Career as Teacher

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I think we could all agree we are all in awe with your salary progression.

7.4k for 8 YOE is like a godsend... people I know around that same years of service are at best mid 6k+

Clarification: the year refers to year as KP, not YOE…

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I think we could all agree we are all in awe with your salary progression.

7.4k for 8 YOE is like a godsend... people I know around that same years of service are at best mid 6k+

You may have misread the original post. The salary progression charted is counting the years from appointment as a KP - so Y1 is GEO3 (not stated how many years in subgrade). The 7.4k is the 8 years as KP + X years as non-KP.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I think we could all agree we are all in awe with your salary progression.

7.4k for 8 YOE is like a godsend... people I know around that same years of service are at best mid 6k+

Read carefully.

It is 7.4k AFTER 8 years of being a KP.

NOT 8 YOE.

If factor in the YOE before appointed as KP, should be around 10-12 YOE

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I’ve been following these arguments with some interest. My initial response was, yes of course! Officers who take on management roles should be promoted to the corresponding subgrade! If not immediately, then within 1-2 years at latest!

In practice, reflecting on my own path, I wonder if that would necessarily make that big a difference - especially if under such a scheme, officers are pegged near the bottom of the pay scale. We should keep in mind that the different subgrades have overlapping pay scales.

I was only promoted to SEO1 eight years after taking on an SH role. This all happened sometime ago (back when payslips were emailed, which allowed me to check back more easily haha) so certain things like GEO4 requirement weren’t in place yet. For simplicity, I’ve reported subgrades using the new terminology, and used Apr salary (post increment) for reference.

My KP journey
Y1: GEO3 5.1k
Y2: GEO4 5.6k
Y3: GEO4 5.8k
Y4: GEO5 6.3k
Y5: GEO5 6.7k
Y6: GEO5 6.9k
Y7: GEO5 7.2k
Y8: SEO1 7.4k

Given that the SEO1 range was just 5651-9064 at the time… I'd actually already entered the SEO1 range in my second/third year as KP. Having a lower subgrade probably also allowed me to score higher increments easily as I wasn't ranked against other KP.

So… even though I'd of course have preferred receiving an instant pay raise to my Y8 salary point, I don't think I lost out terribly under the current system… Is there perhaps too much attention on the subgrade label, when it's the actual take-home that should matter (from a financial perspective), at the end of the day? As long as you're not hitting the cap yet, what's the rush?

BUT you get a responsibility allowance?
How many YIS in all?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

GEO is ultimately a timescale position. FOR RANK AND FILE TEACHERS. (Caps to emphasise)
SEO is created for Middle Management, with every paygrade clearly pegged to an appointment. SEO1 for LH, SH, AYH; SEO2 for HODs; SEO3 for VPs; and superscale for Ps.

Yes, maybe it is fair for workers to prove their capability before officially promoting them. But people shouldn't be undercut by so many paygrades.

If GEO3 is tasked to do GEO4 work, and after 1 year of showing that they can handle GEO4 work, promote them already! To intentionally keep someone at a lower paygrade, and demand greater responsibilities without the corresponding pay, is exploitation.

And what we are seeing is exploitation on a grand scale.

Nobody should be asked to do things many levels above their paygrades, without the due compensation. It is so common to see GEO4s doing SEO1,SEO2 roles, and being stuck in those roles without being promoted.

If they are really incompetent, give the KP role to the next person. If they are competent to hold that role, they should be promoted as such.

And given the size of the teacher population, it is ridiculous that schools cannot find KP replacements from among staff with more appropriate paygrades.

In private sector, if someone is deemed capable of holding a certain appointment, they will be paid the appropriate salary of that position immediately. E.g. Managerial role will come with managerial pay. No such nonsense as paying managers executive -level salaries for them to 'prove their competency'.

Ur pegging of SEO 3 to VP is DEFINITELY WRONG. My HOD signs off on my EPMS form and it reads SEO 3. HOD.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

BUT you get a responsibility allowance?
How many YIS in all?

Ppl keep mentioning responsibility allowance, but it’s really quite peanuts lah. Maybe 1-3k for SH per year? From financial POV, it’s the accelerated promotion and increments that will make a bigger difference.

In case OP doesn’t respond - based on starting point, I’m guessing she was appointed at 4-5 YOE?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Ur pegging of SEO 3 to VP is DEFINITELY WRONG. My HOD signs off on my EPMS form and it reads SEO 3. HOD.

Do yourself a favour, go to MOE Intranet on your SSOE and use the search bar at the top to look for a document called "Work Review Form (Closed Section)". Scroll down to the CEP section. Before you continue to embarrass yourself here.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Ppl keep mentioning responsibility allowance, but it’s really quite peanuts lah. Maybe 1-3k for SH per year? From financial POV, it’s the accelerated promotion and increments that will make a bigger difference.

In case OP doesn’t respond - based on starting point, I’m guessing she was appointed at 4-5 YOE?

Yep, the figures you gave are about right. For exact figures, go to intranet, there is a whole site about RA. GEO5 SH get less than GEO4 SH. But the amount paid per year to a GEO4 SH is not even half a promotion's worth of extra salary.

If you visit the intranet pages about RA, interestingly and very worryingly, there is a provision on that page for a GEO4 vice-principal, lol. I hope nobody is actually a victim of this level of wage theft.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Ur pegging of SEO 3 to VP is DEFINITELY WRONG. My HOD signs off on my EPMS form and it reads SEO 3. HOD.

Stupid or stupid? HOD can be SEO2 or SEO3 depending on scope of their portfolio(s). VP can be SEO3 or Sup H, again depending on the scope of their portfolio. So confident until all caps

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Ur pegging of SEO 3 to VP is DEFINITELY WRONG. My HOD signs off on my EPMS form and it reads SEO 3. HOD.

Everyone say hi to the BT