The turnover of
staff in education is getting higher and higher. It started out that schools
with a particular behaviour problem would have a high staff turnover, as
teachers finally had enough and left. Then, when I was working in schools, high
staff turnover appeared in places that had bullying senior managers, as the
staff went off with stress and depression, and eventually left.
Now, I’m
receiving requests for advice from more experienced, and therefore more
expensive teachers who are being particularly targeted to be pushed out through
bullying, and who are being replaced with cheaper staff.
Aside from being
cheap, schools benefit from having less experienced staff because they are more
likely to agree to do additional duties and are more likely to accept new
initiatives and not be jaded by the constant stream of them. They are less
likely to kick up a stink about poor working conditions as well.
These are all
things that, unfortunately, make a school successful in the current climate. It
is actually a good strategy to carry out what Ofsted want and what the
government want. However, it doesn’t necessarily make a school successful in
providing the best education for students.
There’s an odd
expectation in teaching that brand new teachers must teach to an exemplary
standard right from the word go, and stay at that level constantly year after
year. In the real world, teachers start off with basic skills and build on them
with experience, so that more experienced teachers teach better lessons. Hence
the existence of a pay scale.
Having a load of
cheap, inexperienced teachers that consistently hit grade 1 and 2 in
observations might look like value for money, but in actual fact the lessons
are of a lesser quality no matter what the observation grades show. Indeed,
bullying new teachers into reaching unattainable standards is one way of
getting more value out of them.
High staff
turnover also has the effect of causing a talent drain, over time. As good
workers realise that as time goes on they are becoming less and less employable
they are seeking their fortune elsewhere, leaving only those who have no other
choice. This further erodes the quality of teaching, meaning managers have to
bully more in order to get the performance required out of the staff they have.
Constantly
changing teachers means that behaviour management techniques, which a lot of
experts agree is based on a teacher’s status in the school and their long term
relationships with students, don’t work as well. Everything becomes short term,
and any supply teacher or cover supervisor will tell you, that makes it harder.
Students’
learning also suffers from a lack of continuity not only by changing schemes of
work and pedagogy, but a constant 'starting again from day one's means students
can’t see their own long term progress as well. Within the staff, departments
can’t make continuous progression or develop as well.
If you want
better teachers, don’t make it easier for managers to run those they don’t like
out of the career for good or offer bribes and making it easy to train as a
teacher. You need to make long term investments in people and give them good reasons
to stay and develop and improve. Do you agree with me? Please comment below.
4 comments:
"If you want better teachers, don’t make it easier for managers to run those they don’t like out of the career for good"
Hang on - you want to improve standards by making teachers HARDER to sack? Isn't there already a crisis of competence in the profession?
By all means encourage, promote and develop the good ones... but the flipside of that HAS to be that the ones who just aren't good enough get shown the door *fast*. Increasing job security just attracts the useless.
There is not a crisis of competence in the profession. Everyone has a bad days that effect their performance, for that to ruin your career in an instant is not the way to run things.
@anonymous
Are you even reading the article?
He meant that (as a principal) protect your best teachers from your worst managers.
It is the teachers that will improve results, not non-teaching managers.
Nice summary, thanks!
Post a Comment