Career as Teacher

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This scenario has been bugging me for a while.

Let's say there are 2 teachers X and Y. X joined service later than Y, but had a few years of consistent good performance (B grade and above). Got promoted from GEO3 to GEO4 within 3 years. After promotion but before adjustment, salary was about 5.7k. After adjustment, about 6k.

Y is an average performer with mostly C, occasional C+. Still at GEO3 after 7 years. Before adjustment, salary was about 5.2k. After adjustment, about 5.7k. Y is due for promotion to GEO4 next year, hence estimated salary next April will be ~6.1k.

Assuming that the current MI amounts continue, salary of X next April will be about 6.1k - about the same as Y.

In this case, the adjustment has simply written off the differentiation of the progression of good vs average performers, no? Would that still be fair to the good performers?

can only hope for geo4 MI to be higher and more competitive

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Yes, after factoring in adjustment, 7k is probably a more accurate amount now.

There will still be variation depending on with/without NS, degree with/without honours and performance grades over the years.

Yah. At 10-14 years, a farmer should be hitting GEO5.

Promotion damn slow.

Was near ceiling. Was a GEO 3 for 7 years then got GEO 4. Was stuck at ceiling for 3 years easily.

Just do the bare minimum. No raise, dont do. Force to do then take MC.

And if u at ceiling u only get promotion raise and no MI.

Same like all, RO all say good, but still C.

You are better off doing tuition and investing.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Promotion damn slow.

Was near ceiling. Was a GEO 3 for 7 years then got GEO 4. Was stuck at ceiling for 3 years easily.

Just do the bare minimum. No raise, dont do. Force to do then take MC.

And if u at ceiling u only get promotion raise and no MI.

Same like all, RO all say good, but still C.

You are better off doing tuition and investing.

Was the promotion triggered by HR after 7 years? Or initiated by SL, or have to sound out to HR? So just wait for the system...
was the 3 years ceiling included in the 7 years?
A GEO3 ceiling could be higher than a GEO5 salary. Just that no MI.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

But that IS the whole point about ranking isn’t it? And it sucks. It compares people ie same thing as bell curve! The whole ranking thing DOES make teaching toxic and put people against each other. Hence all the extra projects etc to make sure you ‘shine’ against others.
They want to make it fair then just like supposedly national exams, give PB by specific defined criteria….not have a ‘suggested’ 5% D grade which SLs actually follow to the t. That’s the worst thing…I know of people getting ‘technical D’ ie they didn’t get D initially but since they pushed to the bottom it becomes a technical D to suit the quota.

While appraising work performance, officers in the same subgrade are evaluated together and subsequently put into different baskets- A, B, C+ etc. It is a futile effort to try to outshine the others. I would rather look at the KRAs and set realistic expecations with my JHs given their aspiration. When it is time to rank them, they will naturally fall into the correct basket. It doesn’t mean that you do less work than another officer and the two are guaranteed different perf grades. We have to be practical, there is only this much time and energy everyone has.

FYI, D is not a must. It really depends on the SLs, and how deserving an officer is to be given an adverse grade.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

FYI, D is not a must. It really depends on the SLs, and how deserving an officer is to be given an adverse grade.

heard that if school doesn't give D, then must have at least 4 or 5 C-?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

heard that if school doesn't give D, then must have at least 4 or 5 C-?

If SLs want to fight tooth and nail so that nobody gets C-, it's also possible. But they have to be able to justify, and it's not always easy.

No D is fairly common.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

But that IS the whole point about ranking isn’t it? And it sucks. It compares people ie same thing as bell curve! The whole ranking thing DOES make teaching toxic and put people against each other. Hence all the extra projects etc to make sure you ‘shine’ against others.
They want to make it fair then just like supposedly national exams, give PB by specific defined criteria….not have a ‘suggested’ 5% D grade which SLs actually follow to the t. That’s the worst thing…I know of people getting ‘technical D’ ie they didn’t get D initially but since they pushed to the bottom it becomes a technical D to suit the quota.

This 'technical D' is blatant misinformation. Fake news. No such thing.

Justification must be provided about specifically why an officer deserves D. Grade distribution alone does not push someone from C- to D, there must be other factors.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This 'technical D' is blatant misinformation. Fake news. No such thing.

Justification must be provided about specifically why an officer deserves D. Grade distribution alone does not push someone from C- to D, there must be other factors.

Actually it really depends on SLs and the KP team. I have been in 2 schools. For 1 school, the P strongly believed that no teacher deserves a C- or D and fought hard at cluster level with Sup that everyone minimally deserves a C. It was done. It’s whether the P wants to do justice to the staff. That P really knew the staff well and was able to quote work done to justify at least a C for every single staff.

In my other sch, the ranking begins with let’s calculate the number of Ds we need to give if we do not want to give X number of C-. The SLs have already led ranking in this manner so sadly, some officers would be given a D. The definition of D is also vague. It’s just ‘not performing in comparison to peers’.

So don’t take ranking too seriously, life is more than just pb. If you ever feel unfair then appeal. Also, don’t just remain in the same place if you feel unjust. Change school. Who knows, you will meet the P that I mentioned in the first school.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This 'technical D' is blatant misinformation. Fake news. No such thing.

Justification must be provided about specifically why an officer deserves D. Grade distribution alone does not push someone from C- to D, there must be other factors.

Heard about Ds from these scenarios:

- Giving brutally honest feedback and KPs don't like it
- Taking multiple MCs throughout the year due to health issues
- Parental complaints for something minor, and SLs believe the parents/wish to appease the parents instead

Indeed Ds should be justified specifically. But depending on the humans that decide on it, it can still be subjective, and a rather grey area isn't it?

Just saying that not every human has the same "standard" for "justification".