We have teacher level value in 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 with something called CfE Machine and it's *rubbish*.

It just compares each kid in your class' results across the school and gives you a relative value score (+/-).

Takes no account of the fact sciences are *objectively* harder subjects so we *always* get hammered.

There's such a thing as "too soon"??

My record is not even making it through the door! If a kid is a consistent lesson ruiner, and is already a pest before they're in the class then no way am I letting them in to derail it from the outset.

By the next lesson I've (obviously) forgotten some and get it wrong, but you make a show of trying, because it's a perfect example of retrieval practice.

And then just talking to kids in corridors (even the ones I've never taught) - it's such an easy way to make them feel noticed every day.

The bit about learning their names is so important. I know teachers who 2 months in can't name every kid in their class 🤯

My point of pride is on the P7 induction days I *will* remember everyone's name by the end of the lesson. Just walk round going "Adam, Amy, Bill" until I can do it

As for exam leave, surely there's a point where the kids need to become responsible for their own success/failure? You can't hand hold them forever.

We're available, but it's up to them to come for help.

And if there was no extra time we'd never do any wider curriculum/primary transition.

Results day in 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 is weird. In 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 you get results posted direct to your house, and text results have been a thing since 2005.

Colleges/uni get access to results system so you don't need to submit them.

My cousin in 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 had to get certificates then drive to hand them over to 6th form - waste of a day.

Agree with all the stuff about cpd in schools being forgotten; why do we still sit everyone in the hall lecture style?

But SMT wanting Sarah to do adaptive teaching is absolutely a red flag. Means they're a sucker for reinventing the wheel edu-fads, not what's actually going to improve T&L.

Loads of stuff I agree with. We got a load of grief because we were under leveling CfE levels compared to what they got at N5.

But when we asked how to do it better we got told "use professional judgement" - you just told us ours is bad!

To me it just means all that level data is worthless.

In 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 there's zero negotiation. Everyone starts on point 0 after uni, then it's automatic progression each year.

Can't skip ahead (unless you're experienced and transferring into the 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 system) and it transfers between schools.

No worries about appraisals, or animosity between subjects.

Got to agree with Amy on pay. PRP is a horrible system that creates animosity, and will benefit the loud, not the skilled; which will more likely be men (and worsen the gender pay gap).

Boosts for shortage subjects don't stand up to scrutiny long term; downsides massively outweigh positives.

"free market raises conditions" isn't really true.

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Has 0 academies and I have better pay (even vs United learning), more PPA, and better conditions.

This is the flaw with the "just conglomerate" argument; the most efficient group is a monopoly - that's the state.

Think NHS Vs US healthcare.