Career as Teacher

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I love how you think. It will ensure that our middle management landscape will continue to be dominated by status-quo-worshipping yes-men with mediocre ability and zero prospects in the private sector. Bright future ahead for the education service indeed.

Pay peanuts, get monkeys.

Private sector all rebels?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Like seriously r the pple here supposedly old timers who actually do not know? It’s years of service 700….but they smart put in payslip so it’s cpf deductible etc hence actual amount you get is 500. Those fewer years service get 500…minus cpf actual amt is less.

Haha it’s really 500, after cpf it’s 400 for Geo 4 and below.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

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]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

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

s://mothership.sg/2022/09/chan-chun-sing-retaining-teachers-salary/

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I love how you think. It will ensure that our middle management landscape will continue to be dominated by status-quo-worshipping yes-men with mediocre ability and zero prospects in the private sector. Bright future ahead for the education service indeed.

Pay peanuts, get monkeys.

nice parroting. goh chok tong used the peanuts and monkey analogy way back during his parliament speech in 1993.

how do you show your love for the lightning party without telling others you love them? keep repeating and defending what they say lor. why bother to think. the irony.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

s://mothership.sg/2022/09/chan-chun-sing-retaining-teachers-salary/

Comparing the 10 year period between 2010 and 2020, Chan said that the PTR of primary schools had gone from 19 to 15, and in secondary schools from 16 to 12;

Where on earth did he get this figure from? The only time I had classes with 15 was with one batch of sec5s

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Comparing the 10 year period between 2010 and 2020, Chan said that the PTR of primary schools had gone from 19 to 15, and in secondary schools from 16 to 12;

Where on earth did he get this figure from? The only time I had classes with 15 was with one batch of sec5s

Total number of students divided by total number of teaching staff. Which obviously is a very misleading piece of data to focus on.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Comparing the 10 year period between 2010 and 2020, Chan said that the PTR of primary schools had gone from 19 to 15, and in secondary schools from 16 to 12;

Where on earth did he get this figure from? The only time I had classes with 15 was with one batch of sec5s

Teacher to student ratio =/= class size.
Simple example is if a school has 3 teachers to 36 students the PTR is 1:12 but each teacher will still be teaching a class of 36 students for 1/3 of the day...

Our education minister using stats to mislead public...

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Teacher to student ratio =/= class size.
Simple example is if a school has 3 teachers to 36 students the PTR is 1:12 but each teacher will still be teaching a class of 36 students for 1/3 of the day...

Our education minister using stats to mislead public...

PTR is commonly used internationally as a metric. The key message, that there are now more teachers per student in school, remains. Agreed that it is a smaller (and therefore nicer) number to report on, as compared to class size.

I'll just assume the statistic itself is true - wonder where the extra manpower is going, then? Haven't really seen my total number of students, or number of teaching periods, going down in the past 10 years… or maybe my teaching subject is just suay.

Well done monkey chan