Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Newbury News _ Local Headteacher earns more than PM
Posted by: Strafin Jul 20 2010, 09:27 PM
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=14018
I usually find it very easy to knock people and as most will know have no problems about complaining about what I think is wrong. The recent revelation of the primary school teacher in London earning £200k being one of those times. I now read that a local head is earning ridiculous amounts, but as I know him and indeed went to one of his schools, I found my reaction to be much less severe. I still think it's too much, and also another example of the public sector paying out over the odds again but somehow am slightly more accepting. I just wondered if anyone had any feelings one way or the other.
Posted by: pinkfluffyclouds Jul 20 2010, 09:32 PM
I usually find it very easy to knock people and as most will know have no problems about complaining about what I think is wrong. The recent revelation of the primary school teacher in London earning £200k being one of those times. I now read that a local head is earning ridiculous amounts, but as I know him and indeed went to one of his schools, I found my reaction to be much less severe. I still think it's too much, and also another example of the public sector paying out over the odds again but somehow am slightly more accepting. I just wondered if anyone had any feelings one way or the other.
Is this the teacher who is head of two schools? If that is the case then should that amount to what is basically two salaries? Makes my £22,000 p.a. look like peanuts if they are nearly getting this per month. Mind you higher tax bracket !!!
Posted by: Iommi Jul 20 2010, 09:42 PM
My problem is with people being paid massive salaries for failure. I see that as a greater issue. If Panorama is to be believed, 5% of teachers are incompetent!
Posted by: spartacus Jul 20 2010, 10:01 PM
Mr Di.ck (editted for rudeness) is the Head .... in fact he's a Super-Head. The pay is excessive in relative terms, but if his leadership manages to turn around the recent results at Trinity School and still keeps Kennet school on track as being one of the most successful comprehensive schools in the south then maybe (just maybe) he's earned his crust...
Posted by: Exhausted Jul 20 2010, 10:29 PM
Whilst comparing salaries, there are more than just the pay cheques to be taken into account.
The PM lives rent free and with a large staff to attend to his every need and you can bet the shoping in Tesco's doesn't come out of his back pocket. He also gets allowances on his second home. He actually draws two salaries adding a further £60k to the pot and I believe there are considerable free pension/allowance perks when he retires. He doesn't have to pay for the company car and I bet there are all sorts of tax allowances for clothing and such like.
I don't really care what he earns in comparison with our local head, the perks of being the Prime Minister and what happens when he relinquishes the title, well outweigh salary (See Tony Blair)and if Mr D-ick is doing a good job, he should be paid a salary commensurate with the responsibilities and importance of the job he does. There are not many people who have the qualifications and the ability to manage our schools today so let's make sure we hang on to them. Our future depends on them.
Posted by: Exhausted Jul 20 2010, 10:34 PM
It does, I agree, but would you have the skills required to run two senior schools, or even, would you want to for whatever salary.
Posted by: Bloggo Jul 21 2010, 07:53 AM
£175k a year for doing any teaching job in local education seems excessive. However he does appear to be getting some good results with what was adifficult school to manage.
He does seem to be very diligent and puts in some hours so as long as that continues, pay him.
When and if it stops then make sure the high salary does too.
Posted by: JMH Jul 21 2010, 08:09 AM
I agree with the general consensus. Being the Super Head of two secondary schools is a tough and very responsible job. If he is being successful at that job then I think he deserves the pay.
Posted by: Biker1 Jul 21 2010, 08:13 AM
Does he do it all on his own then?
Posted by: blackdog Jul 21 2010, 08:16 AM
Does he still teach? I doubt if he has much time to prepare lessons and teach them if he has two schools to run.
Posted by: Bloggo Jul 21 2010, 08:23 AM
He may well do?
I used the word generically to reflect the whole profession and those functions carried out within it.
Posted by: DrPepper Jul 21 2010, 08:55 AM
Surely two heads paid 80k each, one at each school, should be able to do a better job than one being paid stupid amounts and not giving 100% to either school 
Posted by: Darren Jul 21 2010, 09:58 AM
I'd be more inclined to ask the PM to justify his salary.
Posted by: spartacus Jul 21 2010, 10:43 AM
Does WBC Chief Exec turn his hand to a bit of pot-hole filling on his own to earn his crust? 'course not.... But does Mr D lead and inspire those within his team to greater things? Does he pass that ethos on to his staff so that pupils are encouraged to 'be the best they can be'? It seems from the results that he may well do.. Turning around a failing school in Trinity and attracting capable staff to come to such a school takes some doing.... Marks at Kennet School have been consistently admirable under his charge... Posted by: Iommi Jul 21 2010, 10:49 AM
I wish we could avoid envy of success. Why not tackle the issues of failing professionals first? I understand that 5% of teachers should not be teaching. When you consider how many pupils this affects, it is a lot.
