Could our mobility opportunities have been severely damaged by the statement regarding salary retention?
My chances to compete for a Secondary Classroom Teacher post – should I ever wish to experience another school authority – has been significantly reduced, when one considers the Secondary Teacher salary ceiling and that this, in such austere times, additional 3 or 4,000 pounds to employ myself and others like me as a result of a professional development scheme that was publicly dissolved as one facet of the McCormack Review, and one which was misunderstood by senior management and local authorities, may well count against me even being considered for interview.
The assurance of salary protection (which may change) not only has a negative effect on mobility, but the inability of staff to ‘migrate’ across authorities may lead to stagnation, which ultimately leaves little inspiration for the pupils of such teachers who have low levels of confidence as to their professional development. Furthermore, partially-accredited practitioners may find themelves faced with unwieldy ‘remits’ from less sensitive and more cynical local authorities who wish to get the ‘best bang for their buck’.
Decisions against pursuing a management position, or a Guidance Role made five or six years ago may now be reversed, as those betrayed by the decision to dismantle – nay, dissolve – the Chartered Teacher Scheme now seek the very limited P.T., Faculty Head or Guidance posts as the only opportunity for career advancement – rightly or wrongly!
Next Post – ‘The Academic Canon’.