Career as Teacher

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.

Scholar talk a lot and make u feel good but no solution

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.

When HQ policy officers come with new policies, we are accused of being not grounded, elitist etc and when we suggest EOs to feedback and propose sustainable solutions to advance the teaching service, we are accused of not doing our jobs by not proposing solutions.

No wonder EOs with such simplistic thinking will always be EOs and never able to transit to AO service.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

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.

Im not the person you are replying but I can see you are frustrated & feel misunderstood (work is tough we understand). But I think using timetabling comm as a comparison to class size for resource allocation difficulties is not a very valid comparison as timetabling comm constraints is partly cos of systemic induced constraints which the other person was asking for change, both sides want a more effective system, don't fight with your emotions and jiayou for your work!

Originally Posted by Unregistered

we are accused of being not grounded, elitist etc

Originally Posted by Unregistered

No wonder EOs with such simplistic thinking will always be EOs and never able to transit to AO service.

Mmmm yes.

You are the ones with not only the bird's eye view and the necessary information to develop concrete solutions, but also the responsiblity to comunicate the decision making process to stakeholders. That means telling EOs the truth about why certain controversial decisions are made. An earlier commenter posted something about the HK class sizes study - not all EOs may have the "sharp policy thinking" that defines the typical AO (hope the sarcasm wasn't lost there), but to cherry pick evidence is still insulting their intelligence.

Anyway it's not like we can become AOs if we didn't get a certain type of scholarship that was awarded based on a judgement of abilities at age 18. So there's also that.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Im not the person you are replying but I can see you are frustrated & feel misunderstood (work is tough we understand). But I think using timetabling comm as a comparison to class size for resource allocation difficulties is not a very valid comparison as timetabling comm constraints is partly cos of systemic induced constraints which the other person was asking for change, both sides want a more effective system, don't fight with your emotions and jiayou for your work!

Thanks. To put this in simple language for superscale senior management: "give us insufficient teachers, any timetabling comm will also drown, regardless of how good or experienced the TT comm is".

Originally Posted by Unregistered

When HQ policy officers come with new policies, we are accused of being not grounded, elitist etc and when we suggest EOs to feedback and propose sustainable solutions to advance the teaching service, we are accused of not doing our jobs by not proposing solutions.

No wonder EOs with such simplistic thinking will always be EOs and never able to transit to AO service.

Wow sibei satki men this dog

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Wow sibei satki men this dog

Quite common. MOE HQ is full of elitist non-EOs who look down on EOs, including superscale EOs that are holding senior management positions and want them out of HQ. Elitist AOs irritating, but hai hao, because AOs actually need to be made of something to make it to that level. But you also have elitist MXs who are scared of EOs snatching their rice bowls, lmfao. Fxking jokes.

HQ talks about sense-making the policies. Yes. You are right. We can put in more effort to rationalize the decision-making process. However, certain explanation given due to systemic constraints which the ground officers are striving to improve does not piece up the whole picture. TT comm may not be the best analogy, but a sound one. How are you going to strive to improve without acknowledging the constraints faced? Not enough classrooms to go around then how can we support reduced class size? Do we expand the school premise? These are the perimeters all of us have to consider. The wishes have to be grounded and practicable.

All of us, regardless you are Senior Management, Middle Management, HQ Directors/Officers, Teachers, MX Officers and EAS are seeking to improve the system. No system is perfect but all of us can try to appreciate the trade-offs when we consider a proposal.

HQ is encouraging cross-level deployment but she does not mandate it e.g. every JC/Sec school comes up with a quota of teachers to be transferred to Primary School. At least she is making effort to relieve the choked pipe.

If we can eventually overcome the systemic constraints one day, I will definitely applaud the move of reduced class size. For now, let us anchor on our own beliefs that we can make a change and do our best to educate our future generation.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

HQ talks about sense-making the policies. Yes. You are right. We can put in more effort to rationalize the decision-making process. However, certain explanation given due to systemic constraints which the ground officers are striving to improve does not piece up the whole picture. TT comm may not be the best analogy, but a sound one. How are you going to strive to improve without acknowledging the constraints faced? Not enough classrooms to go around then how can we support reduced class size? Do we expand the school premise? These are the perimeters all of us have to consider. The wishes have to be grounded and practicable.

All of us, regardless you are Senior Management, Middle Management, HQ Directors/Officers, Teachers, MX Officers and EAS are seeking to improve the system. No system is perfect but all of us can try to appreciate the trade-offs when we consider a proposal.

HQ is encouraging cross-level deployment but she does not mandate it e.g. every JC/Sec school comes up with a quota of teachers to be transferred to Primary School. At least she is making effort to relieve the choked pipe.

If we can eventually overcome the systemic constraints one day, I will definitely applaud the move of reduced class size. For now, let us anchor on our own beliefs that we can make a change and do our best to educate our future generation.

Just wanted to echo your position and affirm a voice of reason in this forum.

I think with sufficient rotation every year, a certain portion of teachers will get the opportunity to experience the challenges of policy planning. A good policy is not necessarily one that makes people happy. In fact, a good policy will likely make everyone unhappy a little. Finite resources means that someone will get more and some less.

Class sizes is one of those perennial topics that developed systems worldwide struggle with. I think one has to recognise that reducing class size is a complex endeavour - manpower, salaries, infrastructure, pedagogical imperative, career development, knockon impact on relevant sectors (social work, nursing, etc). It is costly to train, hire, and retain a teacher. There are no easy solutions. The low hanging fruits have been plucked already in the 80s and 90s.

I think we all have to reckon within ourselves whether we think it’s worth staying on in this endeavour. There are many jobs out there. Teaching is just one of them. If you leave, I’m pretty confident there will be eager applicants wanting to have your position. Let’s be thankful for what we have.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Quite common. MOE HQ is full of elitist non-EOs who look down on EOs, including superscale EOs that are holding senior management positions and want them out of HQ. Elitist AOs irritating, but hai hao, because AOs actually need to be made of something to make it to that level. But you also have elitist MXs who are scared of EOs snatching their rice bowls, lmfao. Fxking jokes.

Hierarchy in MOE: AO > MX > EO

Hard truth.