Posted by: Biker1 Jul 21 2010, 11:29 AM
Does WBC Chief Exec turn his hand to a bit of pot-hole filling on his own to earn his crust? 'course not.... But does Mr D lead and inspire those within his team to greater things? Does he pass that ethos on to his staff so that pupils are encouraged to 'be the best they can be'?Shouldn't they get a cut then?
Posted by: JeffG Jul 21 2010, 12:39 PM
I doubt that they work for nothing.
Posted by: Andy1 Jul 21 2010, 01:25 PM
Surely this should be measured on his success. Why should it matter if he gets more than the Prime Minister as a Public Sector worker. The PM is sorted for life I would suggest, even if he does a bad job.
Posted by: blackdog Jul 21 2010, 01:30 PM
When Mr D was just head of Kennet and another head was running Trinity I guess that their joint salaries were approaching this level - while one of the schools was failing. Now the failing school is improving and the excellent one remains excellent - it seems he can do a better job on his own than he and his opposite number at Shaw were able to do previously. It obviously comes down to the capability of the individual - you could easily argue that he was wasted running just the one school and should even be given a couple more to supervise.
Posted by: DrPepper Jul 21 2010, 02:22 PM
Surely all heads should be capable, just because one has failed doesn't necessarily make another twice as good as every other head in the country and worth this money - the failed head could have been just really bad and Mr D just average. There must be other heads capable of running Trinity at a more normal rate of pay. What happened to the old Trinity head, hope he isn't still a head elsewhere......
Posted by: Andy1 Jul 21 2010, 03:33 PM
What is the normal rate for a Head Teacher running 2 schools in West Berks, one of which was apparently failing before he took it on.
Posted by: blackdog Jul 21 2010, 04:02 PM
That would be ideal - but all heads are different, some will be more competent than others. Perhaps Mr D is simply much better than most other heads and capable of ensuring two, three, half a dozen schools are achieving excellence, while another excellent head may find one school enough. If he is that good it would be insane to waste his talents by restricting his contribution to a single school.
There are heads paid more than Mr D - so the countrywide comparison does not stand up to scrutiny. Nor does the logic of the rest - if he is capable of success while running two schools why shouldn't he carry on doing it? If he is running two schools shouldn't he be paid more than for running one?
Mr D's success at Kennet (turning it into the best local authority school in the area) and the improvements at Trinity suggest he is well above average.
I don't know where she went.
Posted by: DrPepper Jul 21 2010, 04:15 PM
Thanks Blackdog, very full reply 
I think what I was trying to say was:- is Mr D that exceptional or are many other heads not up to the job they are paid to do. We shouldn't surely need "superheads" just every head being able to do the job they are paid to do. Ideal word I know, but not only are we paying Mr D a lot of money, by the same token we are paying a lot of useless heads a still very decent wage for performing badly.
Posted by: Iommi Jul 21 2010, 05:24 PM
Which is what I've been saying since the beginning. Let's worry more about the cost of under performing teachers and heads, rather than the ones that are fine!
Posted by: spartacus Jul 21 2010, 09:50 PM
Without wishing to join the Mr D fanclub or cheerleading group, he is also a governor of a couple of primary schools (or was until very recently if he's no longer doing it) and is a magistrate, so I don't begrudge him his salary ... which is equivalent to one week's pay for Man City new boy Yaya Toure this coming season.... Try giving Toure two schools to run
Posted by: Biker1 Jul 21 2010, 09:53 PM
Without wishing to join the Mr D fanclub or cheerleading group, he is also a governor of a couple of primary schools (or was until very recently if he's no longer doing it) and is a magistrate, so I don't begrudge him his salary ... which is equivalent to one week's pay for Man City new boy Yaya Toure this coming season.... Try giving Toure two schools to run
You're not seriously comparing this or any other "normal" salary with that of a ridiculously overpaid footballer?
That doesn't make it right!
Posted by: Batfink Jul 21 2010, 10:34 PM
You've got to wonder how much the ex-head of Trinity is earning at the Quango she works for though... maybe we could ask her: http://twitter.com/debbieforster
Posted by: spartacus Jul 21 2010, 10:48 PM
Far easier to compare like with like. The head of the London primary school that started this all off is running Tidemill Primary in Lewisham. The school takes 400 pupils. He was paid a £231,400 salary, plus benefits of more than £45,000 last year..
