To think keeping teachers' pay low shouldn't be hailed as a positive in an OFSTED report?

[thinkingmakesitso]

I am looking for a new job and always check the OFSTED report of any schools I consider, though I obviously don't take it as gospel and would do other research as well - I think I know how to 'read' them, iyswim.

Anyway, one I saw last night has left me so angry. The school is good and all aspects of teachers' work are praised. The school takes in pupils who are well below average at KS3, so the achievements made are all the more hard won. It then goes on to praise the fact that teachers have a 'score card' to monitor their performance, and praises the fact that performance management is rigorous and pay progression only takes place in exceptional circumstances.

AIBU to think this is no way to treat professionals - a 'score card' ffs? I am at the top of the upper pay spine anyway, so would not be eligible for pay progression, but no way am I carrying a score card, and I would fear my pay being put down due to factors beyond my control. How is a school which, reading between the lines, and knowing the area as I do, needs to attract excellent teachers to do so if that is how they treat their staff? Surely they should be doing all they can to attract staff? Well, they are- this isn't mentioned on TES, of course, but who on earth would want to go there once they know about it?

Why are teachers not valued by this government? Well, I know the answer, but just wanted to rant. .

Yep. But the government want every school to be an academy and have complete autonomy over decisions like this. Lots of academies have Heads that have no experience in education.

Pay portability doesn't exist either now. So you could be top pay scale and move somewhere else and be paid the same as a newly qualified teacher. And your continuous service no longer counts in academies. Every time you move you start again.

But for that to be put into practice there would have to be a serious surplus of teachers which there are not.

What put into practice? Pay portability? Continous service? That has always existed in local authority schools until recently

No, it's not a thing to be boasted about in an OFSTED report but it's not like the school will have asked for it to be put in, will they? Next thing you know they will be boasting about the appallingly low pay that TAs and office staff get.

I worked in 2 schools where the head of faculty always took top set year 7. And then felt that "for continuity" it was important for her (both female) to keep that set all the way through. I didn't really care - I liked teaching other sets - I did my best for those kids and that was that.

However, these days that would be problematic. Top sets tend to have the most highly motivated and competitive, and since the value added goes mainly to A grade and not A, if you can secure some As then you will do well on your value added.

I bet the government didn't have a special score card which meant that they were all entitled to a 10% pay increase...

That said, there is a teacher who does all their lessons all ok, sets homework and writes emails of complaint to "flag up" those underperforming but puts in zero time to get them on track. That person's time is spent proving the underperforming kids in their class are not doing well so they can then say "well, I did tell you" but actually not trying to plug the gaps. It's that kind of attitude that I don't like. But there are people like that in every job I guess.

Is pay any different in private schools. Why dont you look in that area. Im sure its a different set up with higher salary.

Look at Eton.

Prince Harry was put own a year and finally left with 2 crap grade A Levels.

I bet the head of Eton wasn't hauled over the coals.

I didn't know that, thanks. So not just academies but even maintained, community schools can choose not to use the "national" pay arrangements?

Yep. There are no national pay arrangements. They were scrapped in 2014.

No, it's not a thing to be boasted about in an OFSTED report but it's not like the school will have asked for it to be put in, will they?

Yes. It will have been part of their self-evaluation form, which heads fill in and inspectors see as the first part of the inspection process. Much of what OFSTED does is judge schools by what they have said about themselves in the SEF.

thinking not a school that will have people rushing to work there then? I'd have thought it'd be off putting for prospective parents if the school is seen to be using the cheapest possible teachers. Dd is being taught by an NQT this year, I'm decidedly unimpressed. The only thing stopping me from moving Dd is that I can make up the shortfall at home.

not a school that will have people rushing to work there then?

I would expect they would find it very difficult indeed to recruit or retain good teachers, particularly in shortage subjects.

Its not just about the money. The school I work in (and never want to leave) is one where support is there if you need it, and observations and book scrutinies aren't obsessively done. In the performance management system, targets are set jointly by the teacher and head of department. So I have sensible targets and have no problem with my pay being linked to them.

Contrast that with my sister. One of her targets was to have all children reaching age related expectations by the end of the year. Which is unreasonable as half of them came to her class already behind, in some cases very far behind. It is frustrating for her because the target is unachievable, and because she has to a) focus so much on the lower half that she isn't pushing the top half as much as she would like; and b) focus far more on English and Maths to the detriment of art, sport, music and science for the students who are behind, which is harsh when some of these same children really love those subjects.

Done well I have no problem with performance management or performance related pay. BUT most head teachers have no experience of prp, have no training on how to implement it properly (ie not as a way of having a go at teachers) and a few seem to have gone a bit mad with power since the switch to academy status. They are also under financial pressure and seem to frequently go for the cheaper option, leaving some schools with too many NQTs and not enough experienced staff. The NQTs don't get enough support and the experienced staff get too overworked.

Perhaps more importantly - schools simply aren't businesses. So trying to copy a business model for employment seems stupid. It's kinda easy for profit-making businesses - if you make money for the company you get paid more. So many of the "what makes a good teacher" things aren't measurable. By far the most valuable thing I do for the kids I teach is being a form teacher. But how do you measure my ability to create a calm safe space for the kids?