew that it was going to be judged almost entirely on the basis of those tests). I'm going to wind down my involvement in this discussion now, as I need to get more work done - and I'm never going to change your attitudes. Even if presented with undeniable proof, you'd continue arguing the opposite.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooseBreath Posted 28 March 2014 Share Posted 28 March 2014 So a system which has an average chance of being incorrect 50% of the time should be used as part of a decision over your pay? By stating that these observations are incorrect because they don't tie up with results achieved you imply that results are the ultimate measure of good teaching. If that's the case then why not just use results alone as the basis for measuring performance? I thought teachers were saying "good teaching isn't only about results" and that's why a range of assessment methods are being proposed, so good teachers who for whatever reason achieve poor results still have their pay progressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooseBreath Posted 28 March 2014 Share Posted 28 March 2014 - The education budget is NOT "hundreds of billions", it is £53bn for 2015-16, including Higher Education; the schools budget is just over £40bn. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-23063018 The education budget for 2015-16 will "increase to £53bn and school spending will be protected in real terms", the chancellor announced. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/spending-review/8035164/Spending-Review-what-it-means-for-the-Department-of-Education.html - There are NOT 400k teachers; there are 448k in the public sector alone (or are we assuming that private school teachers do not need to be monitored?) - Even taking your figures, which seem like a massively heavy workload for inspectors (thinking time? report-writing time?): 1600 (assessors) x 5 (lessons) x 5 (days) x 30 (weeks) = 1,200,000 lessons assessed. Assuming that there are 600k teachers (inc. private schools), the pay for each teacher will be based on them being assessed for 2 lessons per year (3, if we take your 400k teachers under-estimate). Can't say that I'd want my annual pay to be based on assessment of 1.5 to 2 hours work per year! - To run a fair and efficient monitoring system would cost several times more than £100m, out of a budget of £40bn - I note that you've chosen to completely ignore my comments (based on real experience) that most primary school kids DO notice even unobtrusive SATS-type tests and many DO find them stressful - introducing loads more tests would cause massive long-term damage and disruption, at least at primary school level. Also, you ignore my comment that secondaries often scorn SATS as they're seen as unreliable assessments because teachers just "teach to the test" (as any profession/institution would do if it knew that it was going to be judged almost entirely on the basis of those tests). I'm going to wind down my involvement in this discussion now, as I need to get more work done - and I'm never going to change your attitudes. Even if presented with undeniable proof, you'd continue arguing the opposite.... I got a figure of about 88bn from ukpublicspending.co.uk which included both central and local government spending, but even if we use your figure, and even if we quadruple my cost estimate, it's still less than 1% of the budget. Someone far smarter than me would have to do the analysis to work out if the benefits would outweigh the costs. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't immediately rule it out.Your last paragraph is not really true. Some good points have been made. I'm unlikely to be convinced that teachers should be striking and I think performance related pay is a very good idea in principle. But I acknowledge a few of the points made. If it were up to me teaching would be one of the highest paid professions subject to rigourous training and assessments. It should be a job steeped in prestige not relegated to the status of estate agents and such. You'd easily get back the investment so long as you attracted the brightest minds into teaching and got rid of all the dross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ttfn Posted 28 March 2014 Share Posted 28 March 2014 No one in their right mind would ever pay a teach 70k If you can kit out three classrooms for 70k and have them last you at least 5 years why would you pay a teacher 70k when they could disappear after one? Surely you could say the same about any profession though? There's no point in investing money in infrastructure if the right people rent there to get the best out of it. What about effectively having a long-term incentive plan then like CPF suggested? If you make teaching an attractive and specialised enough position then people will stick around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 28 March 2014 Share Posted 28 March 2014 http://www.education.gov.uk/get-into-teaching/salary/teaching-salary-ranges Still struggling to see this 70k. Mind as some seem to know so much about it perhaps we should all take it up as a profession or perhaps leave it to those who can do it. Do any Tories actually rate Gove? I do. And I'll put my money where my mouth is, I'll bet you our schools are performing better on an international level than there were when he took over at the point he leaves his position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 28 March 2014 Share Posted 28 March 2014 I do. And I'll put my money where my mouth is, I'll bet you our schools are performing better on an international level than there were when he took over at the point he leaves his position. Better in terms of one standardised test? Of course it's difficult to get an idea of how schools are performing against each other internationally other than by using test results because of the same reason it's difficult to assess individual schools and teachers in the UK - most of the time it's the only thing that's quantifiable but it still comes nowhere close to giving the full picture. There's a dozen other criteria condusive to good teaching that cannot be measured. Quite frankly these assessments will always be flawed for those reasons alone...unfortunately I don't have a solution to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Bentley Posted 28 March 2014 Share Posted 28 March 2014 I got a figure of about 88bn from ukpublicspending.co.uk which included both central and local government spending, but even if we use your figure, and even if we quadruple my cost estimate, it's still less than 1% of the budget. Someone far smarter than me would have to do the analysis to work out if the benefits would outweigh the costs. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't immediately rule it out. Your last paragraph is not really true. Some good points have been made. I'm unlikely to be convinced that teachers should be striking and I think performance related pay is a very good idea in principle. But I acknowledge a few of the points made. If it were up to me teaching would be one of the highest paid professions subject to rigourous training and assessments. It should be a job steeped in prestige not relegated to the status of estate agents and such. You'd easily get back the investment so long as you attracted the brightest minds into teaching and got rid of all the dross. Fair enough. In truth, neither of us has the information or expertise to properly assess the viability of such monitoring. Anyway, that's an issue of practicalities, not principle. I'm sure we're agreed that there needs to be some oversight of teaching - and I'm not opposed to the principle of performance-related pay, just dubious about whether it could be fairly assessed. I'm much more hostile to the introduction of more testing, particularly at primary school. Most young kids don't mind their teacher giving them a little test, but see a big difference with external tests like SATS, even if it's often parents (sometimes teachers) who cause the problem by making a big deal of it. There's a role for tests and exams at secondary level (adult life includes stressful situations, after all) but they shouldn't be too all-pervasive. My secondary school (a state grammar) was "ahead of its time", in a negative sense, in focusing almost entirely on kids learning to pass exams, rather than learning for its own sake, as a good and enjoyable lifelong habit. I started off as a kid with a positive attitude to learning, but ended up getting ground down by that "teach-to-the-test" approach, under-achieved badly at A-level and dropped out of college first time round. Anyway, must do more work today or I'll end up having to work all Sunday....probably with a hangover after the Burnley match! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 28 March 2014 Share Posted 28 March 2014 You should read Stephen Fry's book and the time he was at Cambridge. He has a good memory so he memorised all the finer points of what could be in an exam and wrote a lot of drivvle. He says there was someone else who was much better academically on the subject and only answered hlf the questions. Fry answered them all and was given higher marks. What I am saying not everyone are suited to exams even though they are still knowledgeable on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 28 March 2014 Share Posted 28 March 2014 You should read Stephen Fry's book and the time he was at Cambridge. He has a good memory so he memorised all the finer points of what could be in an exam and wrote a lot of drivvle. He says there was someone else who was much better academically on the subject and only answered hlf the questions. Fry answered them all and was given higher marks. What I am saying not everyone are suited to exams even though they are still knowledgeable on the subject. Most exams are testing what you've remembered from what you've been taught. Answering all the questions right means you are more knowledgeable on the subject than the person who didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleckneymike Posted 28 March 2014 Share Posted 28 March 2014 Surely you could say the same about any profession though? There's no point in investing money in infrastructure if the right people rent there to get the best out of it. What about effectively having a long-term incentive plan then like CPF suggested? If you make teaching an attractive and specialised enough position then people will stick around. I would say teaching is different. The money colleges have at their disposal is set by the Govt. That money can go up and down (in our case we've just seen a CONSIDERABLE shortfall for next year thanks to the new funding formula), it makes sense for school leaders to spend that money in a way that can't be taken off them, put that money into wages and you're storing up problems when the inevitable cut kicks in, put that money in infrastructure and they can't take those seats/desks/books/pens etc away from you. What makes teaching attractive is teaching. What makes teaching unattractive is the hours and bureaucracy). It was a specialised profession, you needed a degree and a formal qualification in teaching, in total it takes 5 years to train and qualify (3 year under grad, 1 year PGCE or equivalent and one year as an NQT), now you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katieakita Posted 28 March 2014 Share Posted 28 March 2014 I do. And I'll put my money where my mouth is, I'll bet you our schools are performing better on an international level than there were when he took over at the point he leaves his position. Well it will be if you read the Mail or the Times, the guy is a joke, Murdock's puppet. Driving moral down to an all time low is hardly a long term recipe for success, Perhaps the teachers on here can rate him but i suppose it could have been worse they could have got Vince Cable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 28 March 2014 Share Posted 28 March 2014 Well it will be if you read the Mail or the Times, the guy is a joke, Murdock's puppet. Driving moral down to an all time low is hardly a long term recipe for success, Perhaps the teachers on here can rate him but i suppose it could have been worse they could have got Vince Cable. Our standing in international league tables has nothing to do with the Mail or the Times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADK Posted 28 March 2014 Share Posted 28 March 2014 I don't get why people care about our standing in "international league tables". Our kids don't revise for international exams, other countries do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.