Mr D is the Exec Head of Kennet and Trinity school. Total pupil numbers approx 2,800. We've got him quite cheap really....
Posted by: DrPepper Jul 22 2010, 07:45 AM
Without wishing to join the Mr D fanclub or cheerleading group, he is also a governor of a couple of primary schools (or was until very recently if he's no longer doing it) and is a magistrate, so I don't begrudge him his salary ... which is equivalent to one week's pay for Man City new boy Yaya Toure this coming season.... Try giving Toure two schools to run
If I was earning £153,000 per annum with 13 weeks holiday (I'll wait for the "oh we have to arrange lessons and mark books" replies now) I could probably fit in time for some volunteer work
Posted by: Batfink Jul 22 2010, 08:05 AM
Isn't he an FA referree? And a JP as well???
In other news, he must be doing an OK job. There are 3 photos of him in the NWN today!!!
Posted by: Exhausted Jul 22 2010, 07:08 PM
Excluding stupidly overpaid footballers, it's such a shame that in this country there seems to be an undercurrent of jealousy for anybody who earns better than average salaries. If we get the right people with the appropriate skills, they deserve and are entitled to the big bucks. Fred stacking shelves in the supermarket is paid according to his ability and almost certainly, anybody could do that job. The pyramid gets narrower the nearer one gets to the pinnacle and the smaller the pool of persons able to do the top job.
Posted by: Strafin Jul 22 2010, 07:25 PM
I don't think it's jealousy, we're talking about millionaire headteachers being paid from the public purse. I'm just not sure £3.5k a WEEK is what a headteacher should be earning.
Posted by: Rosewinelover Jul 22 2010, 07:41 PM
I agree, I think it is to much and yes I am jealous!
Posted by: JeffG Jul 22 2010, 07:46 PM
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", eh?
Posted by: DrPepper Jul 23 2010, 07:00 AM
It's not jealousy, big salaries to the bosses in the private sector who set up and run their own businesses is great and an inspiration to us all - Branson, Sugar et all. 3K a week for managing a school, when no risk/gamble/financial input/special knowledge/skill (beyond what they learn at uni' and teacher training school) is unacceptable if only because where it will end? I look forward a dustman (no offence to dustmen, just an example) being paid similar amounts for emptying every bin on their round. Why not, it's only public money after all.
Make all the money you can, not take all the money you can, that's the difference.
Posted by: Andy Jul 23 2010, 08:31 AM
My own opinion is that all the children he's potential saved, who otherwise may well not become decent adults, by turning the results around and changing the school to a vastly improved and respectable status makes his salary pretty insignificant in my eyes in the grand scheme of things.
I'm sure parents an pupils alike who have benefited would agree also, as did the parents of Mark Elms pupils when interviewed recently.
Posted by: Andy1 Jul 23 2010, 09:26 AM
Make all the money you can, not take all the money you can, that's the difference.
You mention inspiration. A good Teacher will inspire the kids they teach, no amount of money can buy that. You then talk about Dustmen ( an example I know but not the right one), well why not mention Nurses and the amount of money they get paid. What about Soldiers on the frontline, for these guys there is huge risk, not with money but their lives.
I agree Branson, Sugar etc... are an inspiration to someone who wants to make lots of money but that's it.
Posted by: blackdog Jul 23 2010, 09:49 AM
It's a bit more than that - Branson and Sugar, especially Branson, have built businesses that employ thousands and create prosperity - without people doing this there will be no money to pay teachers, nurses, etc. Sure the incentive might be to become rich, but an awful lot of people can benefit from one man's greed and ambition.
Posted by: Rosewinelover Jul 23 2010, 09:53 AM
well why not mention Nurses and the amount of money they get paid. What about Soldiers on the frontline, for these guys there is huge risk, not with money but their lives.
Totally agree with this. The country has got it the wrong way round. Kick a football (badly) and get paid thousands a week. Risk your life/save lifes, work long hours and you get paid pennies. These are the people who deserve to be paid the big money.
Posted by: Andy1 Jul 23 2010, 11:25 AM
I agree with what you say but as far as inspiration goes I wouldn't look at Branson and Sugar and say to myself I want to employee thousands of people. It also only takes the greed and ambition of one man to reck an awful lot of peoples lives
Posted by: DrPepper Jul 23 2010, 12:24 PM
Totally agree with this. The country has got it the wrong way round. Kick a football (badly) and get paid thousands a week. Risk your life/save lifes, work long hours and you get paid pennies. These are the people who deserve to be paid the big money.
