| Unregistered |
12-09-2022 07:59 PM |
honestly,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
(Post 230123)
I don’t think KPs will mind if the pay gap is narrowed. Aren’t they in this role because of their passion? Lol
|
QUOTE=Unregistered;230155]paying handsomely to attract talent is the same narrative put forth by the men in white. it has not proven to be true. on the contrary, such approach only perpetuates echo chamber syndrome.
you want real, bright future? take a leaf from the old guards. make an effort to genuinely understand the ground sentiments and take bold steps.[/QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
(Post 230157)
Wrong analogy. We're comparing middle management jobs here, of which there are equivalents in the public and the private sectors. The MIW narrative that you are referring to has no equivalent. What do you compare a ministerial portfolio with? A C-suite position? That's like trying to land a Mars Rover on Uranus.
Agree with the management philosophy of going closer to the ground. But any Tom, Dick or Harry can put on a show and literally walk the ground often, asking his secretary to take down everyone's complaints. But whether it translates into real change requires managerial talent, not just showmanship. And again, talent isn't cheap. You want the cream of the crop in management & policymaking talent, or any other specific kind of talent at all, you cough up the $$$$$. Simple.
|
interesting that some still believe that money attracts the right policy makers in public education. it has been proven time and again that money cannot buy you the right talent. at best, you'll get class95FM mercenaries who'll only show you what you want to see.
do away with the scholar-parachuting, and allow leaders to rise from the ground. as idealistic as it sound, to groom right leaders, money is secondary. once gap between management and non-management is narrowed, i bet you teacher's morale will rise. there'll be less of needless events to fill up someone's KPI |
