Gavin wants to get rid of the upper pay scale

[noblegiraffe]

Because nothing says ‘fuck you, experienced teachers’ like paying them the same as someone a couple of years in.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/832425/SoS_to_STRB_Sept_2019.pdf

He’s asking the pay review body to ask whether there is still a case for the upper pay scale, and says he wants a flatter pay structure.

How will this work when UPS teachers are expected to take up extra cross-school responsibilities in order to justify their pay point?

Time served shouldn’t be the only criteria, but it certainly should be part of it.

Experience in teaching counts. Because it’s not just experience of teaching lessons that you gain, but of teaching kids. You’ll have seen the full range of ages, abilities, SEN. You’ll have dealt with a myriad of situations and parents. An M3 teacher has at most taught KS4 or KS5 once through. No time to reflect, adapt, try different approaches, really get to grips with the syllabus, they’re now telling other teachers how it should be done.

I completely agree that I wasn't in the best position to mentor as an M3! Although I'm primary, so different in terms of the key stage thing. Having said that, I've recently moved from upper KS2 to infants and two days a week will have a PGCE student in with me (not her mentor though). She has volunteered a lot in KS1 and in all honesty will have more experience of the key stage (though not teaching itself, dealing with parents) etc than me. The whole thing is bonkers! But then I think it's crazy that teachers move from KS2 to nursery or vice versa, or even secondary to primary and are just let loose on a class and have to figure it out as they go along...

The sad reality is that not all schools have departments full of enthusiastic UPS staff who will mentor though. Equally, being a good classroom teacher doesn't equal being a good mentor (one of my mentors was a brilliant teacher, but not a very good mentor), just like being a good classroom teacher doesn't automatically mean someone will be a good HOD etc.

There's as many people who were previously enthusiastic and strong UPS tecahers who have left as there are those on UPS but doing very little other than doing what they've done for years and refusing to consider that new specs and new research justify adaptation (and I'm saying this as a UPS teacher).

Personally, if I had the choice between someone on M3/4 as a mentor (in a department where the trainee could see a range of teachers at different stages) who was good mentor material, I'd choose that over someone who had the years under their belt but was closed off to anything other than their way of doing things.

Maybe those schools shouldn’t be taking trainees then.

If only schools with experienced teachers willing and able to mentor were allowed trainees, then that might focus the minds of the school more on retaining experienced staff.

It’s not right that trainees are paying £9k in fees to be fobbed off on someone barely starting their teaching career and still getting to grips with their own craft.

Nobody would train to teach then.

In an ideal world we'd have strong UPS staff in every school who were up to date with pedagogy, engaged in research, suited to mentoring (Vs creating mini Mrs) and a multitude of decent trainees.

The sad reality is we don't, and not all UPS staff are open minded, critically reflective or suited to be mentors. Hell, one experienced teacher stood up in CPD in the last year and told us all the merits of Brian gym for working the synapses. I'd rather have a 3rd or 4th year teacher who talks sense and understands it's a long journey that we're all learning on than someone long in the tooth still deciding what got them outstanding 10 years ago is the best way.

It takes a village to train a trainee. A mentor is one part of that. The class teachers they work with, their training provider, the school ITT coordinator, the CPD leads they work with, the department they're in are all important parts.

Nobody would train to teach then.

But that’s not true, is it? Because there are plenty of trainees out there with experienced mentors.

There should be some sort of guarantee that for your £9k you won’t be having your weekly mentoring meetings with a second year teacher (like in Piggy’s school) who is themselves, still a bit shit. (All teachers are a bit shit in their first few years - I’m a bit shit when I am teaching new stuff for the first time even with experience).

Experienced, perhaps. Good classroom teachers, probably. Good mentors, not necessarily. The three don't always go hand in hand.

I agree that poor staff shouldn't be mentoring, but I don't accept that someone having more years makes them a better mentor. I've met too many really good 3/4 year colleagues and too many 8/10 year colleagues who are ineffective. Schools should be able to decide as long as they can justify their choices and there's appropriate checks and balances.

Otherwise some schools end up with endless disruption to classes being pushed to take more and more trainees (strong school with a mixed body of staff), and that disrupts the students and puts on staff.

Obviously anecdata, but I felt my experienced mentor was much more able to mentor and support me through the course than my less experienced one. In my case, my mentor didn't have the wealth of other work experience to draw on.

I think part of the problem is that unis are under a lot of pressure to take on ITT students- especially in shortage subjects- and place them somewhere, even if that means giving students long commutes, or a less experienced mentor because that is all that the school is offering.

Personally, I think my uni over-recruited during my PGCE year, and this was reflected in their highest ever drop out rate. I don't think any of that is good for the profession long term.

If schools are encouraged to create stable departments with lots of experienced teachers, this can only be good for students and trainee teachers, who then (in theory!) go on to be the great teachers of the future!

sansa
Whereas if I think of my mentors (PGCE and NQT)
Mentor 1 - Experienced but very much "read them a book and do some APP tasks", no discussion of pedagogy, mainly some chats about choosing engaging tasks.Very lovely as a person and on reflection an alright teacher but not terribly effective. Thankfully the perks of being a career changed meant I had friends who were teachers and I gained by far more from them than my mentor.

Mentor 2 - Experienced and effective. They were a strong teacher, but would also encourage critical thinking. They were a bit jaded with teaching and I think they passed a healthy cynicism to me that I've kept. I still didn't get much in terms of pedagogical input or guidance though. The department I was in was all experienced of 10years plus and I was very much on my own with things.

Mentor 3 - Experienced teacher, fabulous in the classroom, but I rarely saw them. I gained more from my wider department and my buddy (our school paired all new teachers with someone a year or so ahead) than I did from my mentor.

Then I look at my current colleagues and there's people in work with who are similar to me (and I would imagine are very much like noble and piggy too). They're engaged, reflective, good in the classroom etc. But there's also a fair few who would be a less effective mentor than a newer colleague.

I think that's why I think schools should know their staff and select mentors accordingly.

I think there's probably a difference between a mentor who doesn't have loads of years of experience teaching, but does have experience outside of teaching that will help with mentoring, and perhaps has already worked in at least one other school- compared to a mentor who's come straight out of uni into teaching and did schools direct in the same school they are now working in.

I do agree that schools should know their staff, and choose mentors accordingly. But realistically, I do think there are a lot of mentors who are mentors because they were the only one willing to do it- and that's probably symptomatic of a lot of the wider problems in teaching. I do think it should be down to schools to choose, but equally, unis aren't really in a position to push back and say "actually, no we don't think that person is suitable".

To be honest, I think it all comes back to retention- If there weren't so many teachers leaving/going part time/having left, there wouldn't be such a need for trainees/NQTs, recruitment numbers wouldn't need to be so high and trainees would have a better experience all around- which can only, long term, be good for the profession.

sansa
I agree with you.
There's a difference between people who've done lots of training before teaching and was already accessing additional coaching to develop my practice and someone fresh out of university with no life experience or work experience.

At one school the person who had bagged the ITT mentor role was 6 years in but really only interested in the timetable reduction by palming off classes to trainees. A colleague was M3 but an experienced TA/HLTA in the school for 10/15 years. I always felt they gave the wrong person the mentor role as the former TA was absolutely the better person.

You're right on the front of how some schools select mentors. Anyone available isn't the way forward.

I'm more bothered about the increase of departments staffed with teachFirst and head of department with 2 years experience (one department I know of had a HOD in M2 year striaght from uni and teachfirst) than schools making mentor decisions based on their staff talents rather than length of service