Yep, agree. How many nurses, and in particular soldiers, who put their life on the line for us can ever earn this sort of money - even if they get to the very top of their particular ladder. No head teacher, however good they are at their job should earn this money in the public sector. If he was this exceptional wouldn't he have moved into the private sector long ago, would he not have been head hunted by many a private school? No doubt he is a good head, but £150K plus good is questionable. How long before every "good" head demands these sort of wages and it becomes the norm'?
These teacher salaries are fine in the private sector, where by the way, I bet their standards are far higher and Mr D would probably look very average.
I think basically that parents have a right to expect a £50k head and £30k teachers to be up to the job. If they are not get rid of them (as would happen in the private sector) and replace with someone who can do the job for the money. Why is Mr D getting so much more than say the head of St.Barts or Park House, let's face it he is only part time at two schools, not full time at both (unless one is a night school
) so should just get one full time wage, or two part time wages, in line with the going rate in West Berkshire.
Posted by: Biker1 Jul 23 2010, 09:41 PM
These teacher salaries are fine in the private sector, where by the way, I bet their standards are far higher and Mr D would probably look very average.
I think basically that parents have a right to expect a £50k head and £30k teachers to be up to the job. If they are not get rid of them (as would happen in the private sector) and replace with someone who can do the job for the money. Why is Mr D getting so much more than say the head of St.Barts or Park House, let's face it he is only part time at two schools, not full time at both (unless one is a night school
) so should just get one full time wage, or two part time wages, in line with the going rate in West Berkshire.Excellent!
Well put - my thoughts exactly.
Posted by: Iommi Jul 23 2010, 10:00 PM
I find this argument tedious. People in life are motivated by many things, and not all is money. The remuneration in these jobs is well known and people should consider this when embarking on these careers. How many nurses and soldiers are CEO (headteacher) material?
The subtext to this is the public schools shouldn't have headteachers that are as good as private schools.
Surely this is easy to measure. Would they not have had KPIs?
Like I said, I would have thought KPIs and results would determine this.
In a country with a diverse cost of living, having a fixed fee would benefit some and cost others. 50k ain't that much money. Average sales men can pull that quite comfortably.
I nearly agree, but this should happen through the whole profession, not just at the senior level..
) so should just get one full time wage, or two part time wages, in line with the going rate in West Berkshire.At senior level, people tend to have targets and if he hits them then fine. Perhaps the others haven't been so impressive?
I will admit though, there is always a smell of 'jobs for the boys' in all this, but hopefully, transparent remunerations of senior public servants is a step in the right direction, but don't discount the likelihood that other methods of paying in a more 'discrete' way are explored.
Posted by: Biker1 Jul 23 2010, 10:03 PM
The subtext to this is the public schools shouldn't have headteachers that are as good as private schools.
Surely this is easy to measure. Would they not have had KPIs?
Like I said, I would have thought KPIs and results would determine this.
In a country with a diverse cost of living, having a fixed fee would benefit some and cost others. 50k ain't that much money. Average sales men can pull that quite comfortably.
I nearly agree, but this should happen through the whole profession, not just at the senior level..
At senior level, people tend to have targets and if he hits them then fine. Perhaps the others haven't been so impressive?
I will admit though, there is always a smell of 'jobs for the boys' in all this, but hopefully, transparent remunerations of senior public servants is a step in the right direction, but don't discount the likelihood that other methods of paying in a more 'discrete' way are explored.
Still agree with DrPepper!
He is paid too much! - Otherwise why the outcry and this debate in the first place?
Posted by: Iommi Jul 23 2010, 10:13 PM
That is your prerogative, but did I not at least give you pause for thought?
You're 'guilty' of begging the question.
We first have to establish if he is being paid too much, and I have not seen anyone prove this yet.
Posted by: Strafin Jul 23 2010, 10:18 PM
I think that £175k along with all the perks, the gold plated pension and the social life he seems to enjoy through the week is too much for a headteacher. I don't question Mr ***** record, he's an excellent teacher but there are many others out there also. I don't understand why the public sector has to pay more than the private sector all the time.
Posted by: DrPepper Jul 24 2010, 08:08 AM
Perhaps it's just a case of failure is an option in the public sector, if a head fails they are moved on to another job, keeping pensions etc, then a "super head" - who is really just a capable head - is moved in on this sort of money, probably being paid so much to try and justify "a normal head can't possibly run this school" (what will happen when Mr D moves on?).
Now in the private sector, if you fail, quite rightly you loose your job altogether, and probably didn't have a pension anyway. And once you failed at this level you would find it difficult to get a similar job. Good luck to Mr D and I hope he enjoys the ride as long at it lasts, at our expense.
