Merrick Prickly User wrote: » But this system won't ensure the others have any experience or appropriate qualifications to do the job either. In the case of sudden illnesss someone inappropriate will still end up doing the job under this system
km79 wrote: » What if that one person fell ill in the morning and no other person had experience of it ? Is that good for the kids left behind ? That’s the thinking around it The days of a post for life earned just by racking up the years are gone Change is hard but it can be good I’ve reservations about many many new developments not least the JC “Reform” But I can see the thinking behind some of this
Merrick Prickly User wrote: » I don't see how this will be good for schools. In my school there is just one person who is suitably qualified and experienced to be the SEN coordinator - a crucial position in a school like mine (second only to the principal I'd say). This person would not be a good year head or TY coordinator though. They would be totally unsuitable. The notion they should not be given a post to be SEN coordinator just because they aren't the most versatile in terms of general management "just in case" is nonsense I think, and if that's the way it goes then it's the students who will lose out.
Mardy Bum wrote: » Sen coordinator should be spread across a range of people to mitigate the need to make it a post.
pandoraj09 wrote: » It's actually illegal to advertise a job without a job description...We're putting together a POR review committee to look at the results from the staff meeting about the needs of the school. Are other schools doing this? If so, how did you decide who is on the committee? This is a bone of contention in our staff room at the moment.
liverpool lad wrote: » Schools deciding the needs and then interviews is key for sure, but why once the needs are identified would it not make more sense (with STAFF in mind) to let staff members apply for a post with the actual role and responsibility laid out beforehand - different staff members have different interests and skillsets and surely management would want to assess their leadership skills and abilities in regards to the post they are applying for, and if successful will be undertaking in the school. A post in SSE is very different to a year head post / ICT post and someone who has a huge interest in ICT may have no desire to be involved in the SSE process of a school yet get offered this post following a general interview?? Mainly just wondering if this is the way it will be rolled out in all schools
ASISEEIT wrote: » I think school will first decide on what it needs and then interview-NOT the other way round which your post implied. I think the jobs will be broad ranging. On the one hand it avoids the creation of a job to fit a particular lick arse but on the other hand its quite vague. Its all about leadership baby. Have you shown it? Will you have more in the future. Of course those that simply did their main job-teaching-well-will probably be over looked. Who knows. I find it incredible the cockiness of some 30 year olds who think its a guarantee they will get one. Anybody around long enough-knows you get screwed a few times in a career. Part of life
Mardy Bum wrote: » There should be a whole staff review of posts before the interviews but some principals don't trust their staff it seems.
liverpool lad wrote: » Hi. Regarding the new post structure - how are the interviews being conducted in different schools? We have been told that the advertisement will merely say "AP1" or "AP11" but the post you would be going for would not be noted on the job advertisement. The successful candidates at either A1 ir A2 level will then be discussed by management and the roles, based on the needs of the school, assigned on that basis? It seems a bit bizarre that you'd apply for a post, not knowing what exact post you were going for and end up with the possibility of securing a post you had no interest or experience in due to a lack of people going / showing leadership or interest in that role itself? It seems like a way to deter people applying and getting "yes" people who will do anything into the posts and chop and change them year after year. Does anyone have any information on this? I've read the circular and it doesn't say that it has to be or doesn't have to be done in this way, but just intrigued as to what other school principals are doing. Looking forward to hearing all, Thanks
km79 wrote: » The old system also meant people were in a post for decades ? And there was ZERO accountability. None. Now at least in theory there is
ASISEEIT wrote: » This new system will mean post holders having the job for decades which as i have already pointed out means that once they get it they can sit back and relax. A real merit system would limit their tenure. So its all bull in the end
km79 wrote: » This is a genuine question. Do people really believe that the old system of next in line getting the next available post was better ?
amacca wrote: » Its a pity some people let themselves be duped into free work to the detriment of others...or decide to do it to get ahead and in the process possibly don't even get ahead or stab others directly in the back or all their colleagues indirectly....it reduces working conditions for all. I wish people just wouldn't do things unpaid if they could help it....its a bad idea especially in the light of how the dept/society/minister for ed has seen fit to treat teachers for a good number of years now If more held the line on this the Dept might at least be forced to come up with more solutions - maybe acknowledge extra curricular, reduce CP or SS hours to accommodate some of these functions...hell even create more paying positions. If you can help it and you do this extra work for free you are a mug in the long term imo.....or someone who will do anything for the name on the door to the detriment of others and probably yourself.
Merrick Prickly User wrote: » God I dread the cutthroat backstabbing crap we will have to endure over the coming weeks. There won't be enough posts to cover all the people doing year head, TY coordinator, SEN coordinator etc unpaid in my school. And all but a handful have a Masters in management and leadership. It's going to be toxic.
TheDriver wrote: » Review of posts are two fold: needs of the school and consultation with staff. There are unfortunately some schools who will try to make staff do unreasonable things in the same way there are some staff who won't do anything reasonable for their post. I find in the vast majority of schools, posts are well formed, specified and appointed.
TheDriver wrote: » judeboy101 wrote: » What's the union stance on existing posts being converted to these new ones. My reading of it is that if you have been hired as a year head, then under the new circular your post can be taken from you and you could end up for example as IT, haven't never turned on a computer in your life. I know that in extremis but nothing in circular says that it can't happen as all posts are now competency based not skill based. A school review of posts has always been an option and goes on in most schools.
judeboy101 wrote: » What's the union stance on existing posts being converted to these new ones. My reading of it is that if you have been hired as a year head, then under the new circular your post can be taken from you and you could end up for example as IT, haven't never turned on a computer in your life. I know that in extremis but nothing in circular says that it can't happen as all posts are now competency based not skill based.
Wanderer78 wrote: » There's a lot more to life than 'academic achievements', kids require support and guidance in life, amongst other things, including academic guidance, but not exclusively. There's too much academia in the world of academia, it's also important to note, some kids are simply not designed for it, and that's ok to, society still requires them, but an educational system that's heavily weighted towards the world of academia, can and does pose a problem for these individuals. We should be creating a system that includes rather than excludes, society requires all to function better, excluding creates dysfunction in society, inclusion reduces dysfunction. Many parents are in fact highly stressed due to the failures of modern society, including the need for both to work full time etc, our educational system addresses these issues badly, and in some cases not at all, and we wonder why complex social issues occur, and indeed why complex problems such as mental health issues are increasing!
