Career as Teacher

Originally Posted by Unregistered

not like you can demand for the interview right?
if you need SL approval/recommendation in order to be considered/interviewed then you also have to accept whatever crap they put as prerequisite (eg. internal appt) right?

That’s why you can take charge by applying for appointments during open posting or go the HQ route. In that way, you don’t have to do whatever internal appointment.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

That’s why you can take charge by applying for appointments during open posting or go the HQ route. In that way, you don’t have to do whatever internal appointment.

Not easy to convince SLs in other schools to give you a chance if you have nothing substantial to show for. Even for HQ officers, they can fail the interviews if they cannot convince the panel that they are ready. Not as straightforward as you have portrayed…

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Not easy to convince SLs in other schools to give you a chance if you have nothing substantial to show for. Even for HQ officers, they can fail the interviews if they cannot convince the panel that they are ready. Not as straightforward as you have portrayed…

So the question is: why are you expected to have something to "show for" before you even get any experience in that appointment? It's like interviewing a Teacher for a SH position and questioning why the teacher has no SH work experience. The panel should be looking for dispositions, attitude and readiness to learn, not prior experience. It's almost like telling fresh grads that to land their first permanent position, they have to work for free for a while first to gain experience at low risk to the company, before they dare to demand a salary for the same work.

If you don't give people a chance and the right resources to perform, you are doing them an injustice. The internal appointment trend has to die. SLs have to be more willing to take risks on promising individuals with the right dispositions, rather than being obsessed with seeing track records of work done in so-called "stretch appointments" which are really underpayment for extra work done beyond the subgrade's fair deployment guidelines.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

So the question is: why are you expected to have something to "show for" before you even get any experience in that appointment? It's like interviewing a Teacher for a SH position and questioning why the teacher has no SH work experience. The panel should be looking for dispositions, attitude and readiness to learn, not prior experience. It's almost like telling fresh grads that to land their first permanent position, they have to work for free for a while first to gain experience at low risk to the company, before they dare to demand a salary for the same work.

If you don't give people a chance and the right resources to perform, you are doing them an injustice. The internal appointment trend has to die. SLs have to be more willing to take risks on promising individuals with the right dispositions, rather than being obsessed with seeing track records of work done in so-called "stretch appointments" which are really underpayment for extra work done beyond the subgrade's fair deployment guidelines.

this trend or culture seems to have spread to the lower levels over the years already... its similar to how GEO3s need to carry the workload of GEO4s or GEO5s in order to "promote faster", while the existing old GEO5s will refuse these workload but still collecting their high salaries at the same time

essentially the bar for every promotion or higher appointment gets raised higher and higher every few years. no wonder many GEO3s seem to be leaving...

Originally Posted by Unregistered

So the question is: why are you expected to have something to "show for" before you even get any experience in that appointment? It's like interviewing a Teacher for a SH position and questioning why the teacher has no SH work experience. The panel should be looking for dispositions, attitude and readiness to learn, not prior experience. It's almost like telling fresh grads that to land their first permanent position, they have to work for free for a while first to gain experience at low risk to the company, before they dare to demand a salary for the same work.

If you don't give people a chance and the right resources to perform, you are doing them an injustice. The internal appointment trend has to die. SLs have to be more willing to take risks on promising individuals with the right dispositions, rather than being obsessed with seeing track records of work done in so-called "stretch appointments" which are really underpayment for extra work done beyond the subgrade's fair deployment guidelines.

To me its chicken and egg - if you dont take on stetch appt, then how to show ur dispositions while the normal sch operations continue.?

I wish what you described is true..

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Not easy to convince SLs in other schools to give you a chance if you have nothing substantial to show for. Even for HQ officers, they can fail the interviews if they cannot convince the panel that they are ready. Not as straightforward as you have portrayed…

If you have been a consistent good teacher who brings in good results, have stellar achievements for your CCA and committee, I don’t see why they won’t give you a chance. Interviews aren’t difficult if you know your abilities and can speak well. You must also know your purpose in pursuing a leadership track. If you are unsure, you can’t convince.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

this trend or culture seems to have spread to the lower levels over the years already... its similar to how GEO3s need to carry the workload of GEO4s or GEO5s in order to "promote faster", while the existing old GEO5s will refuse these workload but still collecting their high salaries at the same time

essentially the bar for every promotion or higher appointment gets raised higher and higher every few years. no wonder many GEO3s seem to be leaving...

No cap..... CCS pls take note!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Paper exercise. Doesn’t mean anything. Epms forms are just for filing. People only review it if there is a complaint or contest for perf grade.

OK. I just changed schools and the way that my new RO writes their comments in very different than my previous RO. More positive for sure so I was wondering whether it means anything.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

If you have been a consistent good teacher who brings in good results, have stellar achievements for your CCA and committee, I don’t see why they won’t give you a chance. Interviews aren’t difficult if you know your abilities and can speak well. You must also know your purpose in pursuing a leadership track. If you are unsure, you can’t convince.

Just because someone produces good results and contributed in a CCA doesn't mean that they are a good leader. It's perfectly normal for a good worker to make a terrible leader. Hence, having an internal appointment would provide both sides with some idea of the person's capability.

Sometimes P's hands are tied. there's now a soft hr rule that says that eos must be of a certain age before being formally appointed. Till then, you are appointed internally.