Posted by: Iommi Jul 24 2010, 10:33 AM
This might be the case, but all the while, we are playing with children's futures. In any case, yours is presumably, speculation?
The private sector has its fair share of incompetence, but there is such thing as loss of office, which in some cases can be quite lucrative. Some chiefs make a career out of being sacked, but of course, it is shareholders that pay, rather than tax payers. Unless you are a failed bank of course.
But I'll keep saying until someone acknowledges it. let's worry what we are paying incompetence, before we get concerned about the remuneration of the successful. That is costing the country dear.
Posted by: On the edge Jul 24 2010, 11:02 AM
Perhaps the biggest issue with the 'super head' question is to ask why they are so successful and why this knowledge can't be passed on to the others. I'm pretty certain the head concerned locally isn't in it for the money - so its about method. Does this suggest that the management of our education servixce need a radical shake up so that best practice is detected and then implemented eleswhere very quickly? What ever the rights and wrongs of the individual case, and this goes for the excesses in the preivate sector board rooms as well - its generally not the recipient at fault - but those who authorised the arrangements.
Posted by: DrPepper Jul 24 2010, 12:33 PM
The private sector has its fair share of incompetence, but there is such thing as loss of office, which in some cases can be quite lucrative. Some chiefs make a career out of being sacked, but of course, it is shareholders that pay, rather than tax payers. Unless you are a failed bank of course.
But I'll keep saying until someone acknowledges it. let's worry what we are paying incompetence, before we get concerned about the remuneration of the successful. That is costing the country dear.
Yep, total speculation. Speculating on how this absurd situation arose in the first place. Newbury is not a deprived (or depraved - much!) area so it's hard to see why special needs are required here when they are not in far worse off areas. It just doesn't add up on the finances or practicalities. Break it down - we are paying this guy in excess of £75k per annum as a part time head of one school (twice). You can get a perfectly capable head for £50k (looking at the classified this is the going rate) full time. I can't see why these schools needed a "super head" at this money. One capable head, replace the failing teachers - job done.
Never been in teaching myself so perhaps this is just to simplistic
Posted by: Biker1 Jul 24 2010, 12:41 PM
You did.
OK - IN MY OPINION as a £1850 a year ratepayer he is paid too much!
Posted by: Iommi Jul 24 2010, 12:56 PM
I think you might be right, but I also think that £50k sounds too cheap. To give an informed opinion, we'd need to know more about his circumstances. Perhaps we undervalue the the cost of some of our most important civil servants. We would probably be horrified if we found out the full extent of the cost of the 'old boys club'. I think, for example, we pay too much for the West Berkshire Council's CEO.
Before all this though, lets weed-out all the crap first. 5% incompetence is very expensive and I suspect this is a modest estimate and is a figure that is pervasive amongst the public sector.
Posted by: DrPepper Jul 24 2010, 01:45 PM
Before all this though, lets weed-out all the crap first. 5% incompetence is very expensive and I suspect this is a modest estimate and is a figure that is pervasive amongst the public sector.
Yes, lets hope that these wages are a temporary measure so the very best heads can go into a "failing" school and weed out the underachieving teachers, after which a capable head can be employed. If this is the case it could well be money well spent. Will Mr D go back to a normal wage when his job is done though?
Also agree that there are very many public sector workers paid far to much for doing far to little - I guess Mr D is just much more visible than others, and we probably all have a pretty good idea of what his job entails and what minimal academic qualifications are needed to do the job. Actually re-reading the piece in the NWN he's not even a "superhead" just the head of Kennett for eleven years who was given Trinity as well. In 2006 Kennet was the 101st rated school, that means there are 100 other heads more qualified than Mr D for the job, unless of course than are all being paid/employed in the same manner now.
Posted by: JeffG Jul 24 2010, 03:15 PM
So you think "minimal academic qualifications" are needed to do a headmaster's job? Let alone run two schools?
Posted by: DrPepper Jul 24 2010, 03:25 PM
Compared to the academic qualifications that are required for say, off the top of my head, a doctor or vet (that as a rule don't earn this sort of money), then yes the requirements to teach and "head" are minimal.
Posted by: On the edge Jul 24 2010, 06:48 PM
Also agree that there are very many public sector workers paid far to much for doing far to little - I guess Mr D is just much more visible than others, and we probably all have a pretty good idea of what his job entails and what minimal academic qualifications are needed to do the job. Actually re-reading the piece in the NWN he's not even a "superhead" just the head of Kennett for eleven years who was given Trinity as well. In 2006 Kennet was the 101st rated school, that means there are 100 other heads more qualified than Mr D for the job, unless of course than are all being paid/employed in the same manner now.
