Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 271178)

Just sharing a thought here eh. The teaching profession used to have only 2 SEO positions in school. The P and VP were the only ones with that grade. The rest will be teachers with time based promotion and a fixed MI every year. Bonus was very much also shared based on ranks. Back then was GEO1A1, 1A2, 2A1 … etc. Over the years, the political leadership felt that there is a need to identify good and bad performers and EPMS came about. That’s was 2008.

Now if you think about it as a system point of view, you are simply taking the bonus from the “poorer performer” and gave it to the “better performer” There is almost no additional resources required but it makes the people in the system worked harder than they used to. It becomes a grinder of sort. It might make sense in the corporate world where costing and revenue are immediate on a year on year basis. We are talking about kids here. Can we be very sure what you do now has a big impact? What are the matrix involved in looking at success? What happen when a wayward child became someone 20 years later and attributed his or her success to the teacher 20 years ago? Will the teacher be rewarded then?

The next question is you have to ask yourself how much are you willing to give to get to top 20? I agree with one recent comment on sustainability and costing. At the end of the day, there is little control over promotion and PB grades since there is so much more

I am in the ranking panel and have seen questions like that pop up all the time. However, I too stand to be corrected 🙂

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 271204)

Sorry, but many young ones are no longer dumb enough to fall for such dangling carrots.

Some have already banded together to get out of the rat race by rejecting extra workload and having a collective agreement to feedback to their ROs that they are not looking for high grades or promotions. If their ROs are okay with such arrangements, the extra workload gets automatically redirected to GEO5s since they command a higher salary and are at a higher grade. Due to this, some GEO5 get C- or D for poor performance, or ultimately rage quit.

This is quite a good way to get rid of people coasting actually. Young officers can consider banding together to do this.

But if the young officers also quit (not that its bad for them, since they are young and still have many opportunities out there), its a lose-lose situation for the entire Ministry.

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 271257)

I just want to point out that the reason why the PB bonus was changed to this way is exactly because people complained that hard working teachers were not recognised for the work that they did when bonuses were meted out via the salary grade. It's truly ironic that we're now back at wanting equal annual bonuses for everyone.

I guarantee that if we reverted to the old way, you'd see a different group complaining about how they get paid the same as their lazy counterparts.

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 271239)

Correct. Many delulu people posting on forum here, thinking that a few years of good performance grades can result in promotion. Promotion has never worked that way in the past and definitely not in future, esp when CEP system is abolished. Officers can find themselves in the same grade for many years even though they have “good” grades because they may be deemed to be not suitable for demonstrating competencies of next grade. Also from HR and org-level point of view, upward movement eg promotion is not the only way to develop careers now.

Times are changing fuys, get used to the new era in the civil service and also MOE

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 271204)

Sorry, but many young ones are no longer dumb enough to fall for such dangling carrots.

Some have already banded together to get out of the rat race by rejecting extra workload and having a collective agreement to feedback to their ROs that they are not looking for high grades or promotions. If their ROs are okay with such arrangements, the extra workload gets automatically redirected to GEO5s since they command a higher salary and are at a higher grade. Due to this, some GEO5 get C- or D for poor performance, or ultimately rage quit.

This is quite a good way to get rid of people coasting actually. Young officers can consider banding together to do this.

But if the young officers also quit (not that its bad for them, since they are young and still have many opportunities out there), its a lose-lose situation for the entire Ministry.

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 271270)

When will they start to rotate the Lao-Jiao?
Wow are you sure CEP is going to be abolished? .

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 271277)

Yes, CEP is going to be abolished. It's true.

But

Leadership Potential (LP) will replace CEP

*winks

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 271257)

I just want to point out that the reason why the PB bonus was changed to this way is exactly because people complained that hard working teachers were not recognised for the work that they did when bonuses were meted out via the salary grade. It's truly ironic that we're now back at wanting equal annual bonuses for everyone.

I guarantee that if we reverted to the old way, you'd see a different group complaining about how they get paid the same as their lazy counterparts.

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 271301)

old way or current way should make way for a new transparent and less subjective way. does anyone care about marking load or PE teachers getting same pb as non-PE teachers? even tuition rates are different depending on levels.