IABU to thinks some parents make some weird assumptions about school staffing, or are these isolated examples?

[Caff2]

My friend asked her school last academic year whether she could swap from Year 5, where she had been for 6 years, to Year 1, as the whole staff were asked if they would like to move year groups. She did this as she felt she was lacking in KS1 experience and wanted to experience a new challenge.

All good, SMT agreed, and she started in new year group in September.

Some parents have been in to ask the HT if she was "moved" because she couldn't cope with KS2!

When I was a class based teacher, I did the same and asked to move year groups/key stages a few times for CPD purposes, and also had comments similar to the above made by parents.

Why would moving year groups or roles be seen as some kind of issue? I don't get it.

When I moved from teaching Year 1 to Year 2, DH's DGM congratulated me on my promotion.

It's that weird unconscious thing where people think that the higher the level teaching the more intelligent/better teacher you are.

My Dad is a prime candidate for this. Can't understand why I teach teenagers with SEN when I could be teaching my degree subject at A level. As if one is better/more prestigious/ more pay than the other

Not the case re reception at our school.

From what I can see, the most experienced teachers (not necessarily the best, have had excellent NQTs or relatively 'new' teachers) tend to be in reception, year 2 and year 6.

But that's just a snapshot from our school. Reception is seriously tough!

It's quite common for there to be movement from ks1 to ks2 and vice versa, and certainly something that the more newly qualified teachers do. From the outside it looks a bit like cpd development, but I also think there's an element of trying different age groups out for the best fit which you won't really be able to predict immediately on qualification.

PicaK - no it wouldn't kill us to let you know what day PE is (every school I've ever worked at has told parents). However, every school I've ever worked at has often had to swap PE days for the odd week for: special assemblies, workshops happening in the hall, weather, trips clashing with PE days, etc, etc, etc. So, as I have constantly found myself saying for the last then years: "PE kits should be in school every day, in case our day is different this week." Why is it an issue to you to know when PE is? The lovely thing about Primary school is that we have a flexible timetable and can make impromptu changes to go with enrichment events. (And if it's to do with earrings, then actually I don't want to know as it would just make me angry!)

And for what possible reason do you think a parent should know about qualifications and experience? For all the teachers I've ever known, there has NEVER been a relationship between which uni they attended/ their years of experience and how well they teach. NEVER, EVER.

What homeBird said.

Totally disagree with Windchime - if ever there were year group that would benefit from a more experienced teacher, it would be Reception - even if for no other reason than communication with the parents (which a lot of NQTs find quite difficult, however good their teaching / planning / interacting with the dc is).

I too have always worked in schools where people move around every couple of years - really important for professional development and for understanding where the children have come from and where they are going to. I'm going back to the mid 1980s, so that probably covers the time when a lot of current parents were at school. Easier in a 2,3, or more formed entry school, where you can try to have one teacher experienced in that year group alongside the new one. Doesn't always work out that way, but a good ideal to work to. They did when I was a t Primary school in the 60s and 70s too - it's hardly a new phenomenon, which is probably why it wouldn't occur to schools to have to explain it to parents.

Weaker/newly qualified teachers are always put into Reception first because it is much easier

Ha ha! I have never heard this-what a load of piffle; what a sweeping generalisation and one that everyone who has replied has disagreed with!

In every school I've worked in, they've put the Outstanding/experienced teachers in Reception as it's so important. The ones that have come from other schools with great references but have proved to be less than capable have quickly been placed in other year groups-Y3/4, for example ;)

Well, it's been an interesting thread, anyway. I'm not sure how my first class English degree (didn't know it was from a Russell Group University until I joined Mumsnet) really informed my teaching in any of the Key Stages, but the experience I gained since I started teaching has been very useful anyway.

Oh, and completely forgot about the time I moved to year 6 (from Year 4). A swap with the (totally inept Deputy), and two parents removed their child from the school as they didn't agree with putting an unmarried, relatively new teacher in year 6 instead of the (shit) married Deputy. Hope they saw our results shoot up that year!

Agree - stronger teachers will mainly be found in Reception, Year 2 and Year 6 if a one-form entry school. If more than one form entry, a strong teacher will be in each year group with poorer teachers/ NQTs around them. I do always (rightly or wrongly) question the strength of existing staffing when an NQT is put in Rec. or year 6 in a one form entry school!!!

Ha. I teach ks3 & 4. The idea of teaching reception brings me out in a cold sweat!

Yeah we parents are all ignorant and we have nothing better to talk about

I work in pensions, presumably the teachers here who enjoy denigrating parents understand the hierarchy in my workplace as well. Remind me to bitch about your unfathomable lack of knowledge as well.

In the industry I work in, when new people join their qualifications or experience is briefly outlined in the welcome email.

Also job changes are also acknowledged and really briefly explained. It stops gossip about why the change has happened.

If change is not explained, it is human nature to make assumptions.

Also, when I was a child, it was a common view that the stronger teachers taught the older pupils.

If teachers think that wrong assumptions are made about their working practices, perhaps they could communicate their practices to parents.

Fair point

Maybe it would be better to stop speculation.

There seems to be a lack of trust going both ways here, which is such a shame.

"stronger teachers teach older pupils" !!??

What!

No one who has ever met more than one child could possibly make that assumption.

I'm sorry but there is a limit to the stating the bleeding obvious that schools have the time to engage in!

I would think parents would be insulted and bored and overwelmed with paper work if we went down that route.

yanbu

some parents have some very strange ideas. Not to mention attitudes when teachers change mid year and suspicion of anyone new

It's not that I'd expect parents to know the ins and outs at all. Why would they when they work in a different field? It's just the assumption that moving up or down year groups equates to a promotion/demotion. That seems bizarre to me. How do they think senior staff gain experience across the age range if nobody ever moves?
And margratshair if someone in pension consultancy moved from dealing with a final salary scheme to a money purchase scheme then if have no reason to see that as a demotion simply because FS schemes are perceived as 'better'.

I think the best thing to do wit weird assumptions and misunderstandings is to clear them up. Otherwise you end up in Urban Myth territory and that's always tricky.
Male teachers often end up with upper KS2 because the parental culture of not trusting men with young children can make it much harder for them to deal with younger children without suspicion and gossip. Depending on where you teach, how parents view the school and the sort of personality you have.

To be fair to the parents, there are school years that are harder than others in all school systems.

In the French system, Y2 (the year DC learn to read) is a lot harder to teach than Y3. Y5 covers a hell if a lot of ground.

Years with examinations are different to years without. Teachers can have skills that suit them better to one or the other.

I've always preferred Y3. Does that mean I'm a weak teacher in the eyes of many?

I think the best thing to do wit weird assumptions and misunderstandings is to clear them up. Otherwise you end up in Urban Myth territory and that's always tricky.

Yeah but where does it end? Why should schools be invading the privacy of employees to make public information that one does not generally publicise in order to quell idle gossip?

What do you suggest as an alternative?
Parents can be very dim and judgemental about all sorts of things that impact on their beloved children in all sorts of ways. It shouldn't matter whether a teacher is a friendly, chatty sort of person who goes out at the end of the day into the playground and socialises, rather than a shy hard-working sort that is never seen out of class.
But it does. The playground Mafia can be brutal to other parents and to teachers, yet in some schools it doen't exist and there is a general aura of positive support for one and all.