Clearly its also underachieving heads that need weeding out as well. Why is it necessary to spread this skill so thinly? Can't we train more Head Teachers to be like these superheads? If he is able to manage two schools exceptionally well together with putting in extra effort to lift the failing one does that mean he was underemployed before? Think about it, can you do two jobs at the same time ?
Posted by: Strafin Jul 24 2010, 06:52 PM
Two part time jobs? Yes.
Posted by: On the edge Jul 25 2010, 06:24 AM
Aaah - perhaps its just that. WBC often advertise part time jobs (ironically often for school support staff) at the full rate and when you read the text, it mentions the hours and says the pay will be pro rata. So I'm sure we've all misunderstood and under the Council rules Mr D only gets one Head Teachers salary.......sorry, I drifted off for a moment!
Posted by: Ziggy Jul 25 2010, 06:58 AM
I think the LA has made a good call seconding Mr D to Trinity. There is a national shortage of headteachers - many jobs are readvertised and some very inexperienced people have been given headships. And let's face it, locally there seem to have been some poor appointments (look at how many schools have been in special measures). Better to have an excellent HT in charge (albeit part time) than appoint another who is incapable of changing things.
Posted by: DrPepper Jul 25 2010, 10:17 AM
This is no doubt the whole problem, not enough capable heads, and by virtue not enough capable teachers that can take on the role of head. This may just suggest that the whole teaching profession isn't up to scratch - probably something most of us have suspected for a long time. Re-train the teachers to teach, rather than trying to be "mates" with the kids, get the teachers some "real life experience (maybe a "proper" job for a year before you can teach) and that just may be a start.
Posted by: DrPepper Jul 25 2010, 10:19 AM
Obvious now you say it, what were we thinking
Posted by: On the edge Jul 25 2010, 05:04 PM
Without breaking too many confidences from what I've seen of the 'Head' selection method - it isn't a matter of shortage, more a matter of poor process. If inexperienced people are appointed why aren't they being mentored? I agree, given the special measures many local schools get into - there have been some poor appointments. Why hasn't that been picked up much earlier? So it comes down to the need for better direction and management again. The self same people who haven't noticed the poor appointments, failed to mentor the nexperienced are the ones who pay double rates to put things right. The cash paid to Mr D might well be justified, BUT if his attention was directed to the whole problem - not just one failure. Why isn't he released to create and implement his obviously successful approach? Local Education Authority - hang your heads in shame! No wonder academy schools are seen to be an answer.
Posted by: Exhausted Jul 25 2010, 05:37 PM
In the private sector, people move about in senior positions, gradually moving on until they either reach the level of their incompetence or score that top job. These people are scored on their skills and what they do for the company and are normally required to report to a board of directors, including, when they themselves reach board level. The board normally understands the business they are in to the nth degree so the cast offs get moved out fairly quickly.
Do we have an informed structure within the teaching industry and do we have the people at the top who make the appointments, sufficiently skilled in order to make these person judgements so that the whole level of teaching professional standards goes up. The answer is probably not and maybe there is a need to get the Mr D's of this world gradually moving further up the ladder so that we can have, for example, a UK el Supremo Head who deals with the teaching structure rather than a glut of council employees and civil servants setting targets and standards who have almost certainly never stood in front of an unruly class in their life.
The question was asked earlier about soldiers, sailors and airmen risking their lives for not much money. But, there is a chain of command and any serving person in todays armed forces could get the top job. How much does the first sea lord get per annum?? The same, in my opinion goes with any structure, do the job, learn the ropes and with a lot of ambition and a little luck the top job is there.
Don't expect top dollar for stacking the shelves.
Posted by: Andy1 Jul 25 2010, 06:26 PM
The question was asked earlier about soldiers, sailors and airmen risking their lives for not much money. But, there is a chain of command and any serving person in todays armed forces could get the top job. How much does the first sea lord get per annum?? The same, in my opinion goes with any structure, do the job, learn the ropes and with a lot of ambition and a little luck the top job is there.
Don't expect top dollar for stacking the shelves.
[/quote]
A squaddie could not progress through the ranks to General let alone the top job. If they managed to progress through the ranks and get a commision they wouldn't get further than Major. I wouldn't compare what these guy's are doing to stacking shelves, even if it is a term of phrase
Posted by: Exhausted Jul 25 2010, 07:57 PM
Not true in today's armed forces. Might apply in the Guards but the rest of the service is open season. Education and ability.
