1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Are Chartered teachers being singled out here

Discussion in 'Scotland - education news' started by mcneillie, Sep 14, 2011.

  1. Yes chartered teachers get paid a higher salary that a top of the scale teacher, this is because they have invested time and money (up to £10000) into developing their professional studies durng a masters degree comprising 12 modules and a year long research dissertation.

    I feel the chartered teachers should be offered somthing and not just conserved for few years !!
  2. Dominie

    Dominie New commenter

    If you read the full McCormac Report, it is pretty negative about CTs. The Committee seems to have swallowed the COSLA line that CT should never have been implemented in the first place. We may disagree but there we go.

    Negotiations on the report's recommendations will take place on the SNCT. Politically, I think it would be very damaging to local authoriities to simply axe CT and force 3 year conservation on those affected. My money would be on giving existing CTs additional duties concordant with their salaries.

    Annex E is to be abolisihed. CT ic playground duty or photocopying anyone?
  3. jonowen

    jonowen Occasional commenter

    I've ALWAYS done my own photocopying, spent 100s of hours on duty with kids on weekend trips etc., listened to their nervous anxiety stress before concerts/exams, provided hankies, plasters, lunchtime and afterschool activities.........my reason for doing CT was to stay in the classroom and be a better practitioner resulting from my studies. I had to wait to do so until our 2 sons had finished their degrees and then Mum could afford to be the student.
    Fair enough Dom, but that was not in the original agreement and it's not fair. PTs with conserved salaries, who will lose their extra in 2016 or whenever, were never told that their enhanced salary would be forever - they had the choice to become Facheads (unpromoted teachers like me were ineligible to apply even if we had wanted the awful post) and those PTs who have been replaced by Facheads may actually do less ( I know of 3 who do less)
    Off for a dram now to ease my pain
    cheers [​IMG]
  4. PTs with conserved salaries, who will lose their extra in 2016 or whenever, were never told that their enhanced salary would be forever - they had the choice to become Facheads (unpromoted teachers like me were ineligible to apply even if we had wanted the awful post) and those PTs who have been replaced by Facheads may actually do less ( I know of 3 who do less)

    I think it is important to point out that PTs appointed before 2001 were promised exactly that at the time of the change to faculty heads - and many made the decision not to pursue such a post on the basis that they were promised lifetime conservation of salary.

    That said, I understand completely your anxiety and anger at what appears to be ahead for chartered teachers. It would e nice to think that the rest of the profession would stand shoulder to shoulder beside the few thousand who have embarked or completed the CT scheme. However, given the reaction of many teachers to the attack on the pay and conditions of conserved PTs and supply teachers, I have my doubts.
  5. Counterpart

    Counterpart New commenter

    I hope that this is seen as an opinion looking at the matter from both sides as I am trying to be balanced here. I have good friends/colleagues, like we all do, who are/are not CTs.
    Should CT's get more pay? Yes, as the idea was to keep good, experienced teachers in the class as an alternative to the SMT ladder. This makes sense as in the class is where it matters.
    Should they get paid more because they have invested time to study etc? I don't think this is valid as there are those who have PGDs in guidance etc (not me) who have not got guidance posts, so the qualification should not be a guarantee, etc. Many people (not me) invest time and MUCH more of their own money in other industries (e.g MBAs) and it does not guarantee them more pay etc.
    I also think one issue, and perhaps the most controversial/fundemental argument for those who do not agree with the CT is that quite a few (and lets be honest there are) are not teaching to a whole class as they are doing support work. Whilst this is clearly an important role, should those having chosen to do the support role be getting more than the teacher with responsibility for the whole class? Also, some have been very crafty and seen it as a pension booster - lets not deny it!
    Perhaps the whole CT matter was rolled out in the wrong way and those doing it should have been targeted? This is debatable but only a question.
    I again refer to my opening statement.
  6. cochrane1964

    cochrane1964 New commenter

    COSLA and the EIS have picked off small groups one by one. First - stealth redundancy of PTs. Next - STs and APTs. Next supply and conserved. Now CT. Why? Cos they can remain as 'people of influence.' Most PT duties are now being pushed on to classroom teachers under reaccreditation. The fact that it has been condoned by Ronnie and his great bunch of lads is nauseating.
  7. Freddie92

