Career as Teacher

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hi All,

If my performance grade for this year was a C-, would this disadvantage me when I go for interviews with other schools during APEX?

Like will other interviewees have better prospects of being selected ahead of me?

You might be at a disadvantage, but how big the disadvantage is exactly will depend on the actual reason(s) for your C-, and also whether your Principal is petty and bears grudges, or if he/she is professional and objective if contacted for information by your prospective receiving P or Br Head.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hi, can check what is MX13(I) and MX14 equivalence in GEO scheme?

If you are asking because of the supplementary payment on top of the mid year bonus, all GEO2 and above will not receive such supplementary payments.

GEOs are not classified as lower salaried civil servants.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

\

Things are not as simple as we comprehend. There are a lot of dots needed to be connected to realize your above suggestions.

When you reduce class sizes, you need to consider the allocation of resource e.g. classrooms and facilities. Then you also have to consider beyond MOE, the inter-ministries' works e.g. urban planning and economic progression for the Nation. There are National imperatives to be weighed.

Blame on the declining birth rate. If you compare to the 80s and 90s, the educational landscapes back then were much simpler as we had sufficient kids to maintain the scale of operation. At least, MOE is not embarking on any retrenchment drives.

As an educator, we need to look at the situation objectively.

However, I acknowledge that MOE should look more intentionally into the mental-wellness of the teachers. Works can be all-around and daunting at times and the working pace appears to be moving faster with all the new approaches e.g. E-Pedagogy and regulations stacking up.

We need to continue streamlining the processes and if need be, revamp certain structures to support the teachers to move ahead.

Jiayou my fellow educators!

Blaming the declining birth rate is simply parroting what you’re told by your higher ups. Since you talk abt connecting the dots, how abt exercising what you preach regarding the declining birth rates?

If schools/MOE are willing and committed to improve the student to teacher ratio, the increase in quality of learning will reap benefits manyfolds. it might even spur our local population to consider starting families and having more kids.

the decision/policy makers took so much effort to emulate the education system of other developed countries (Finland etc) through overseas visits & observations etc, but somehow stopped short of modelling (or conveniently ignored) the classroom size in such countries.

the change in student teacher ratio will definitely impact other national considerations. but since we claim we care so much abt our pple’s education, then those other national considerations need to be readjusted accordingly.

i’m not a disgruntled educator. there’re many merits in Singapore’s education system. however, it’s not a perfect one, and there’s much more that can be done. as much as we try to encourage our students to be critical thinkers, we ourselves need to be one. otherwise this echo chamber syndrome will lead us to a vicious cycle of self detriment

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Blame on the declining birth rate. If you compare to the 80s and 90s, the educational landscapes back then were much simpler as we had sufficient kids to maintain the scale of operation. At least, MOE is not embarking on any retrenchment drives.

As an educator, we need to look at the situation objectively.

This is horse ****. If MOE is going to keep their "excess" teachers on payroll, instead of moaning about the excess, they can reduce the class sizes. If they want to reduce the education service's draw on the labour pool, then retrench teachers or provide incentives for them to jump to other areas of civil/public service, or provide incentives for private sector employers to take in teachers.

Since they already have the teachers and are not intending to forcibly downsize (read: retrench), then why not deploy them meaningfully?

Or is it because we afraid that in the future, we might become too accustomed to the improved teacher wellbeing and student outcomes that it becomes too difficult to turn back..?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Blaming the declining birth rate is simply parroting what you’re told by your higher ups. Since you talk abt connecting the dots, how abt exercising what you preach regarding the declining birth rates?

If schools/MOE are willing and committed to improve the student to teacher ratio, the increase in quality of learning will reap benefits manyfolds. it might even spur our local population to consider starting families and having more kids.

the decision/policy makers took so much effort to emulate the education system of other developed countries (Finland etc) through overseas visits & observations etc, but somehow stopped short of modelling (or conveniently ignored) the classroom size in such countries.

the change in student teacher ratio will definitely impact other national considerations. but since we claim we care so much abt our pple’s education, then those other national considerations need to be readjusted accordingly.

i’m not a disgruntled educator. there’re many merits in Singapore’s education system. however, it’s not a perfect one, and there’s much more that can be done. as much as we try to encourage our students to be critical thinkers, we ourselves need to be one. otherwise this echo chamber syndrome will lead us to a vicious cycle of self detriment

Idealistic suggestions but lack of concrete solutions. As a start, volunteer yourself in your school's timetabling committee then you will truly understand the constraints and struggle of resource allocation.