Posted by: Andy1 Jul 25 2010, 10:30 PM
Sorry I guess you know of some people who have done it then because I not aware of anyone getting passed Major who didn't start out in OCS
Posted by: spartacus Jul 25 2010, 11:06 PM
I have one friend who served with me who went through the ranks and is now a full Colonel and have another who is Lieutenant Colonel (although he re-badged from the Engineers). Admittedly, most have reached their ceiling by the time they get their Major.
Posted by: DrPepper Jul 26 2010, 07:38 AM
Do we have an informed structure within the teaching industry and do we have the people at the top who make the appointments, sufficiently skilled in order to make these person judgements so that the whole level of teaching professional standards goes up. The answer is probably not and maybe there is a need to get the Mr D's of this world gradually moving further up the ladder so that we can have, for example, a UK el Supremo Head who deals with the teaching structure rather than a glut of council employees and civil servants setting targets and standards who have almost certainly never stood in front of an unruly class in their life.
The question was asked earlier about soldiers, sailors and airmen risking their lives for not much money. But, there is a chain of command and any serving person in todays armed forces could get the top job. How much does the first sea lord get per annum?? The same, in my opinion goes with any structure, do the job, learn the ropes and with a lot of ambition and a little luck the top job is there.
Don't expect top dollar for stacking the shelves.
That is the problem, unqualified civil servants that make the appointments in the first place. Although don't the school governors have a say also? Although they are usually not qualified in any form as to regards the teaching profession either.
As exhausted says, what it needs is a private sector structure and management style, with the like of Mr D rising to the top to lead from experience. Or even the likes of Mr D having the position of "General Manager" and managing maybe all of West Berks schools in a position above the heads. This could then be repeated uk wide.
Again this is probably to simple, and would require little or no input from civil servants and politicians so stands no chance of ever happening
Posted by: user23 Jul 26 2010, 05:55 PM
As exhausted says, what it needs is a private sector structure and management style, with the like of Mr D rising to the top to lead from experience. Or even the likes of Mr D having the position of "General Manager" and managing maybe all of West Berks schools in a position above the heads. This could then be repeated uk wide.
Again this is probably to simple, and would require little or no input from civil servants and politicians so stands no chance of ever happening
As far as I'm aware civil servants don't make appointments, local authorities do and what you're saying stands no chance of ever happening is what actually happens now anyway.
Posted by: On the edge Jul 26 2010, 06:01 PM
As far as I'm aware civil servants don't make appointments, local authorities do and what you're saying stands no chance of ever happening is what actually happens now anyway.
If this is the case - then we really do have a problem with our LEA. Clearly doesn't work.
Posted by: user23 Jul 26 2010, 06:16 PM
What's the problem with that?
Posted by: On the edge Jul 26 2010, 06:59 PM
What's the problem with that?
Don't think that is a problem - in fact it would help us. Here we appear to have an LEA that presides over a fair number of failing schools. One that seems to have a problem making the right head teacher appointments. Nevertheless, it does have a good head teacher and one with a national reputation. However, rather than seizing the opportunity and promoting the good head teacher to implement best practice across the district, it simply asks him to sort out a problem school - in addition to of his own workload! So in spite of what I see in the press, I don't think the problem is simply incompetent teachers; there are incompetent managers as well. The latter needing attention first; as that's where the leadership and direction should be coming. I certainly have no issue with the abilities of Mr D. - indeed, if he really can manage two full time jobs on his own, then he deserves the money. However, in reality can he? Equally, he can only going to bring some order to the troubled school ready for someone else to take over - well and good but that's back to square one!
Posted by: user23 Jul 26 2010, 07:32 PM
Wasn't their an issue earlier in the year with many people over the RBC border sending their kids to WBC schools, because the latter were so much better?
Posted by: On the edge Jul 26 2010, 08:20 PM
Wasn't their an issue earlier in the year with many people over the RBC border sending their kids to WBC schools, because the latter were so much better?
Quite a number have been - NWN have reported Fir Tree, Greenham, and St. Nicholas are examples. Some are coming out, granted - but the issue is why they got there in the first place. I haven't heard that 'over the boarder' attendees thought things were better - just distance to travel; might well be wrong on that one.
Posted by: Exhausted Jul 26 2010, 10:31 PM
Therein lies the rub........
Posted by: DrPepper Jul 27 2010, 07:29 AM
As far as I'm aware civil servants don't make appointments, local authorities do and what you're saying stands no chance of ever happening is what actually happens now anyway.
Sorry, perhaps I got have this wrong, but I was counting West Berks Council employees as Civil Servants (Definition: Civil service employment encompasses employment in Federal, state or provincial, and local governmental agencies).
