AP Post Interview

am_zarathustra wrote: »

you'd have teachers who would prefer to/should teach HL and other who would teach OL, as long as there is consensus amoung staff I don't see this as an issue, you are playing to the strengths of your teachers to provide the best educational outcome.

Excellent post but on this consensus aspect there are people who want the "status" of the HL LC subject but for their own reasons - often to do with their view of actual teaching as a mere stepping stone to management/politics/buzzword waffling in school - aren't willing to put the effort into improving their subject knowledge, work ethic or examining experience to justify the responsibility. The same people could be much better teachers for younger students, and they know it, but in their mind there's a "status" issue if they don't have a LC HL class. The problem for the principal is she/he has some sort of "professional development" obligation to give staff the option of teaching that level, even though it's clearly not in the interests of the students to have such teachers at LC level. There are teachers who are just not at the races in terms of putting the work in to keep the department grades high, and their existence undermines the intake of students into the subject at 5th year because the students are afraid they'll end up with that teacher. There's also the additional aspect of the stronger teacher having to flat out refuse requests to help students in that class for fear of undermining a colleague. In short, the whole subject suffers when a principal gives LC HL to somebody who wants it for the wrong reason, or is simply not capable of teaching it, and this happens far too often in our politics-heavy schools.

am_zarathustra wrote: »

The issue I see more in schools is the soft timetables that are given when the perception is people can't do the job effectively. I would say half our staff teach a full teaching timetable of examinable subjects and would consistently have exam classes. There is a significant cohort who do very little class teaching, lots of LS, BFL etc and run various things within the school. These are never the HL maths teacher or the Irish teacher, they can't afford to give them the time off and won't find a replacement. As teacher shortages continue in certain subjects this will end up damaging the long term career prospects of these teachers (despite them doing the bulk of the actual job of the school) as they won't get a few hours a week off their timetable to sit on LS meetings or run initiatives. Often these are the most competent people in the building, but the competency based interview doesn't account for them have 4 exam classes every year and managing to get them through.

This, a million times and it touches on another issue, namely the lack of financial reward for teaching excellence. The "serious" subject teachers for LC HL are too valuable as teachers to be given such posts, yet to progress within a school they must do non-teaching posts such as year head. I know this will be controversial but I'm a big fan of specialisation of labour and I think if somebody is really effective as a teacher - and we do have some amazingly focused, hardworking and inspirational teachers in our schools - then they should be financially incentivised to remain teaching, rather than in effect financially punished for being dedicated to teaching. In my school, for instance, you'll frequently find the teachers whose students get the best results stay back and are giving really constructive formative feedback on the latest weekly exams, while less effective teachers are paid to do non-teaching positions such as coaching in those afterschool hours that the effective teacher spends correcting for no financial reward. That time is not coming back, love of teaching or not. And the financial penalty adds up by retirement age. Yes, they have a much better reputation in the school and genuine respect from the students but there's zero financial reward for highly effective teachers within our school system, but a variety of financial rewards for ineffective teachers in the same school system. Even if the argument is that school should be more than academics, which it should, there's still no justification to financially in effect disincentivise academic or teaching excellence and financially incentivise effective teachers to engage in areas of school life where their talents are not as effective.

Icsics wrote: »

Completely agree with this. I’d actually say all these ‘middle managers’ sitting in on meetings are actually generating more work for classroom teachers, meanwhile swanning around themselves ‘managing’....this never includes teaching / setting exams / correcting / pt meetings / reports etc. SEN post holder seems to be able to assign SEN classes to all...except himself...coz he’s in ‘meetings’ . And don’t get me started on BFL, harvesting & harbouring delinquents who would otherwise be suspended / expelled ! But that’s probably a separate thread

Couldn't agree more, although I'm not sure what a BFL; given the context liúdramán, 'loafer', 'lazy person', could aptly cover the L. There is, unfortunately, a world of difference between the best and the worst. It's refreshing to see a person who is gifted at managing school and introducing genuine improvements. The vast majority of the above people, however, merely bring their lack of dedication and ambition in the classroom into their new makey-uppy administrative role, with inevitably underwhelming consequences for school efficiency and progress. Alas.

Completely agree re the excellent teachers you see in schools, I've seen teachers stay back several days a week after taking over classes to ensure the HL students actually sit HL, give up lunches, take rakes of extra homework home, come in the days before exams etc. None of this is helping them progress, it's love of the subject, the students and teaching. It's an old fashioned vocation, a word I think we aren't allowed use anymore! I agree keeping people who are that dedicated in the classroom is vital but I know some of the teachers I know who would fall into this catagory don't necessarily want 21.20 of HL exam classes every year, they would love to run an initiative and teach even 20 or 19 and get a AP1 or 2 over time. Most wouldn't want to go further (and probably rightly in most cases) but the current interview grading system will keep them in the classroom and they will watch people who can't control classes at all rise above them, it's awful to watch really.

Would there be pressure on P/DP from the more ambitious members of staff to get HL LC classes? From my own, granted limited experience, they are often avoided by the more upwardly looking due to the perception of them being too much hard work (I think I may be the only member of management, AP1 or 2 currently with a LC HL class, and I have 2)

Isics - I'm not fully sure from reading if you're a fan of BFL?

Icsics wrote: »

Behaviour For Learning.....an NBSS programme. A teacher (no classes) ‘working with’ ‘advocating’ cherry picked students ie fully kittted out room where students drink hot chocolate & play video games until BFL teacher returns them to classes. If you are in the BFL programme you are essentially untouchable , it’s an absolute waste of resources & at the end of the day it doesn’t work

Such bull****.....like the carers that work with in community with kids with "behavioural" difficulties......some of these kids know the more malicious damage and intimidation towards staff and other kids they mete out the more trips to the cinema etc they will be bribed with...staff left with an almost impossible containment situation.

Stuff like that rarely works. Actual consequences for bad behaviour that are enforced quickly and fairly seem to have gone out the door decades ago.

Treppen wrote: »

Sign me up

Ohhh not so fast Treppen....u have to ‘qualify’ for the programme, only the BFL teacher can deem who enters. Oh & only 8 on the ‘caseload’

Has anyone any suggestions for cpd on being a year head? I will not be in a position to do a management course for a few years, and there will be a year head position coming up in our school next year.

Did a days CPD on the role of the year head with Harry Freeman. Would highly recommend him, very entertaining and realistic he is currently doing online cpd courses. Check his website

am_zarathustra wrote: »

Unless your a private school there is not such thing as a year head position anymore, you'd be applying for an ap1 or 2

Year head is retiring and needs of the school document has prioritised year head positions.

Random sample wrote: »

Year head is retiring and needs of the school document has prioritised year head positions.

I got an Ap1 last year. My year head role is only a part of my role, which is normal enough in schools now. The new structure means it's across the domains so in most schools it's a year head, one discrete and one broad responsibility. They can reshuffle the roles too, and actually they are meant to so make sure your covered accross all 4. Generally to make sure people are being trained in policy and school development along with the pastoral care through year head position. Interview was very much based on what I do in the school, examples of where I had improved the school for staff and students. I wouldn't worry about the master etc, several people had them but didn't score highly in the competency based interview.

I did do Harry Freenmans middle management course a couple of years ago, it's good and he's excellent at getting people talking so it's interesting for sure.

Random sample wrote: »

Thanks for that. The middle management course seems to be sold out currently, I hope it will be on again before the summer.

They're all online now so you should be able to pic any Ed Centre across the country and do it. I'm sure you could just register with whichever it is, even if you now living/teaching there.