    Freddie92 New commenter

    This is a bit untrue. I have a Masters and indeed a few friends of mine who are in industry have MBAs. It DOES make a huge difference to your salary and the opportunities available.
    Also not always did they invest their own money. In fact you will find the vast majority of MBAs or Masters will be paid for by the company. I can think of several people who did this who worked for firms such as Honeywell, Oki, and a few of the major banks.
    Also if you become a Chartered Accountant you do receieve a higher level of pay.
    Maybe it is just me but I have always believed that extra study and qualifications SHOULD and indeed in most cases DOES mean extra pay.
  8. That's one philosophy, but another is that those who work the hardest and put the most hours in should get the pay rises.
  9. Freddie92

    Freddie92 New commenter

    Agreed but how do you quantify 'Works hardest'? Also just because someone is in from dawn to dusk doesn't mean they are working! Ever heard of Time Management or Work-Life Balance? When I worked in industry there was flexitime. The people who came in at 7am and left at 3am did nothing between 7am - 8.30am (when everyone else started filtering in for the 9am shift). So I don't buy that argument at all. Plus personally I work a lot at the weekends. I don't live near my school so I try to beat the traffic home often but I do a shedload of marking, prep and development on a Sunday in particular. So I would argue I probably work a 6 day week. I would also argue that many staff who remain on after 5pm actually do not want to go home due to other reasons (ie not getting on with their partner or indeed no-one to go home to).

    Teaching is an odd profession because it is hard to measure and quantify achievement and results no matter what STACS tell us, because the biggest flaw in that whole system is NOT comparing like with like!
  10. What argument? I didn't mention anything about people coming in early because of flexitime - you set that one up and shot it down, and I agree with you. It's a good argument to not buy.
    I just presented an alternative philosophy to the one you suggested. Neither are incorrect, but both have their flaws - it's just as difficult to put a value on being super qualified as to putting a value on what constitutes "hard work". I've experienced more than a few "Doctors" who were absolutely hopeless teachers and I've known people who stay in school til 5 shopping online.
    But we all know who we would qualify as the hardest workers and the best teachers. If we were to list them, we would find great teachers who didn't have to work hard and hard workers who are not great teachers in amongst those who were both hard-working and good.
  11. Too true!
  12. sbf


    The problem with th eCT scheme was there was no set extra tasks they had to take on.
    I understand the theory but to be honest it was always going to end this way.
    You simply dont get extra pay just for getting more qualifications after all you get the pay rise and after 1 year you have you compensation.
    You get more money for more responsibility, its that simple.
    Same in the comercial world where a Chartered Engineer or accountant will get higher pay, its not because of the Chartered status or the exam passes, its because of the extra work they are expected to do.
    CTs could get chartered and sit on their holes, and many did/do. And that it what it divisive to other workers and why as a single issue it will not get the support of the rest of the teaching commnity.
  13. Counterpart

    Counterpart New commenter

    I take on board your point about the MBA bit having thought more about it. I would though like to see stats on how many guidance folk don't have the PGD but are in guidance posts and vice-versa, as I don't think the opportunities are there in this instance. For the record I fall into neither category.
    I will suggest though that when a company pays for the qualification they generally want something in return - more work from you (which I expect) or have some sort of tie-in. I have experienced the latter when I had to stay with the company for a set number of years before they didn't want me to pay back in monetry terms. I was happy to accept these terms.
    The main point though, as others continue to share, is that this is a qualification that has been, by some, an easy way to boost the coffers without any long term real return. I still think the idea is valid but do think that folks should have been targeted to become CTs.
  14. holdingon

    holdingon Occasional commenter

    it is not about them doing more work -it is about them doing things in a way that really makes
    a difference for the end consumer -the child
  15. jonowen

    jonowen Occasional commenter

    Not quite true sbf, my husband and son are both CEs and needed that qualification to be elligible to apply for promoted positions within the company they worked for. I believed CT was going that way and that in the future it would be a requirement for future promotion - how wrong.
  16. Freddie92

    Freddie92 New commenter

    Firstly the argument about time. Let's be brutally honest in that people think that hard work equates coming in early and staying late. People who leave early are frowned upon. It is a fact.
    Also with regards to great teachers, there is an old guy in our department who gets superb results but he is very, VERY old fashioned. No AiFL or groupwork. He basically performs didactic teaching the WHOLE time. Yes the kids do get bored, but he gets results.
    He once got an observed lesson from a DHT who slated him. The guy is a conserved PT who is a living legend in the school and I think this was wrong. Ok so he doesn't do lesson starters or put his lesson aims up on the board, but whatever he does (perhaps it is just his personality) kids love him and do really well in his classes, in particular his Higher class.
    I do think Chartered Teachers should have some kind of whole school remit. That is the simple way to sort out the skivers and let the people who do work hard continue to be rewarded.

