Teacher in 6 months, Head teacher in 4 years

Radiantsoul

LydiaJ wrote: »

Heads may not need to do much teaching, but they do need to understand education thoroughly from the inside. Thanks to successive governments' obsession with meddling with education, things change every year (whether it's policies or exam specifications or inspection criteria or whatever). The head is in overall charge of the school's response to the changing demands on it, and to do that well requires familiarity with what's good and bad about the status quo and enough knowledge of kids of the relevant age group to be able to anticipate how they will react to the new possibilities.

They also need to be able to lead a staff of teachers - which means being able to communicate, to gather a team around a vision, and to balance the needs of kids, parents, teachers and other staff. And they very definitely need social skills - all the most tricky situations (whether with kids, parents or staff) get referred to the head. There's a lot more to it than admin and project management.

There's a reason why they're called headteachers. Four years of experience in schools is not enough - these people's previous business experience is only relevant to a small part of the job.

I think headteachers probably do have very different skills from normal teachers and the idea of fast tracking makes some sense. I don't think there is a guarantee that someone will be a head in four years, but rather that it would be possible. But I do think that four years in a role is actually quite a long time and should familiarise themselves with education. In many ways someone on such a fast track would need to focus more on project management and need to delegate details further and deeper. This might be a good thing.

lostinrates

I see why teachers would be peeved, but perhaps there is a benefit to schools in having staff from this background, particularly in disadvantaged state schools. I have no direct experience, but the word seems to be that in many schools the poverty of ambition is partly because of a gulf between the pupils and people with experience of jobs like investment banking. perhaps having pastural support from people who've been there and done it, along side what ever teaching, will go some way towards addressing this?

scousethife

Kenny4315 wrote: »

Overpaid babysitters !!!

I bet you couldnt do it

elisebutt65

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

Do you know the old saying?

"if you can, do
if you can't, teach"


The bankers have proved they can't, so are halfway there...

As a teacher I do have to take umbrage at this remark!! I spent nearly 15 years in private industry before having my kids and re-training to teach my subject/s - purely because of the hours. But I will add something to the last line

If you can't teach become an Ofsted inspector!!!! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

scousethife

LydiaJ wrote: »

Heads may not need to do much teaching, but they do need to understand education thoroughly from the inside. Thanks to successive governments' obsession with meddling with education, things change every year (whether it's policies or exam specifications or inspection criteria or whatever). The head is in overall charge of the school's response to the changing demands on it, and to do that well requires familiarity with what's good and bad about the status quo and enough knowledge of kids of the relevant age group to be able to anticipate how they will react to the new possibilities.

They also need to be able to lead a staff of teachers - which means being able to communicate, to gather a team around a vision, and to balance the needs of kids, parents, teachers and other staff. And they very definitely need social skills - all the most tricky situations (whether with kids, parents or staff) get referred to the head. There's a lot more to it than admin and project management.

There's a reason why they're called headteachers. Four years of experience in schools is not enough - these people's previous business experience is only relevant to a small part of the job.

Very well said!

I see no one has replied to it, thats because you clearly know the score and they, with their flipant remarks, about something they know clearly nothing of, know they are out gunned and have legged it.

Shock horror!

LydiaJ

Radiantsoul wrote: »

I think headteachers probably do have very different skills from normal teachers and the idea of fast tracking makes some sense. I don't think there is a guarantee that someone will be a head in four years, but rather that it would be possible. But I do think that four years in a role is actually quite a long time and should familiarise themselves with education. In many ways someone on such a fast track would need to focus more on project management and need to delegate details further and deeper. This might be a good thing.

Maybe. I don't think it necessarily follows that ex-bankers would be any more suited to such a fast track than any other new teachers, though. A fast track that was open to existing teachers with, say, at least 2 years' classroom experience would make more sense. For a successful headship, I think you need the "different skills" as well as at least a reasonable competence at the "normal teacher" skills, not instead of them. So after 2 years you could select people who seemed to have what it takes to teach and seemed to have the potential for the other skills too. Even then, I'm not sure quite how fast such a fast track could realistically be.

Bear in mind that the "projects" that classroom teachers manage are generally 2 years in length (at secondary level anyway). That's how long it takes to get one cohort of kids through from the beginning of the GCSE course to the exams, or likewise through from the beginning of 6th form through AS to A2. Until you've taken several groups through the entire 2 year course each, you really don't have an overview of how the process works. At primary level, it's maybe more meaningful to consider one year at a time, but a primary head really needs a thorough knowledge of teaching more than one age group - and more than one group of kids in each case. I imagine that most of the projects that bankers work on are shorter than this, although that's purely a guess.

I have no idea how fast people can progress in banking anyway. In the boom years, would a former head teacher starting work in an investment bank be able to aim at being CEO in four years???

lostinrates wrote: »

I see why teachers would be peeved, but perhaps there is a benefit to schools in having staff from this background, particularly in disadvantaged state schools. I have no direct experience, but the word seems to be that in many schools the poverty of ambition is partly because of a gulf between the pupils and people with experience of jobs like investment banking. perhaps having pastural support from people who've been there and done it, along side what ever teaching, will go some way towards addressing this?

Yes, it might. Get the ex-bankers involved in failing schools by all means. Let them be involved with the careers provision, if you think that would help. See what other skills they have and make good use of those. All that's fine. They can do those things without being made head. If the only reason for suggesting they aim for headships is because they're used to salaries that classroom teachers (and indeed most heads) could only dream of, then I don't think that's an adequate reason.

Davesnave

Primary and secondary are also very different.

We had a primary head, who came from outside teaching, who made all the right moves and was, literally, fast-tracked, through the system. He was a brilliant administrator, but a total disaster on the social skills front, while in teaching, he could not lead by example. The children didn't warm to him. Over a period of 6 years or so, a good number of highly skilled staff left because he clashed with them in a most unprofessional way, usually in private.

This Head eventually left under a cloud, having behaved unprofesssionally once too often, in full sight of other people. He was re-employed where he could do less damage, in the inspectorate!

Only anecdotal, of course, but my personal belief is that those who come into teaching from elsewhere, whilst very welcome, need to prove themselves in a practical sense and gain sufficient insight, before being handed the top job.

exprog

Davesnave wrote: »

Primary and secondary are also very different.

Quite right.

Most of these incompetent failed bankers are men. Men are greatly underrepresented in primary schools. That means any male primary school teacher who is good at their job, and seems to have the skills required to be a head is, effectively, already fast tracked into headship.

Just another lunatic idea from this idiot Blatcherite government.

ninky_2

This story has been spun out of all proportion and editorially twisted to make catchy headlines. The scheme is for ALL professionals, not specifically bankers. As it is, anyone with a degree can already do a PGCE to train to be a teacher, and as this is done over 1 academic year, given these run OCT - JUN plus time off for Christmas, Easter, Half Terms etc etc, fast-tracking this into 6 months is not really different.

I don't think 4 years is too short to make head teacher. You would not automatically be awarded a head teacher position after four years, it would still have to be achieved on merit. Four years is A LOT of training, especially if you are older and have already had a professional career.

ninky_2

Davesnave wrote: »

my personal belief is that those who come into teaching from elsewhere, whilst very welcome, need to prove themselves in a practical sense and gain sufficient insight, before being handed the top job.

whilst those who have come to teaching solely after being in the education system shouldn't have to prove themselves?