Career as Teacher

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Base salary may have bumped, but the reality is also that private sector don’t have mid year bonus, end year bonus, etc. done also don’t have 13th month bonus. For myself, base salary jumped 33% even from 6k at GEO4, but annual package actually comes up to quite the same. The real difference is that my pay per hour has shot up because I don’t need to work at night or weekends anymore.

My annual package in this company blows MOE's out of the water. The salary growth opportunities are also much better. For example, if you are promoted into a managerial role, you assume the managerial pay grade immediately. Don't have to grind through the pay scale one by one.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

As a so-called hi-po officer I was doing seo2-level work (covering HOD during COVID in 2020-21) while drawing approx 5k geo3 salary lol. Yes, got A grade for both years and fast promotion to geo4, but jumped to private sector for almost 35% salary bump.

So you got promoted AND an amazing performance grade for what you did. Sounds like u wera mply compensated then. So what were you expecting, to jump from geo3 to SEO1 immediately?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The mindset is that you need to prove that you’re able to take on the higher scope by actually doing it first, before they promote/pay you the compensation for that level of work. And not the other way round.

That, unfortunately, is how the system works.

So you want a system where people get promoted into positions BEFORE they show that they're capable?
Man, people complain that scholars get promoted/fast tracked even when they haven't proven themselves but then also complain when the system makes you prove your worth before giving you that post.

All this shows is that people have nothing against the scholar parachute system, they're just envious that they're not the beneficiary.

When does OPE end?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

So you got promoted AND an amazing performance grade for what you did. Sounds like u wera mply compensated then. So what were you expecting, to jump from geo3 to SEO1 immediately?

Do management work, pay management pay. Simple. Unless the officer cannot make it, then pay less.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Do management work, pay management pay. Simple. Unless the officer cannot make it, then pay less.

100% agreed.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

So you got promoted AND an amazing performance grade for what you did. Sounds like u wera mply compensated then. So what were you expecting, to jump from geo3 to SEO1 immediately?

If the officer's performance meets the C grade KRAs for a SEO1 subject head, there is no reason for them to dilly dally at GEO4 or GEO5.

What does it signal? That age is the major determinant of salary, rather than capability, performance and impact of contributions?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The mindset is that you need to prove that you’re able to take on the higher scope by actually doing it first, before they promote/pay you the compensation for that level of work. And not the other way round.

That, unfortunately, is how the system works.

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'.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

So you want a system where people get promoted into positions BEFORE they show that they're capable?
Man, people complain that scholars get promoted/fast tracked even when they haven't proven themselves but then also complain when the system makes you prove your worth before giving you that post.

All this shows is that people have nothing against the scholar parachute system, they're just envious that they're not the beneficiary.

Capability and readiness is not only demonstrated by doing the actual job. It can be demonstrated via a person's traits and past work.

Let's extend your logic.
So in the upcoming presidential election, a candidate should have worked as a president before we can appoint him as president. Because if he had never worked as 'acting/internal' president before, how would people know whether he is competent or not?

Feel free to substitute 'president' with any other roles, ministers, CEOs, prime minister, directors, company presidents etc

See how ridiculous this practice is?

And people are unhappy about scholar progression, because it is not based on meritocratic competition. Between a farmer and scholar of equal performance, career outcomes differ greatly. There is pressure on SLs to show to their superiors that they are capable in grooming the scholars placed under their care. If scholars get mediocre performance grades, it reflects badly on the SL's ability to develop staff under them. With this level of vested interest, how to walk-the-talk about embracing meritocracy?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Do management work, pay management pay. Simple. Unless the officer cannot make it, then pay less.

Agree. This is what the rest of the world does.

People from private sector, and even fellow civil servants from other ministries are all very surprised after hearing how it is the norm in MOE for officers to work in a position 3-4 levels above their paygrade.

This is not normal in the workforce, and we shouldn't be normalising this toxic management practice.