    And sbf I don't know too much about Chartered Engineers (I have friends who are in Engineering but none of them are CE, at least they have never mentioned it) but I do know a few Chartered Accountants. They need this qualification to get more pay and promotion. Many higher level jobs will demand an applicant has the CA qualification.
    Perhaps to become a PT one should first become a CT?
  17. Freddie92

    Freddie92 New commenter

    Yeah I thought they were going down the Australian route.
    I only started CT recently but now I feel I will have to go down the promotional route. Which would be fine if there were lots of opportunities, but sadly they are very hard to find.
    I do think McCormac could have saved money by removing promoted salaries for Guidance. If they are going to remove CT salaries, why not the Department of Cuddles?
  18. Packupyertroubl

    Packupyertroubl New commenter

    Hi there, I'm afraid I have to agree with cochrane1964, I feel that groups are beingpicked off, one by one. CT's are going to be sacrificed to 'the economic downturn,' just like conserved PT salaries, sick pay, Supply pointages- 5 days on Grade 0, then back to your normal POint on the Scale. I'm sorry, but there were (I know this point has been made before but I'm going to make it again....) many many teachers who voted a resounding 'Yes' to the ballot letter the EIS sent out, proposing to accept the Scottish Joint Negot Comittee (spelling who cares?) proposals, which were all very damaging. So, we let our union dictate to us.... and now, only now, CT's are moaning about the sacrifices they had to make to get their MA's, etc, YES you should be paid more, but NO you're not going to be treated fairly, and YES there was FAR too much complacency about the Vote on new proposals that attack lots of' ' small groups' as cochrn 64 said, and YES there has been a MASS EXODUS, quite rightly, from the EIS (who are now trying to bribe folk back into the union with various carrots...) as a result. I left and joined the SSTA in March 2011.
    So, what are you all going to do about it? Why not strike with the other Workers, St Andrew's Day (as the news is today) over pensions, and lump in the Issue of Attacks on the contracts of Scottish Teachers? IF you really care about what happens to teachers next, you WILL strike. If you are too busy shopping online, you'll happily let the Local Education Authority trample all over you. Time to open up those peepers and those nostrils, wake up and SMELL the coffee, folks......
  19. kibosh

    kibosh Star commenter

    I know this off topic but I really hate this whole culture of distrust and intense pressure to conform to a mentality; live to work, not work to live . . . . repeat after me, 'your job is your life, it's not just a job, it's your raison d'etre'. You are not trusted to work at home, you are not treated as a professional or as an adult. But you can stay in till 5 every night drinking tea, eating cakes and gossiping and that's fine. If you dare to request permission (and i mean requesting permission, and not just notifying SMT) to sign out last period of the day, you are a skiver . . . . . don't understand why it's so hard to believe that a person doing this, is in fact going home to WORK and to work for much longer than 50 blo.ody minutes. Bah!
  20. Dominie

    Dominie New commenter

    Here's why Chartered Teacher was eradicated ...
    1. CTs were self selecting. That was the whole point of course. A scheme which allowed HTs or LAs to control access would very rapidly have led to the CT becoming just another promoted post and in some schools, a crawlers' Chartered Teacher. Modifications were made in the application process allowing Head Teacher veto (subject to use of grievance by the prospective CT) but by that time the Heidies had it in their sights.
    2. CTs are expensive plus see above. No employer wants an account book which contains an element of expenditure which cannot be predicted. The only predictable thing about CT is that it would become a bigger expense as time went by.
    3. Other Promoted posts hated it. Rather shameful perhaps but there was a lot of resentment from PTs/ DHTs and HTs that CTs could get extra cash without doing nextra work. Yes, I know the answer for such people is "Stop doing the extra work!" but that's not how small minded people like that think.
    4. Some CTs are **** teachers. It has to be said. Because the scheme was self selecting and awarded by unis for academic work, some CTs who were / are less than effective in the classroom ended up with fat increases while very effective teachers in the next classroom gort nowt.
    I regret the passing of CT. I think the people who axed it have shown a real lack of understanding about the potential of the scheme. I also think that the flaws which it undoubtedly possessed, would have been worked out of the system in time.
    We are now left with a situation where the maximum an unpromoted teacher will ever earn is £34k in 2011 values. That cannot be right. Especially when the Committee seems to favour short term promotions which will inevitably lead to disastrous competition between staff and a complete lack of accountability of staff who get short term PT contracts.
    I am usually a fairly optimistic person but I cannot se any good comming from these proposals.

Share This Page