If the guy who does run education in West Berks was a head, and if he has been doing this job for a number of years (a lot of if's I know - I'll get the facts when I have time!) then should he have not been replaced by now if we have so many special measure schools (Trinity, Compton Primary, John O'Gaunt, and those mentioned by "on the edge")?
Posted by: user23 Jul 27 2010, 06:54 PM
Posted by: Ziggy Jul 28 2010, 06:02 AM
Perhaps you have hit on the problem here and one that is interesting given the forthcoming budget cuts. The LA appears to employ advisory teachers and specialists who go around from school to school but are not generally school based themselves. In fact, if I recall right, it was someone from the LA (and not Ofsted) who declared there to be problems at Fir Tree Primary. Can someone who is NOT based in a school be the best person to offer advice? Is there a better and more productive way of organising this? As for incompetence ... schools are monitored by Ofsted and the LA. Teachers are regularly monitored by their Headteachers. So competency is beng dealt with there. So who were the advisors to all these schools that are not satisfactory? And who is monitoring the advisors' performance?
Posted by: blackdog Jul 28 2010, 08:36 AM
They may not be Civil Servants, but they are civil servants - or should be.
Posted by: DrPepper Jul 31 2010, 08:20 AM
Yes, what is really the difference - they are paid out of the public purse thus making them employee's of the state and hence civil servants. Thank goodness there will soon be less of them.
Posted by: spartacus Jul 31 2010, 03:37 PM
Careful what you wish for.....
Y'know I'd love to know what some of the people on here did for a living and whether THEIR bosses really thought the sun shone out of their beam end, or whether in truth DrPepper and his ilk should also be thrown onto the scrap heap because they're useless...
Dr Pepper.... Does anyone actually DRINK that stuff??! bleurgh...
Posted by: Biker1 Jul 31 2010, 08:35 PM
Y'know I'd love to know what some of the people on here did for a living and whether THEIR bosses really thought the sun shone out of their beam end, or whether in truth DrPepper and his ilk should also be thrown onto the scrap heap because they're useless...
Dr Pepper.... Does anyone actually DRINK that stuff??! bleurgh...
Why is it that time and time again on this forum, instead of sticking to sensible debate, many posters have to get personal?
Posted by: Biker1 Jul 31 2010, 08:42 PM
Y'know I'd love to know what some of the people on here did for a living and whether THEIR bosses really thought the sun shone out of their beam end, or whether in truth DrPepper and his ilk should also be thrown onto the scrap heap because they're useless...
I think most areas of the private sector have had severe cuts in their workforce and now it appears to be the turn of the public sector although on a smaller scale.
Perhaps they have been shielded from reality for long enough?
Posted by: On the edge Aug 1 2010, 08:35 AM
But only when they are starting to loose!
Posted by: Strafin Aug 1 2010, 09:26 AM
I think the problem lies within statements like the one above. Too many people see debate and discussion as a win or lose situation, when it really shouldn't be.
Posted by: DrPepper Aug 1 2010, 09:50 AM
It is a well know fact that Labour created way to many public sector jobs and these numbers couldn't be sustained. Whilst it's sad when anyone loosed their job, just because you are employed in the public sector doesn't make it any more tragic than a private sector worker - just tends to be higher profile.
My comment wasn't aimed at anyone in particular as we don't know who does what anyhow. Just a general comment expressing a (probably) widely held view that to many people have been having a easy ride at the tax payers expense. I guess time will tell how essential the 70 odd jobs that have been lost at WBC really were.....
Posted by: DrPepper Aug 1 2010, 09:59 AM
Y'know I'd love to know what some of the people on here did for a living and whether THEIR bosses really thought the sun shone out of their beam end, or whether in truth DrPepper and his ilk should also be thrown onto the scrap heap because they're useless...
Dr Pepper.... Does anyone actually DRINK that stuff??! bleurgh...
Dr Pepper, very popular Coco Cola drink
Posted by: On the edge Aug 1 2010, 10:49 AM
Quite so - but that would mean accepting you'd changed your view or even that you'd got it wrong. That takes a very big mind...
Posted by: Biker1 Aug 1 2010, 09:00 PM
Surely that is the whole purpose of debate?
If no - one ever changed their view as an outcome of debate then it and this forum are pointless.
My way of thinking has often been influenced by comments / debate on this forum and I don't mind admitting it.
I also accept that others have different (sometimes very!) views to myself but I do not resort to insult and derision because of it.
You have to respect other's views - it makes for an interesting and colourful society.
Posted by: Iommi Aug 1 2010, 09:14 PM
I agree, my opinion changes due to posts on this forum. I have become more centralist!
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)