All of us can agree that no system is perfect but what we can do is to strike a nice balance between idealism and reality. We are not blindly following the Senior Management but like you say, we need to be critical yet honest to face the harsh realities we are in.

Walk through the fire so that you may reach your calling.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This is horse ****. If MOE is going to keep their "excess" teachers on payroll, instead of moaning about the excess, they can reduce the class sizes. If they want to reduce the education service's draw on the labour pool, then retrench teachers or provide incentives for them to jump to other areas of civil/public service, or provide incentives for private sector employers to take in teachers.

Since they already have the teachers and are not intending to forcibly downsize (read: retrench), then why not deploy them meaningfully?

Or is it because we afraid that in the future, we might become too accustomed to the improved teacher wellbeing and student outcomes that it becomes too difficult to turn back..?

I agree with you that MOE can work harder towards deploying the teachers meaningfully. However, how to quantify meaningfully Meaningfully is subjective to individual. Create more positions? Reduce class sizes? Provide incentives to transit to Stat boards/Ministries? Good ideas but what are the methodologies behind? How are the demand and supply of other Stat Boards/Ministries? How can we intentionally reach an equilibrium of the workforce figures across the Civil Service?

Yes. I agree all of us should work towards a better future but let us think deeper to come up with a sound proposal of reducing class size.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hi All,

If my performance grade for this year was a C-, would this disadvantage me when I go for interviews with other schools during APEX?

Like will other interviewees have better prospects of being selected ahead of me?

No definitely. I was a D grader back then as my RO don't like me. I complained to MOE and changed a RO. Then I applied for open posting. I managed to get another school which my new principal asked me to forget about the past. It is quite true when people say, "Don't stay at a place which don't value and appreciate you. Go to a place where people value you and appreciate you." I am working as hard as I used to be but I am happier at the new school. Good leaders don't look at your grades. They can see your strength which your old school leaders could not see. So, go to a new place which the new school cherish you. Don't suffer in silence, get out quickly. Start anew in a new school.

Originally Posted by miwashi

Teaching is considered a professional field. It has prospects but is very demanding and they expect you to be perfect. Sort of like, teacher must be perfect role model and cannot go to club, teacher cannot smoke, teacher cannot have sex, etc.

I'm exaggerating, of course.

If you're planning to do a phd you can probably end up as a principal very fast. But then it becomes admin rather than teaching. Of course, as a teacher nowadays it's still more admin than teaching too. You've got to juggle all the involvement in all kinds of committees and actual teaching.

There was this joke a friend told me last time.. it was something like, "so this school has best volleyball team, best this, best that, has Singapore Quality Class certification, and produced the top O level scorer. But do they still educate children about what living life is about?"

To learn such a thing you cannot join clubs that are considered "competitive"

Basically all the clubs that bring medals every year

No sinkie parent will allow their kid to do that

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I agree with you that MOE can work harder towards deploying the teachers meaningfully. However, how to quantify meaningfully Meaningfully is subjective to individual. Create more positions? Reduce class sizes? Provide incentives to transit to Stat boards/Ministries? Good ideas but what are the methodologies behind? How are the demand and supply of other Stat Boards/Ministries? How can we intentionally reach an equilibrium of the workforce figures across the Civil Service?

Yes. I agree all of us should work towards a better future but let us think deeper to come up with a sound proposal of reducing class size.

Sorry, these methodologies are what we pay you high flying scholars to develop. Superscale officers constantly parroting the notion of "excess teachers", yet expecting timescale EOs to be the one to propose workable solutions? Wake up. Perhaps glide back down to earth and walk the ground for a while to revisit the challenges of being a classroom teacher again.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Sorry, these methodologies are what we pay you high flying scholars to develop. Superscale officers constantly parroting the notion of "excess teachers", yet expecting timescale EOs to be the one to propose workable solutions? Wake up. Perhaps glide back down to earth and walk the ground for a while to revisit the challenges of being a classroom teacher again.

Agree. These highly paid officers are also constantly citing the same 2009 Hong Kong study as cherry-picked evidence for no benefit to smaller class sizes, but ignoring the wider body of international evidence to the contrary. If the reason is really to do with the high draw down on the labour force why are the political office holders and the senior management refusing to just be upfront about it?