 |
|
13-02-2023, 05:58 PM
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
2020- promotion to GEO3 grade C+ for work done in 2019 (practicum year)
2021- grade B for work done in 2020
2022- promotion to GEO4 grade A for wek done in 2021
2023-???
Just a lowly tsl in case anyone thinks I'm a high flyer
|
that previous post was asking from the poor soul who was stuck at GEO3 for 7 years la
|
13-02-2023, 06:14 PM
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Think of this way, every school need a large group of teachers who are contented to be HOT and not HOD, since there are always classes to teach.
The school cannot make all of them go on the leadership track, there is simply not enough vacancies.
So because of the existence of this large group, there is room for groups of young and ambitious teachers to show their potential to be in leadership.
|
But there has to be basic requirements to be met to draw a substantial salary. It's not even about KP vs non KP yet. Just like how a BT has a lighter workload at GEO2, there should also be differentiated requirements between the 5, 4 and 3.
By the way, in the past the ministry kept mentioning in the news that resignations should be kept minimal because "experienced teachers are valuable". Look around you and reflect on whether this is indeed true? Are these old birds truly helping out? Or they just want to do minimal work to achieve their "work life balance"?
If a GEO5 does not want to shoulder extra workload at his appointment level - demote back to 4 to be fair in compensation. Or half the salary and go for part time scheme. Or go be FAJT. If not, immediately risk getting slapped with a C- or D. Otherwise wouldn't their high salaries be draining the Ministry's budget when the productivity is like crap? While a 3 or 4 who chooses to take on his extra workload be rewarded with higher PB or accelerated progression.
|
13-02-2023, 06:59 PM
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
But there has to be basic requirements to be met to draw a substantial salary. It's not even about KP vs non KP yet. Just like how a BT has a lighter workload at GEO2, there should also be differentiated requirements between the 5, 4 and 3.
By the way, in the past the ministry kept mentioning in the news that resignations should be kept minimal because "experienced teachers are valuable". Look around you and reflect on whether this is indeed true? Are these old birds truly helping out? Or they just want to do minimal work to achieve their "work life balance"?
If a GEO5 does not want to shoulder extra workload at his appointment level - demote back to 4 to be fair in compensation. Or half the salary and go for part time scheme. Or go be FAJT. If not, immediately risk getting slapped with a C- or D. Otherwise wouldn't their high salaries be draining the Ministry's budget when the productivity is like crap? While a 3 or 4 who chooses to take on his extra workload be rewarded with higher PB or accelerated progression.
|
They can still get C grade because they achieve what is described in the C grade column of the KRAs table for GEO5.
So maybe the KRAs do not realistically reflect all the extra sh&t that teachers have to shoulder in recent times? Maybe the KRAs need to be reviewed to include all those, too. Then you will start to see slackers penalised for not pulling their weight in the modern teaching landscape.
|
13-02-2023, 07:55 PM
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
The question that should instead be asked, is why are lower-ranking officers expected to take on responsibilities way above their paygrade in order to promote? Shouldn't promotion be assessed based on how well someone is doing their job at their paygrade?
|
Not my own opinion: according to pretty much everyone at MOE, promotion is assessed based on an officer's readiness to perform at the next level (i.e. at the grade that they wish to be promoted to). If you perform up to the expectations of your current grade, and not beyond, there is no reason to promote you.
Of course, I agree more with what you said, but this silly practice seems to be public service wide. I guess it is too 'risky' to pay someone a little bit more if they haven't yet proven that they can excel at the next level, lol.
|
13-02-2023, 08:42 PM
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Not my own opinion: according to pretty much everyone at MOE, promotion is assessed based on an officer's readiness to perform at the next level (i.e. at the grade that they wish to be promoted to). If you perform up to the expectations of your current grade, and not beyond, there is no reason to promote you.
Of course, I agree more with what you said, but this silly practice seems to be public service wide. I guess it is too 'risky' to pay someone a little bit more if they haven't yet proven that they can excel at the next level, lol. |
This is a toxic mentality that is creating suffering.
Like someone commented in a previous reply, a 'slacking' GEO5 is still getting a C because they are still meeting the KRAs for GEO5.
What is wrong with doing so? A GEO5 doing GEO5 job they are paid for.
The person is doing exactly what the job responsibilities described.
From the posts here, many will feel that the GEO5 is not pulling their weight. It seems quite terrible to see that many have been conditioned and brainwashed to feel that everyone should do above and beyond the KRAs for their paygrade, to the point whereby someone who is doing as per what the KRAs described is perceived as underperforming.
Let's not forget that underperforming refers to failure to perform up to the descriptors in the KRAs.
If someone feels that they are not ready to take on greater responsibilities at a higher paygrade, they have an option to decline the promotion. Just like how GEO5s can decline to be promoted to SEO1, the option exists for all paygrades in the civil service.
And should the person accept the paygrade, but is incompetent and unable to meet the KRAs, that's what the C- and D grades are for. These are the tools built into the system, but is perverted by the management, who do not use them as intended.
Managers are appraised by how well they manage their JHs, and having to give bad appraisals make them look bad. Having to terminate people from civil service makes Ps look worse. Underperformers end up being kept as sacrificial lambs to rotate between C- and D. Teaching is ultimately a frontline job, and how do you teach and do your job well if you are not around half the time? If your health is that bad, it's time to change job. It's frustrating to take over the workload of absentee colleagues who are always on MC, UPA, HL, NPL and yet still get a C grade and keep their job.
|
14-02-2023, 01:15 AM
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
2020- promotion to GEO3 grade C+ for work done in 2019 (practicum year)
2021- grade B for work done in 2020
2022- promotion to GEO4 grade A for wek done in 2021
2023-???
Just a lowly tsl in case anyone thinks I'm a high flyer
|
How did u manage to promote From 3 to 4 in 2 years???! What are some high impact work you’ve done in sch?
|
14-02-2023, 08:39 PM
|
|
|
Why my payslip no longer reminds me monthly that im a lowly geo3??
|
14-02-2023, 10:03 PM
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
it only started this month? maybe promoted liao but u not informed yet
|
Yea only started this month.. u all can see ur subgrade still???
|
14-02-2023, 10:07 PM
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Yea only started this month.. u all can see ur subgrade still???
|
Mine's hidden… looks like they backdated all the past slips too; can't see there anymore.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
» 30 Recent Threads |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
