Portugal Travel

This is because the amount of it depends on the level where you are, and changes of level are hampered by the existence of two categories of teachers and assessment of current performance. With this simplicity does not mean to criticize those who believe. True, it is nobler to criticize this model for assessing the dangers it creates for our education system (mainly for points in a water bath), however, the question of salaries is also an important issue because, let's be realistic, the money is something fundamental to the life of any person in modern society. Taking that into account I think it is fair to conclude that if the wage structure was different, especially less tied to the issue of assessment, the latter would be less controversial.

I must now refer to those who do not know, I'm a critic of this assessment model, as I am the model of the previous evaluation. It is true that the most critical model recommended by 2 / 2008 than the previous model, but it is also true that more critical than that the latter left the 1-A/2009. This is simply because the previous model considered a farce where anyone, without effort, was satisfying, and who asked where good, normally could. They may say its advocates that this model was never really regulated, but never actually saw great effort to force that to happen. This is because, as some colleagues tell me: "At least all progrediamos. This was good for schools? I doubt it.
Reached a point of reflection where some of my peers are already displeased I think it is important to spend the most constructive, passing to propose a way to create a fair wage scheme, which does not get stuck to performance evaluation.

This organization scheme based on salary would be in the following fundamental premises: the end of the stupid and incomprehensible division career, equal pay for equal work (embodied in the Constitution); positions with real responsibility and accountability for the most able and professionals.

I believe that these three assumptions will be the first virtual consensus within the class to which I belong. The second is also, but with one drawback: it would be quite painful for some professionals accustomed to generous wages (generous considering that whoever is in the final steps, for example with the index 340, has a gross monthly salary of more than two of whom wages is the first step, with the index 167). The third premise point out that I believe will be agreed until such time as they convey what I intend to propose from the same.

Thus, according to the first two premises, I propose equal pay for all teachers, fairer for everyone, with no discrepancies incomprehensible and deeply unfair that it is today. Was it possible that everyone had a decent wage. Starting from the third premise, I propose that each job entails a salary bonus, according to the degree of responsibility and effort that it requires.

With this proposal ended up in schools idiotic situations such as directors, even with the bonus related, had a salary less than other teachers (such as occurred before with the Presidents of the Executive Council). Workplaces where the maximum charge receives less than workers with much lower duties and responsibilities?

Should be at this time the defenders of the current state of things trying to get arguments to criticize the proposal that I do. I wonder: this proposal calls for teachers to fratricidal struggle so the positions and there by the Director to choose their favorites for these positions. About this remember the following: Directors, as they did before the Presidents of the Executive Council, as the pick of tutors, teachers of the Education and Training, coordinators of tutors, coordinators of the various projects, etc.. And this that has always been well accepted (the only positions that were usually chosen by suffrage were the coordinators of the department or group, and in some cases, coordinators, directors of the class, and a second ballot between the elements of each department / group something that I advocate) . The only difference would be that, for example, whereas nowadays nobody wants to be Class Director, for work and emotional stress that this job brings are not offset by the reduction of teaching activity that it means, as my proposal almost everyone would to be interested, who may prove to be better in that office be appointed and do everything possible to honor such an appointment. I am sure it would stop watching the shocking situations such as teachers who are new in schools receive three times with the directions of the class! And this example I give is not fancy having two already known in two different schools. Also no longer happen to have difficulty getting to get a teacher interested in being the coordinator of the department. Not a stupid situation now where, with a small group of professors who can be certain department coordinators, the Director must choose one of these teachers even though there is another, not holding, clearly more capable and more professional. It also would end the silly situation where there is difficulty in finding a set of teachers to work in a Course of Education and Training. You have only to work with these courses would give teachers a salary bonus for ending situations that are common today, as teachers hired to come to a school and give him only one time formed by groups of CEF, schedules can lead to threshold madness any good professional. Also, on the other hand, the project coordinators would work much harder if it meant a salary bonus. He would not hear, as I hear today, the comment that teachers do not earn more to engage seriously the coordination of such projects. And do not invent anything. The truth hurts, but do not ask me to be hypocritical.

Therefore, this proposal would get: more justice, more professionalism, real compensation for top professionals ... in short, better school.

And the evaluation would no longer have the negative burden that has, to read a purely formative, with the aim to support teachers in improving their practices. It would be much simpler to build a consensus evaluation model in this way.

Clear that this can never be sustainable because it would be the target of a fierce fight from teachers who are in the upper echelons and unions argue that above all other teachers. Pardon my crudeness of candor.

I think my idea is not original. What others have thought of before. However, the revolution would mean that such a proposal makes people think so, or agree with this idea, be afraid to take.

Finally, if this proposal goes ahead, I understand that it would be hard for those who earn a handsome salary (even if not justified), go get a salary slightly lower, because the expenses that must conform to that earned by . However, it is also hard to see amazing professionals receive less than half the salary of colleagues who shamed our profession and who refuse to be more than mediocre. And against this I see no one rebel.

A final word for unions: being tied to political parties that criticize, rightly, the huge salary range that exists in our country (one of the largest in Europe), as you can defend a system of steps, all the more so with large discrepancies between them?