It's unethical that CXC pays educators to mark timetabled January and June CXC exams but does not pay educators to mark SBAs. But CXC identifies SBAs as copyrighted exam papers owned by the exam syndicate.
Educators play a vital active part in setting, monitoring and marking these exams for CXC. CXC ought to level the "paying" field. These SBA exams cut into months of teaching time. Educators get paid to teach. Their scope of work doesn't include making, managing and marking exams for outsourcing agencies such as CXC.Sadly, infuriatingly, teachers are their own worst enemy when it comes to agreeing on, co-operating on what specific tasks make up their scope of work.
This conundrum produces the effect of a public belief that educators' scope of work is unlimited in exchange for a fixed ration of money. This perception is grossly untrue.
Educators should have learnt by now that they ought to bill for itemised services, just as their degreed colleagues do in banking, insurance, law, construction, advertising, print and broadcast media, entertainment, sports, medicine, transportation, food preparation, hospitality, manufacturing, energy and aggregate mining, processed foods, and pharmaceuticals–irrespective of whether the clients are adults or children.
Billing in these professions is not weighed down by labels like "vocation," "calling," "social duty."The education profession should also learn by now that it's foolish to discard their senior consultants when they reach age 60.No other professional field dumps their senior brains wholesale because they reach age 60. Education forcefully retires their most knowledgeable people out of the profession on the grounds of age.
So who's going to guide the green practitioners that comprise the education fraternity on these money matters: the union?
Sarah Parks
via e-mail
