bold fail
Back to the original topic:
The state generally pays a premium for the same role and people.
People have already outlined issues of pay and people like me have said it's not just increasing pay that matters. E.g. my job at another school came up with £10,000 more pay. Wouldn't even consider leaving my school for it.
there isn't a lack of money in the state - all GP's and many government roles are some of the highest paid roles.
Explain that to the schools in my area making reducing yhe curriculum, making people redundant and reducing trips because they've had around £400,000-500,000 cut in their budgets.
Oh amd within that they're having to spend money on pastoral staff, mentors and counsellors as well as alternative provision through charities because it's difficult to get students into CAMHS etc because of cuts there ao we have to do more in house with less money.
The simple fact is that there are many people capable of being teachers - and at the moment there isn't actually a shortage able to teach. If any shortage was acute, the state would increase pay to attract better people (as the state does in other state industries)
Able to teach as in meets the criteria of being able to do teacher training, obbiouslh there's more people.
But then by thr same token I am also capable to doing counselling, publishing, communiry relations work, multiagency family work, journalism etc ... and I'm teaching.
people are paid more in other roles because there are less people who can do them, and hence are more difficult.
Fewer people may be able to do very specialist roles, but there are also fewer jobs in those area too.
There is a skill set in teaching which you clearly have no idea about it other thananyone with half a brain could teach almost any subject because it's so easy but at the same timr you think people should have 15 years at thr top of a field out of teaching before teaching.But why would someone spend 15 yeara working to the top of their field to thrn take a monumental pay cut and start at thr bottom.You make no sense.
If someone in teaching can see an easier role, just take it - nothing is stopping you
And as people have said, people are leaving which why schools are having a recruitment issues (but you know it all and say there is no issue)
Whilst everyone agrees not everyone with good subject knowledge would be a good teacher; at the moment we have a lot of teachers without good subject knowledge - but luckily, before A-Level not a great deal is really required.
Lovely sweeping statement. Tell that to primary teachers doing phonics or SPaG. Hell tell me you can teach grade 9 GCSE off the top of your head.
Staff sometimes have to teach out of specialism, which both fine and not fine for you because obviously limited subject knowledge is requires up to y11 but thrn you deny anything leading to staff out of specialism.
Some schools are having to have staff teach out of specialism because they can't recruit, but then you say there isn't a recruitment issue.
Some have to deploy staff out of specialism because the alternative is redundancies due ti lack of money
But you're right. There's no issue with recruitment or money.
You know it all, obviously. Please go to the DfE and present your insight. Clearly ypu have all thr answers, loads of teachers are crap and you can single handedly solve thr situation by telling people to leave!Gosh we are so lucky to have a geniuscomplete and utter goady fucker who shows their lack of knowledge/understanding of the sector each time they postaround here.
I genuinely don't know how someone not in education seems to be so arrogant and self-assured in their appraisal of a system that they have nothing to do with (or how said GF can dismiss multiple people in the system, quite a few who are happy in their jobs, because GF knows best)