‘Rescind’ is a strong word – if I could, I’d probably take that one back.
Today I re-tweeted a message from Alan Stewart concerning Chartered Teachers. Very quickly, Fearghal Kelly and Andrea Reid commented that they disagreed with the comment Alan had made, and therefore by association with me for re-tweeting it.
It’s too much to explain in 140 characters, hence a blog post to explain why I re-tweeted what Alan had to say.
From the off, can I say that I think the concept of Chartered Teacher is a great one.
Years ago, I watched with interest as people went for promotion as Senior Teachers. A large number of them had no interest in management positions, but rather wished to be recompensed at a higher rate than a classroom teacher for their experience and ability. Until the role of Senior Teacher was introduced, for many people in education the only way they could gain a higher salary than a classroom teacher was to go for a management role.
When the Chartered Teacher programme was introduced, I immediately agreed with it. I though it was great that teachers could be rewarded for their experience and ability, and receive a higher rate of pay for it. I also thought it was great that in order to become a Chartered Teacher, one could either be rewarded for work already done in their field of expertise, or could study a number of modules or units to gain an increasing higher qualification and pay in relation to their work.
I’ve watched with interest how this role has developed, and with some concern that CT would go the way of ST in many schools, as being another rung on the promotion ladder.
Over time, I’ve met a number of people in education that were probably brilliant teachers, but didn’t display the same level of ability as managers. Many of these people found themselves ‘forced’ (by society and the beautiful term that Oliver James uses to describe a particular condition he feels we in the ‘West’ suffer from – ‘Afluenza’) to go for promoted posts in a bid to gain a higher salary, yet would probably have served education far better had they stayed at what they were good at – classroom teaching.
I really like the notion that a teacher can be rewarded and achieve recognition for staying in the classroom, by following the chartered teacher programme. I think it’s important that ability and experience can be rewarded.
At the moment, I am not registered as a teacher with the General Teaching Council for Scotland (although a couple of months ago I did send away for the pack to re-register). When I took up a secondment with LTS a couple of years ago, it seems my registration fell between two stools – my then employer stopped deducting the fee from my salary, and my new employer didn’t pay it either. Five years out of the classroom as an Education Support Officer, and two years down the line with LTS I would argue that I don’t have recent classroom experience. Should I just be able to re-register as a teacher because I have been continually working in the field of education? If I hadn’t driven a car for 7 years, would you feel comfortable being a passenger with me at the wheel?
Alan suggested that if someone has been out of the classroom for more than 5 years, they should have their CT status rescinded. I re-tweeted that statement. Why? To me, the entire point of CT was to reward and recognise someone’s dedication to classroom teaching. I have no objection to people taking up secondments and spending some time out of the classroom – in fact, I think many educators would benefit from doing so. But if someone is out for more that 5 years, are they dedicated to classroom practice? Should they go back in at the same level? I think that rescind is too strong a word, but I would call into question someone’s commitment to classroom teaching if they haven’t been doing it for more than five years.
What do others think? How recent does experience have to be to still hold validity?
(On a vaguely related note, does everyone else RT only when they completely agree with a statement, or when they find it interesting/controvertial?)
