Proposals - should children of sch.staff be given priority?

[dez]

For me is a NO to the above proposal! The way to recruit or retain teaching is to provide good working environment and other benefits such as good pension, salary etc. and NOT to give staffs any priority in the selection criteria.

Every child should be selected on Merit for selective schools (ie. 11+, admission test, interview etc) and not that "my dad/mum works in this school!". As for Non-selective schools the same should apply!

[KS10]

I have previously joked about kids getting their parents a job at a desirable school but I really wouldn't want to work at my son's school now that he is there. I would feel awkward at Parents' Evenings and would be constantly worrying about him embarrassing me, never mind his street cred!

I also think that the more experienced teacher is also more expensive and it tends to be these teachers who have children of secondary school age. Unfortunately, this is sometimes an issue, so even the best-laid plans ...

I doubt that there are many teachers who would want to risk a move in this climate: not all schools are academies and there are many who fear a move to a school with academy status due to the unknown factor in terms of pay and conditions for staff.

[KS10]

I have previously joked about kids getting their parents a job at a desirable school but I really wouldn't want to work at my son's school now that he is there. I would feel awkward at Parents' Evenings and would be constantly worrying about him embarrassing me, never mind his street cred!

Sorry, to clarify (I have visions of someone pointing out the obvious that if the child had already gained a place at a good school there would be no need to move jobs): the point I'm trying to make is that working at the same school that your teenage children attend is not everyone's cup of tea.

[pabrighton0]

I also think that the more experienced teacher is also more expensive and it tends to be these teachers who have children of secondary school age. Unfortunately, this is sometimes an issue, so even the best-laid plans ...

I doubt that there are many teachers who would want to risk a move in this climate: not all schools are academies and there are many who fear a move to a school with academy status due to the unknown factor in terms of pay and conditions for staff.

I think that if the choice will be given, some teachers will take advantage of it. You seem to be hinting that the impact of this will be limited as a sort of justification (other cases where impact is limited still raise fairness questions - one example is the 50% tax rate, it raises very little money but attempting to remove it sparked strong opposition).
So irrespectively of the arguable impact, I will judge it on principle, why should parliament allow it otherwise? Those children should not be given an advantage at the cost of others. Regarding the actual impact, how long is a piece of string?
I am not familiar with the ins and outs of recruitment but perhaps a strong minded teacher that wants to get a place could raise potential age discrimination, etc (regarding the first point you make). And presumably it's more difficult to recruit an experienced teacher (exemplified with your second topic around "the climate"), so would these not be situations where the difficulty to recruit would be easily confirmed thus automatically qualifying the children?
Additionally, these changes will apply to any school staff, even if possibly the school admission authority has discretion when proposing new admission rules to restrict it. One example are the proposals for DAO, which include allowing other staff. After 2 years, dinner ladies, etc will be able to jump the queue. At least in this case they will only get places ahead of the non-protected/non-quota distance rule (so not affecting selective places).

[yoyo123]

Clearly moving from one stage to the other has an impact on the teacher's effectiveness and productivity?

can you explain why you feel this is the case?

[KS10]

You seem to be hinting that the impact of this will be limited as a sort of justification (other cases where impact is limited still raise fairness questions - one example is the 50% tax rate, it raises very little money but attempting to remove it sparked strong opposition).

Not 'hinting' at anything nor am I 'justifying'. Nowhere have I stated that I am for these proposals. For the record, I think that they are unfair too. I was simply saying that fewer teachers than anticipated may actually be tempted.

I am not familiar with the ins and outs of recruitment but perhaps a strong minded teacher that wants to get a place could raise potential age discrimination, etc (regarding the first point you make).

No, age discrimination was not necessarily what I was referring to, so I guess I'm not "strong minded" thankfully in the way that you mean. Take my situation, for example: ex-French teacher; took time out to look after the kids; now teaching literacy. I have the experience, but circumstances (due to choices I made) are such that I am not up-to-date with the most recent, fashionable (well, I would say that ) methods of teaching. Why would someone want to pay over the odds for my services when they can have a more IT-savvy person who happens to be cheaper?

And presumably it's more difficult to recruit an experienced teacher (exemplified with your second topic around "the climate"), so would these not be situations where the difficulty to recruit would be easily confirmed thus automatically qualifying the children?

The climate to which I was referring is the difficulty that experienced teachers may have when contemplating a sideways move; I hadn't considered it from an employer's point of view.
I thought that I had made a couple of good points, designed to ease people's worries. In fact, it would seem that I am more conniving than I realised.

[pabrighton0]

Clearly moving from one stage to the other has an impact on the teacher's effectiveness and productivity?

can you explain why you feel this is the case?

This was probably a slightly confusing point of mine... What I mean to say is that changes of stage will at least result in a medium term impact to productivity since the curriculum is different, etc. I know of some teachers that like to teach the same year since they do not need to do lessons prep every year and can reuse them from previous years.

[Guest55]

I know of some teachers that like to teach the same year since they do not need to do lessons prep every year and can reuse them from previous years.

How can anyone do this? Each class is different and I have never 'recycled' plans ....

[pabrighton0]

I am not familiar with the ins and outs of recruitment but perhaps a strong minded teacher that wants to get a place could raise potential age discrimination, etc (regarding the first point you make).

No, age discrimination was not necessarily what I was referring to, so I guess I'm not "strong minded" thankfully in the way that you mean. Take my situation, for example: ex-French teacher; took time out to look after the kids; now teaching literacy.

I did not mean it in a personal way, but that any candidate staff could work very hard to get a place.

I thought that I had made a couple of good points, designed to ease people's worries. In fact, it would seem that I am more conniving than I realised.

Absolutely, I also think they are good points, just that my blood boils when talking about unfair situations!

[KS10]

pabrighton, we were both a bit prickly. I need to develop the art of getting my message across and replying to posts a la chelmsford mum.