[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 11/01/12 10:30, Grant Phillips-Sewell wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:02:27 +0000 > paul sutton wrote: > >> On 11/01/12 09:48, Grant Phillips-Sewell wrote: >>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:09:55 +0000 (GMT) >>> Gordon Henderson wrote: >>> >>>> Perhaps there is hope after all: >>>> >>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-16493929 >>>> >>>> Gordon >>> It's a good start, but I can't see it coming to fruition easily or >>> soon. In my experience, I(C)T in schools is almost always 'taught' >>> by non-specialists - there are exceptions to the rule, but that's >>> always the case with broad generalisations - and as such there is >>> unlikely to be a body of I(C)T teachers in schools that are willing >>> or capable of teaching the 'new' curriculum. >>> >>> Getting IT specialists in to teach the subject would be the best >>> option, but that is not going to be an easy task. I, for one, would >>> be quite happy to go and teach IT in secondary schools, but it >>> would mean an absolutely massive drop in salary... and that's from >>> someone who is qualified to teach (I have a PGCE, but in "post >>> compulsory education and training")! To start out in a secondary >>> school, I believe we're talking about a salary of something in the >>> region of Â17k or Â18k... not bad to start with, but for many in IT >>> that would represent a huge drop. >>> >>> So where are we going to get these new IT teachers from? Those at >>> Uni studying IT courses will most likely not know of this proposed >>> change, and their experience of IT at school will probably put them >>> off going in to teach it anyway and those in the IT industry are >>> likely to be put off entering the teaching market by the >>> potentially significant drop in salary. >>> >>> Grant. >>> >> Surely to teach programming it would really help to have people >> teaching who have real world programming experience, so rather than >> graduates from Uni we have graduate --> industry --> teaching that >> way you are bringing knolwedge and experience to the post. >> >> It is like me with rugby, I could easily undertake a level 1 coaching >> course, having never played all i would do is teach what was on the >> course where as someone who has played can bring a different level of >> experience to that coaching. I am just sticking with tag. >> >> I guess its like giving a lesson on Life in china, having never lived >> there, or been to the country, where as if you bring in someone from >> that country to give a talk in a lesson you bring a new dynamic edge >> to the lesson, with resources etc >> >> Lets see what happens, but yeah, why go into teaching when you can >> earn far more in industry ( what did kevin post as a salary Â25 an >> hour). >> >> Paul > Although an hourly rate doesn't usually convert well into a salary, > Â25/hr in Education would mean this: > > Let's take an almost "worst case scenario" for a full-time teacher > (based on my experience): > 25 hours per week "contact time". > 12.5 hours per week "other duties". > 10 weeks "holidays" (let's say unpaid as this is a worst-case scenario > (6 weeks for summer, 2 for Winter, 2 for Spring)). > 20% taken off for taxes and other stuff. > > Â25 * 37.5 * 42 * 0.8 = Â31,500 take home salary. A bit different to > the average starting salary of Â17k (take home of ~Â13.6k). > > Grant. > What i was saying was that, why work for what teachers earn when if what kevin posted was typical people can earn far more in real programming jobs, getting people who can do this into teaching may be easier said than done. If we are to attract the best then we need to pay better wages Interesting or worrying is this http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2012/01/uk-cabinet-office-betrayal-of-open-standards-confirmed/index.htm Paul -- -- http://www.zleap.net http://www.ubuntu.com skype : psutton111 -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq