Teachers prepare for strike action

This Is Wiltshire: Teachers Teresa Martin and Pete Smith, both from Crowdys Hill School in Swindon, hold up a sign after marching through Bristol City Centre last October Teachers Teresa Martin and Pete Smith, both from Crowdys Hill School in Swindon, hold up a sign after marching through Bristol City Centre last October

PARENTS and pupils are facing a day of disruption later this month as one of the leading teachers’ unions have called a national strike.

The National Union of Teachers are in a long running dispute with the Government over pay and conditions, in what they say is a battle for the future of education.

As a result, schools in the town are preparing for the action, which will take place on March 26, with some already announcing they will not be open for the day as they will not be able to provide adequate cover.

Isambard School has about 30 members of staff in the union, amounting to almost half of its teaching staff, so have already sent out a letter to parents saying they will not be open for the day.

Youngsters in Years 7, 8 and 9 at Lydiard Park Academy have also been told not to come in if the strike goes ahead while Kings-down School have asked parents to name a place of safety their child can go to in case the school has to close at the last minute because of the industrial action.

Teachers are not obliged to tell their employers whether they are on strike until the day, while teachers in other unions have been told not to provide cover and supply teachers are not available on that day.

Swindon Council are unlikely to know whether primary schools will be open or closed until shortly before the strike date.

Union leaders are in talks with the Government so the strike may be called off but say they are tired of what appears to be a campaign against the teaching profession.

Nina Franklin, the NUT South West Regional Officer, said: “We are taking action because of the Government’s continuing onslaught on our pay and conditions.

“It is action which is being taken reluctantly as always and there are talks taking place but Michael Gove has said they cannot be about the policies, only their implementation.

“This is not just about us but the education for everyone’s children. We know that 60 per cent of teachers leave the profession within the first five years which, if it continues, will leave a shortage not only of staff but also of experience.

“The Government’s review showed that the average working week in the teaching profession is ridiculous so we want help to reduce the workload.”

Keep up to date on all the schools which will affected by the closure on this website.

Comments (56)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:41am Wed 12 Mar 14

swindondad says...

Teachers "Tell us" they spend hour each night marking papers / preparing lesson planes etc and that they often have to come in to work even when the kids are not at school (trianing days / staff meetings).

OK fair enough so "If" they need to take industrial action why are they not doing it at those times so as to NOT affect the children’s education that they claim is the priority?
Teachers "Tell us" they spend hour each night marking papers / preparing lesson planes etc and that they often have to come in to work even when the kids are not at school (trianing days / staff meetings). OK fair enough so "If" they need to take industrial action why are they not doing it at those times so as to NOT affect the children’s education that they claim is the priority? swindondad
  • Score: 7

7:19am Wed 12 Mar 14

ChannelX says...

My brother in law is a deputy head. It's amazing the 'truth' about the profession that you hear when teachers are actually being honest.

The problem is the NUT. An organisation that believes teachers should always do less for far more money whilst never being appraised, judged or even having their handiwork checked at any point.

The NUT have been beyond parody for many years.
My brother in law is a deputy head. It's amazing the 'truth' about the profession that you hear when teachers are actually being honest. The problem is the NUT. An organisation that believes teachers should always do less for far more money whilst never being appraised, judged or even having their handiwork checked at any point. The NUT have been beyond parody for many years. ChannelX
  • Score: 5

8:08am Wed 12 Mar 14

house on the hill says...

Still very two faced that parents get fined for taking kids out of school but teachers just strike when they want and expect parents to pick up the pieces for childcare etc.

But agree that Unions are the scourge of industry in this day and age, far more about their own ego's than anything to do with their members.
Still very two faced that parents get fined for taking kids out of school but teachers just strike when they want and expect parents to pick up the pieces for childcare etc. But agree that Unions are the scourge of industry in this day and age, far more about their own ego's than anything to do with their members. house on the hill
  • Score: 9

10:00am Wed 12 Mar 14

AndySN3 says...

Agree with above posts. Surely there are other ways to make protests without affecting the children?
As a parent I had to sit through a presentation at their school outlining what an important year this is with GSCE'S and that even one day off would result in missing work that couldn't be caught up with!!
Very hypocritical and does nothing to further their cause..
Agree with above posts. Surely there are other ways to make protests without affecting the children? As a parent I had to sit through a presentation at their school outlining what an important year this is with GSCE'S and that even one day off would result in missing work that couldn't be caught up with!! Very hypocritical and does nothing to further their cause.. AndySN3
  • Score: 13

11:29am Wed 12 Mar 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Industrial action should be illegal, having said that I think we could go around the problem of teacher industrial actions by privatizing Education starting with primary schools which are nowadays more like cheap nurseries than schools.
Industrial action should be illegal, having said that I think we could go around the problem of teacher industrial actions by privatizing Education starting with primary schools which are nowadays more like cheap nurseries than schools. A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: -10

11:40am Wed 12 Mar 14

express_a_view says...

I totally understand the frustration of parents. I also am not sure strike action is the best option - I would much prefer that teachers cut out the time devoted to implementing new government initiatives so often pursued for ministerial vanity rather than the benefit of pupils or schools.

However, I do think that the morale of teachers is at an all time low. When between 2 and 3 in every 5 teachers leave post in the first five years something is wrong. A Department for Education survey found that Primary School teachers were working almost 60 hours a week. Meanwhile headteachers in secondary schools recorded an average of 63 hours and 20 minutes a week. The teaching profession has become plagued by long hours and unnecessary and bureaucratic tasks that deflect from the core task of teaching and learning, It has been estimated that teachers are now fitting in the equivalent of an extra full day a week by working during evenings and weekends. Meanwhile data obtained by the TUC from the nationwide Labour Force Survey, shows that teachers carried out more unpaid overtime in 2013 than any other profession. The average of 12 hours extra a week was higher than financial directors (11 hours) or lawyers (nine hours) - so to those who cite the long teacher holidays do factor that data into your calculations. A survey of Headteachers meanwhile found that 75% of NAHT members had been physically threatened by parents and one in 10 had been physically assaulted by one. Assaults on head teachers used to be a rarity - now they seem to be societally and politically accepted as an occupational hazard. Countrywide complaints of schools being unable to find candidates for vacated headships are becoming ever more common. School governors have complained of having to repeatedly readvertise headteacher vacancies because of a dearth of candidates, according to the National Governors' Association. The degree of crisis is reflected by the fact that the shortage of headteachers will worsen within the next 12 months as those born in the 1950s come to the close of their careers. Something like half of all heads are within 10 years of retirement, a third are within five years.

Teachers are exasperated. They are drained by initiative fatigue; tired of the constant dissing from politicians and much of the media; fed up of being expected by politicians to cure a plethora societal ill when it is the politicians who have the greater influence on decision making; and energy sapped by overly oppressive systems of accountability that detract from, rather than enhance, effective teaching and learning for all pupils.

Those who criticise the striking teachers should ask themselves why if teaching is such an easy option recruitment and retention is so problematic? Teaching should be a wonderful vocation but currently our pupils are taught by the fraught and this serves neither pupils nor teachers well. Put people in this situation and, rightly or wrongly, they may feel they have little option but to strike. It is too easy to blame the unions - perhaps people ought to ask how societally and politically we have allowed teacher morale to plummet to the depths it is currently at?
I totally understand the frustration of parents. I also am not sure strike action is the best option - I would much prefer that teachers cut out the time devoted to implementing new government initiatives so often pursued for ministerial vanity rather than the benefit of pupils or schools. However, I do think that the morale of teachers is at an all time low. When between 2 and 3 in every 5 teachers leave post in the first five years something is wrong. A Department for Education survey found that Primary School teachers were working almost 60 hours a week. Meanwhile headteachers in secondary schools recorded an average of 63 hours and 20 minutes a week. The teaching profession has become plagued by long hours and unnecessary and bureaucratic tasks that deflect from the core task of teaching and learning, It has been estimated that teachers are now fitting in the equivalent of an extra full day a week by working during evenings and weekends. Meanwhile data obtained by the TUC from the nationwide Labour Force Survey, shows that teachers carried out more unpaid overtime in 2013 than any other profession. The average of 12 hours extra a week was higher than financial directors (11 hours) or lawyers (nine hours) - so to those who cite the long teacher holidays do factor that data into your calculations. A survey of Headteachers meanwhile found that 75% of NAHT members had been physically threatened by parents and one in 10 had been physically assaulted by one. Assaults on head teachers used to be a rarity - now they seem to be societally and politically accepted as an occupational hazard. Countrywide complaints of schools being unable to find candidates for vacated headships are becoming ever more common. School governors have complained of having to repeatedly readvertise headteacher vacancies because of a dearth of candidates, according to the National Governors' Association. The degree of crisis is reflected by the fact that the shortage of headteachers will worsen within the next 12 months as those born in the 1950s come to the close of their careers. Something like half of all heads are within 10 years of retirement, a third are within five years. Teachers are exasperated. They are drained by initiative fatigue; tired of the constant dissing from politicians and much of the media; fed up of being expected by politicians to cure a plethora societal ill when it is the politicians who have the greater influence on decision making; and energy sapped by overly oppressive systems of accountability that detract from, rather than enhance, effective teaching and learning for all pupils. Those who criticise the striking teachers should ask themselves why if teaching is such an easy option recruitment and retention is so problematic? Teaching should be a wonderful vocation but currently our pupils are taught by the fraught and this serves neither pupils nor teachers well. Put people in this situation and, rightly or wrongly, they may feel they have little option but to strike. It is too easy to blame the unions - perhaps people ought to ask how societally and politically we have allowed teacher morale to plummet to the depths it is currently at? express_a_view
  • Score: 8

12:09pm Wed 12 Mar 14

house on the hill says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Industrial action should be illegal, having said that I think we could go around the problem of teacher industrial actions by privatizing Education starting with primary schools which are nowadays more like cheap nurseries than schools.
so by privatising you mean parents have to pay for their own kids education? And how would they be monitored?
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: Industrial action should be illegal, having said that I think we could go around the problem of teacher industrial actions by privatizing Education starting with primary schools which are nowadays more like cheap nurseries than schools.[/p][/quote]so by privatising you mean parents have to pay for their own kids education? And how would they be monitored? house on the hill
  • Score: 3

12:14pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Rubbercement says...

Told my school they can let me take my kids out for 3 days at the end of the academic year with no issues, and I won't charge them for "disrupting my child's education" when they have a strike!! Fair deal to me!!
Told my school they can let me take my kids out for 3 days at the end of the academic year with no issues, and I won't charge them for "disrupting my child's education" when they have a strike!! Fair deal to me!! Rubbercement
  • Score: 3

12:25pm Wed 12 Mar 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

Express_a_view, I don't necessarily disagree with much of what you say. However, surely much of this is the teachers own making.

Not convinced the results of the survey you mention mean anything - anyone can make up a number and exaggerate it. Not that I'm saying they have been, but it's very open to abuse. For instance if you simply ask me how many hours a week I work I can tell you it's 70 hours when I actually work many less than this. Unless there is some independent auditing of the claims it means nothing. In any case, an extra day (I assume you mean working day or approx 7 hours), spread over a week really isn't that much.

What would happen if they refused to work so many hours outside of their contracts?

Perhaps it could be said that some teachers are not efficient as others - certainly the claims of some teachers that they work 12 hours extra a week do not tally with the claims of other teachers that little extra work outside of school is needed. Someone is wrong, who is it? This kind of disparity is confusing to the general populace. Perhaps some teachers and head teachers are just less efficient or not very good at their job, perhaps some just require some additional training in time management?

Final point, the quality of our education output has been in decline for many years as was identified by the OECD (http://www.bbc.co.u
k/news/education-244
33320). Something clearly needs to change to reverse this decline so our future generations can remain competitive with the rest of the world. The government have recognised this and are attempting to make changes to the education system in order to do so. Teachers regularly state that the government is not listening to them. The same is true in reverse. The status quo is not working, and changes need to be made. Striking will not change that position.
Express_a_view, I don't necessarily disagree with much of what you say. However, surely much of this is the teachers own making. Not convinced the results of the survey you mention mean anything - anyone can make up a number and exaggerate it. Not that I'm saying they have been, but it's very open to abuse. For instance if you simply ask me how many hours a week I work I can tell you it's 70 hours when I actually work many less than this. Unless there is some independent auditing of the claims it means nothing. In any case, an extra day (I assume you mean working day or approx 7 hours), spread over a week really isn't that much. What would happen if they refused to work so many hours outside of their contracts? Perhaps it could be said that some teachers are not efficient as others - certainly the claims of some teachers that they work 12 hours extra a week do not tally with the claims of other teachers that little extra work outside of school is needed. Someone is wrong, who is it? This kind of disparity is confusing to the general populace. Perhaps some teachers and head teachers are just less efficient or not very good at their job, perhaps some just require some additional training in time management? Final point, the quality of our education output has been in decline for many years as was identified by the OECD (http://www.bbc.co.u k/news/education-244 33320). Something clearly needs to change to reverse this decline so our future generations can remain competitive with the rest of the world. The government have recognised this and are attempting to make changes to the education system in order to do so. Teachers regularly state that the government is not listening to them. The same is true in reverse. The status quo is not working, and changes need to be made. Striking will not change that position. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: -5

12:27pm Wed 12 Mar 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

express_a_view wrote:
I totally understand the frustration of parents. I also am not sure strike action is the best option - I would much prefer that teachers cut out the time devoted to implementing new government initiatives so often pursued for ministerial vanity rather than the benefit of pupils or schools.

However, I do think that the morale of teachers is at an all time low. When between 2 and 3 in every 5 teachers leave post in the first five years something is wrong. A Department for Education survey found that Primary School teachers were working almost 60 hours a week. Meanwhile headteachers in secondary schools recorded an average of 63 hours and 20 minutes a week. The teaching profession has become plagued by long hours and unnecessary and bureaucratic tasks that deflect from the core task of teaching and learning, It has been estimated that teachers are now fitting in the equivalent of an extra full day a week by working during evenings and weekends. Meanwhile data obtained by the TUC from the nationwide Labour Force Survey, shows that teachers carried out more unpaid overtime in 2013 than any other profession. The average of 12 hours extra a week was higher than financial directors (11 hours) or lawyers (nine hours) - so to those who cite the long teacher holidays do factor that data into your calculations. A survey of Headteachers meanwhile found that 75% of NAHT members had been physically threatened by parents and one in 10 had been physically assaulted by one. Assaults on head teachers used to be a rarity - now they seem to be societally and politically accepted as an occupational hazard. Countrywide complaints of schools being unable to find candidates for vacated headships are becoming ever more common. School governors have complained of having to repeatedly readvertise headteacher vacancies because of a dearth of candidates, according to the National Governors' Association. The degree of crisis is reflected by the fact that the shortage of headteachers will worsen within the next 12 months as those born in the 1950s come to the close of their careers. Something like half of all heads are within 10 years of retirement, a third are within five years.

Teachers are exasperated. They are drained by initiative fatigue; tired of the constant dissing from politicians and much of the media; fed up of being expected by politicians to cure a plethora societal ill when it is the politicians who have the greater influence on decision making; and energy sapped by overly oppressive systems of accountability that detract from, rather than enhance, effective teaching and learning for all pupils.

Those who criticise the striking teachers should ask themselves why if teaching is such an easy option recruitment and retention is so problematic? Teaching should be a wonderful vocation but currently our pupils are taught by the fraught and this serves neither pupils nor teachers well. Put people in this situation and, rightly or wrongly, they may feel they have little option but to strike. It is too easy to blame the unions - perhaps people ought to ask how societally and politically we have allowed teacher morale to plummet to the depths it is currently at?
Teachers should get on with the task at hand, if they do not like it, they can leave the public sector and work in the private or work abroad.
Education is huge cost, and it does not make sense to keep pouring precious public money into it anymore.
Maybe we could keep the schools under public ownership and get the staff under private contracts only, this would save a lot of money and wasted days.
[quote][p][bold]express_a_view[/bold] wrote: I totally understand the frustration of parents. I also am not sure strike action is the best option - I would much prefer that teachers cut out the time devoted to implementing new government initiatives so often pursued for ministerial vanity rather than the benefit of pupils or schools. However, I do think that the morale of teachers is at an all time low. When between 2 and 3 in every 5 teachers leave post in the first five years something is wrong. A Department for Education survey found that Primary School teachers were working almost 60 hours a week. Meanwhile headteachers in secondary schools recorded an average of 63 hours and 20 minutes a week. The teaching profession has become plagued by long hours and unnecessary and bureaucratic tasks that deflect from the core task of teaching and learning, It has been estimated that teachers are now fitting in the equivalent of an extra full day a week by working during evenings and weekends. Meanwhile data obtained by the TUC from the nationwide Labour Force Survey, shows that teachers carried out more unpaid overtime in 2013 than any other profession. The average of 12 hours extra a week was higher than financial directors (11 hours) or lawyers (nine hours) - so to those who cite the long teacher holidays do factor that data into your calculations. A survey of Headteachers meanwhile found that 75% of NAHT members had been physically threatened by parents and one in 10 had been physically assaulted by one. Assaults on head teachers used to be a rarity - now they seem to be societally and politically accepted as an occupational hazard. Countrywide complaints of schools being unable to find candidates for vacated headships are becoming ever more common. School governors have complained of having to repeatedly readvertise headteacher vacancies because of a dearth of candidates, according to the National Governors' Association. The degree of crisis is reflected by the fact that the shortage of headteachers will worsen within the next 12 months as those born in the 1950s come to the close of their careers. Something like half of all heads are within 10 years of retirement, a third are within five years. Teachers are exasperated. They are drained by initiative fatigue; tired of the constant dissing from politicians and much of the media; fed up of being expected by politicians to cure a plethora societal ill when it is the politicians who have the greater influence on decision making; and energy sapped by overly oppressive systems of accountability that detract from, rather than enhance, effective teaching and learning for all pupils. Those who criticise the striking teachers should ask themselves why if teaching is such an easy option recruitment and retention is so problematic? Teaching should be a wonderful vocation but currently our pupils are taught by the fraught and this serves neither pupils nor teachers well. Put people in this situation and, rightly or wrongly, they may feel they have little option but to strike. It is too easy to blame the unions - perhaps people ought to ask how societally and politically we have allowed teacher morale to plummet to the depths it is currently at?[/p][/quote]Teachers should get on with the task at hand, if they do not like it, they can leave the public sector and work in the private or work abroad. Education is huge cost, and it does not make sense to keep pouring precious public money into it anymore. Maybe we could keep the schools under public ownership and get the staff under private contracts only, this would save a lot of money and wasted days. A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: -5

12:36pm Wed 12 Mar 14

ChannelX says...


When between 2 and 3 in every 5 teachers leave post in the first five years something is wrong.


How many employees in jobs outside of the public sector have the luxury of knowing they can remain in-situ for five years unless THEY choose otherwise?

I've previously worked for two (very different) public sector organisations in the past - I left both, of my own choosing, within three years. It wasn't anything to do with the jobs themselves, it was to do with an ingrained culture amongst many of the employees (often older ones who'd 'achieved' high ranking positions simply by, er, being there a long time) that made me realise I had to escape such a narrow-minded, inefficient, stifling environment that rewarded mediocrity and was scared of anyone who wanted to improve things/themselves.

I can fully understand why bright individuals who have secured degrees and undergone specific, dedicated training then become massively disapppointed and disillusioned by the public sector workplace. But I'd also suggest it has little to do with the government or the roles themselves.
[quote] When between 2 and 3 in every 5 teachers leave post in the first five years something is wrong. [/quote] How many employees in jobs outside of the public sector have the luxury of knowing they can remain in-situ for five years unless THEY choose otherwise? I've previously worked for two (very different) public sector organisations in the past - I left both, of my own choosing, within three years. It wasn't anything to do with the jobs themselves, it was to do with an ingrained culture amongst many of the employees (often older ones who'd 'achieved' high ranking positions simply by, er, being there a long time) that made me realise I had to escape such a narrow-minded, inefficient, stifling environment that rewarded mediocrity and was scared of anyone who wanted to improve things/themselves. I can fully understand why bright individuals who have secured degrees and undergone specific, dedicated training then become massively disapppointed and disillusioned by the public sector workplace. But I'd also suggest it has little to do with the government or the roles themselves. ChannelX
  • Score: 2

12:45pm Wed 12 Mar 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

house on the hill wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Industrial action should be illegal, having said that I think we could go around the problem of teacher industrial actions by privatizing Education starting with primary schools which are nowadays more like cheap nurseries than schools.
so by privatising you mean parents have to pay for their own kids education? And how would they be monitored?
I know it sounds like a weird concept, but children are the responsibility of the parents.
We know that the best schools are private funded so it makes sense to ask the parents to pay for schools just like we are paying for nursery, maybe we could get the costs deducted from income tax.......
I would go as far as having entry tests for each schools, kids who fail will need more support and therefore parents should pay more, whilst kids that are gifted will need less support and parents should therefore pay less.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: Industrial action should be illegal, having said that I think we could go around the problem of teacher industrial actions by privatizing Education starting with primary schools which are nowadays more like cheap nurseries than schools.[/p][/quote]so by privatising you mean parents have to pay for their own kids education? And how would they be monitored?[/p][/quote]I know it sounds like a weird concept, but children are the responsibility of the parents. We know that the best schools are private funded so it makes sense to ask the parents to pay for schools just like we are paying for nursery, maybe we could get the costs deducted from income tax....... I would go as far as having entry tests for each schools, kids who fail will need more support and therefore parents should pay more, whilst kids that are gifted will need less support and parents should therefore pay less. A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: -9

12:53pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Claypers says...

Rubbercement wrote:
Told my school they can let me take my kids out for 3 days at the end of the academic year with no issues, and I won't charge them for "disrupting my child's education" when they have a strike!! Fair deal to me!!
But that's ridiculous! It is two entirely separate entities that are involved - central government have decreed that parents can be fined for taking children out of school, whilst it is the union who would decide on any strike.

Your comment shows that you are ignorant of both of these facts. You have actually approached the one party in all of this that can have no influence in either decision point - the school itself!
[quote][p][bold]Rubbercement[/bold] wrote: Told my school they can let me take my kids out for 3 days at the end of the academic year with no issues, and I won't charge them for "disrupting my child's education" when they have a strike!! Fair deal to me!![/p][/quote]But that's ridiculous! It is two entirely separate entities that are involved - central government have decreed that parents can be fined for taking children out of school, whilst it is the union who would decide on any strike. Your comment shows that you are ignorant of both of these facts. You have actually approached the one party in all of this that can have no influence in either decision point - the school itself! Claypers
  • Score: 1

12:54pm Wed 12 Mar 14

trolley dolley says...

Is it any wonder that our children's education is well below that of other developed countries.

It is all about the quality of teachers.

This strike shows what the mentality is of the people who are supposed to teach.

I have always felt that they get far too much time off (school holidays) etc.

In a real job, training is given before you start the job and then you retrain as you go along. If they worked 9 to 5 they would have plenty of time to do the things they claim they must do after school.

To disrupt a child's education for purely selfish reasons is neither acceptable or professional.

Try doing a proper days work, it will not kill you.
Is it any wonder that our children's education is well below that of other developed countries. It is all about the quality of teachers. This strike shows what the mentality is of the people who are supposed to teach. I have always felt that they get far too much time off (school holidays) etc. In a real job, training is given before you start the job and then you retrain as you go along. If they worked 9 to 5 they would have plenty of time to do the things they claim they must do after school. To disrupt a child's education for purely selfish reasons is neither acceptable or professional. Try doing a proper days work, it will not kill you. trolley dolley
  • Score: 3

1:13pm Wed 12 Mar 14

express_a_view says...

trolley dolley wrote:
Is it any wonder that our children's education is well below that of other developed countries.

It is all about the quality of teachers.

This strike shows what the mentality is of the people who are supposed to teach.

I have always felt that they get far too much time off (school holidays) etc.

In a real job, training is given before you start the job and then you retrain as you go along. If they worked 9 to 5 they would have plenty of time to do the things they claim they must do after school.

To disrupt a child's education for purely selfish reasons is neither acceptable or professional.

Try doing a proper days work, it will not kill you.
As you are willing to ignore any data that might challenge the spurious nature of your argument I fear there is little point arguing. If you think teaching is not a "real job" you say an awful lot about your own anti-teacher sentiments.
[quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: Is it any wonder that our children's education is well below that of other developed countries. It is all about the quality of teachers. This strike shows what the mentality is of the people who are supposed to teach. I have always felt that they get far too much time off (school holidays) etc. In a real job, training is given before you start the job and then you retrain as you go along. If they worked 9 to 5 they would have plenty of time to do the things they claim they must do after school. To disrupt a child's education for purely selfish reasons is neither acceptable or professional. Try doing a proper days work, it will not kill you.[/p][/quote]As you are willing to ignore any data that might challenge the spurious nature of your argument I fear there is little point arguing. If you think teaching is not a "real job" you say an awful lot about your own anti-teacher sentiments. express_a_view
  • Score: 1

1:24pm Wed 12 Mar 14

express_a_view says...

ChannelX wrote:

When between 2 and 3 in every 5 teachers leave post in the first five years something is wrong.


How many employees in jobs outside of the public sector have the luxury of knowing they can remain in-situ for five years unless THEY choose otherwise?

I've previously worked for two (very different) public sector organisations in the past - I left both, of my own choosing, within three years. It wasn't anything to do with the jobs themselves, it was to do with an ingrained culture amongst many of the employees (often older ones who'd 'achieved' high ranking positions simply by, er, being there a long time) that made me realise I had to escape such a narrow-minded, inefficient, stifling environment that rewarded mediocrity and was scared of anyone who wanted to improve things/themselves.

I can fully understand why bright individuals who have secured degrees and undergone specific, dedicated training then become massively disapppointed and disillusioned by the public sector workplace. But I'd also suggest it has little to do with the government or the roles themselves.
So the whole public service is to be judged on your personal experience of it. Furthermore, job security should now be deemed a luxury. I think that sums up a societal problem. A race to the bottom where zero hour contracts are the norm - this is surely not something you deem acceptable?

As an aside the banks don't have an ingrained culture nor the city of London which falls someway short of a meritocracy. The private energy companies with their massive remuneration for those at the top reward "efficiency" - your having a laugh.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote] When between 2 and 3 in every 5 teachers leave post in the first five years something is wrong. [/quote] How many employees in jobs outside of the public sector have the luxury of knowing they can remain in-situ for five years unless THEY choose otherwise? I've previously worked for two (very different) public sector organisations in the past - I left both, of my own choosing, within three years. It wasn't anything to do with the jobs themselves, it was to do with an ingrained culture amongst many of the employees (often older ones who'd 'achieved' high ranking positions simply by, er, being there a long time) that made me realise I had to escape such a narrow-minded, inefficient, stifling environment that rewarded mediocrity and was scared of anyone who wanted to improve things/themselves. I can fully understand why bright individuals who have secured degrees and undergone specific, dedicated training then become massively disapppointed and disillusioned by the public sector workplace. But I'd also suggest it has little to do with the government or the roles themselves.[/p][/quote]So the whole public service is to be judged on your personal experience of it. Furthermore, job security should now be deemed a luxury. I think that sums up a societal problem. A race to the bottom where zero hour contracts are the norm - this is surely not something you deem acceptable? As an aside the banks don't have an ingrained culture nor the city of London which falls someway short of a meritocracy. The private energy companies with their massive remuneration for those at the top reward "efficiency" - your having a laugh. express_a_view
  • Score: 7

1:33pm Wed 12 Mar 14

house on the hill says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Industrial action should be illegal, having said that I think we could go around the problem of teacher industrial actions by privatizing Education starting with primary schools which are nowadays more like cheap nurseries than schools.
so by privatising you mean parents have to pay for their own kids education? And how would they be monitored?
I know it sounds like a weird concept, but children are the responsibility of the parents.
We know that the best schools are private funded so it makes sense to ask the parents to pay for schools just like we are paying for nursery, maybe we could get the costs deducted from income tax.......
I would go as far as having entry tests for each schools, kids who fail will need more support and therefore parents should pay more, whilst kids that are gifted will need less support and parents should therefore pay less.
Agree with the concept in principle, but how are you going to force parents to pay and presumably those on benefits (assuming you havent scrapped them already) would get even more for free then? And the gifted actually need more spending on them to ensure they reach their higher potential so that is completely wrong!

Not a workable alternative in reality. A someone who chose not to inflict any offspring on others and expect them to subsidise their education, healthcare and endless benefits I couldnt agree more with your concept, but i dont think anyone would vote for it and it would be impossible to make work in reality
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: Industrial action should be illegal, having said that I think we could go around the problem of teacher industrial actions by privatizing Education starting with primary schools which are nowadays more like cheap nurseries than schools.[/p][/quote]so by privatising you mean parents have to pay for their own kids education? And how would they be monitored?[/p][/quote]I know it sounds like a weird concept, but children are the responsibility of the parents. We know that the best schools are private funded so it makes sense to ask the parents to pay for schools just like we are paying for nursery, maybe we could get the costs deducted from income tax....... I would go as far as having entry tests for each schools, kids who fail will need more support and therefore parents should pay more, whilst kids that are gifted will need less support and parents should therefore pay less.[/p][/quote]Agree with the concept in principle, but how are you going to force parents to pay and presumably those on benefits (assuming you havent scrapped them already) would get even more for free then? And the gifted actually need more spending on them to ensure they reach their higher potential so that is completely wrong! Not a workable alternative in reality. A someone who chose not to inflict any offspring on others and expect them to subsidise their education, healthcare and endless benefits I couldnt agree more with your concept, but i dont think anyone would vote for it and it would be impossible to make work in reality house on the hill
  • Score: 1

1:41pm Wed 12 Mar 14

house on the hill says...

express_a_view wrote:
I totally understand the frustration of parents. I also am not sure strike action is the best option - I would much prefer that teachers cut out the time devoted to implementing new government initiatives so often pursued for ministerial vanity rather than the benefit of pupils or schools.

However, I do think that the morale of teachers is at an all time low. When between 2 and 3 in every 5 teachers leave post in the first five years something is wrong. A Department for Education survey found that Primary School teachers were working almost 60 hours a week. Meanwhile headteachers in secondary schools recorded an average of 63 hours and 20 minutes a week. The teaching profession has become plagued by long hours and unnecessary and bureaucratic tasks that deflect from the core task of teaching and learning, It has been estimated that teachers are now fitting in the equivalent of an extra full day a week by working during evenings and weekends. Meanwhile data obtained by the TUC from the nationwide Labour Force Survey, shows that teachers carried out more unpaid overtime in 2013 than any other profession. The average of 12 hours extra a week was higher than financial directors (11 hours) or lawyers (nine hours) - so to those who cite the long teacher holidays do factor that data into your calculations. A survey of Headteachers meanwhile found that 75% of NAHT members had been physically threatened by parents and one in 10 had been physically assaulted by one. Assaults on head teachers used to be a rarity - now they seem to be societally and politically accepted as an occupational hazard. Countrywide complaints of schools being unable to find candidates for vacated headships are becoming ever more common. School governors have complained of having to repeatedly readvertise headteacher vacancies because of a dearth of candidates, according to the National Governors' Association. The degree of crisis is reflected by the fact that the shortage of headteachers will worsen within the next 12 months as those born in the 1950s come to the close of their careers. Something like half of all heads are within 10 years of retirement, a third are within five years.

Teachers are exasperated. They are drained by initiative fatigue; tired of the constant dissing from politicians and much of the media; fed up of being expected by politicians to cure a plethora societal ill when it is the politicians who have the greater influence on decision making; and energy sapped by overly oppressive systems of accountability that detract from, rather than enhance, effective teaching and learning for all pupils.

Those who criticise the striking teachers should ask themselves why if teaching is such an easy option recruitment and retention is so problematic? Teaching should be a wonderful vocation but currently our pupils are taught by the fraught and this serves neither pupils nor teachers well. Put people in this situation and, rightly or wrongly, they may feel they have little option but to strike. It is too easy to blame the unions - perhaps people ought to ask how societally and politically we have allowed teacher morale to plummet to the depths it is currently at?
Even assuming your premise is correct, all the strike does is disrupt the lives of pupils and parents and why should they suffer when it isnt their fault? Sorry, striking is very selfish and hurts entirely the wrong people. The Govt don't care as it saves them a days wages for all the teachers. Find a way of getting back at Govt if you must strike but stop disrupting the kids.
[quote][p][bold]express_a_view[/bold] wrote: I totally understand the frustration of parents. I also am not sure strike action is the best option - I would much prefer that teachers cut out the time devoted to implementing new government initiatives so often pursued for ministerial vanity rather than the benefit of pupils or schools. However, I do think that the morale of teachers is at an all time low. When between 2 and 3 in every 5 teachers leave post in the first five years something is wrong. A Department for Education survey found that Primary School teachers were working almost 60 hours a week. Meanwhile headteachers in secondary schools recorded an average of 63 hours and 20 minutes a week. The teaching profession has become plagued by long hours and unnecessary and bureaucratic tasks that deflect from the core task of teaching and learning, It has been estimated that teachers are now fitting in the equivalent of an extra full day a week by working during evenings and weekends. Meanwhile data obtained by the TUC from the nationwide Labour Force Survey, shows that teachers carried out more unpaid overtime in 2013 than any other profession. The average of 12 hours extra a week was higher than financial directors (11 hours) or lawyers (nine hours) - so to those who cite the long teacher holidays do factor that data into your calculations. A survey of Headteachers meanwhile found that 75% of NAHT members had been physically threatened by parents and one in 10 had been physically assaulted by one. Assaults on head teachers used to be a rarity - now they seem to be societally and politically accepted as an occupational hazard. Countrywide complaints of schools being unable to find candidates for vacated headships are becoming ever more common. School governors have complained of having to repeatedly readvertise headteacher vacancies because of a dearth of candidates, according to the National Governors' Association. The degree of crisis is reflected by the fact that the shortage of headteachers will worsen within the next 12 months as those born in the 1950s come to the close of their careers. Something like half of all heads are within 10 years of retirement, a third are within five years. Teachers are exasperated. They are drained by initiative fatigue; tired of the constant dissing from politicians and much of the media; fed up of being expected by politicians to cure a plethora societal ill when it is the politicians who have the greater influence on decision making; and energy sapped by overly oppressive systems of accountability that detract from, rather than enhance, effective teaching and learning for all pupils. Those who criticise the striking teachers should ask themselves why if teaching is such an easy option recruitment and retention is so problematic? Teaching should be a wonderful vocation but currently our pupils are taught by the fraught and this serves neither pupils nor teachers well. Put people in this situation and, rightly or wrongly, they may feel they have little option but to strike. It is too easy to blame the unions - perhaps people ought to ask how societally and politically we have allowed teacher morale to plummet to the depths it is currently at?[/p][/quote]Even assuming your premise is correct, all the strike does is disrupt the lives of pupils and parents and why should they suffer when it isnt their fault? Sorry, striking is very selfish and hurts entirely the wrong people. The Govt don't care as it saves them a days wages for all the teachers. Find a way of getting back at Govt if you must strike but stop disrupting the kids. house on the hill
  • Score: -3

1:57pm Wed 12 Mar 14

express_a_view says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
Express_a_view, I don't necessarily disagree with much of what you say. However, surely much of this is the teachers own making.

Not convinced the results of the survey you mention mean anything - anyone can make up a number and exaggerate it. Not that I'm saying they have been, but it's very open to abuse. For instance if you simply ask me how many hours a week I work I can tell you it's 70 hours when I actually work many less than this. Unless there is some independent auditing of the claims it means nothing. In any case, an extra day (I assume you mean working day or approx 7 hours), spread over a week really isn't that much.

What would happen if they refused to work so many hours outside of their contracts?

Perhaps it could be said that some teachers are not efficient as others - certainly the claims of some teachers that they work 12 hours extra a week do not tally with the claims of other teachers that little extra work outside of school is needed. Someone is wrong, who is it? This kind of disparity is confusing to the general populace. Perhaps some teachers and head teachers are just less efficient or not very good at their job, perhaps some just require some additional training in time management?

Final point, the quality of our education output has been in decline for many years as was identified by the OECD (http://www.bbc.co.u

k/news/education-244

33320). Something clearly needs to change to reverse this decline so our future generations can remain competitive with the rest of the world. The government have recognised this and are attempting to make changes to the education system in order to do so. Teachers regularly state that the government is not listening to them. The same is true in reverse. The status quo is not working, and changes need to be made. Striking will not change that position.
A few thoughts:

i) The first survey I quoted was commissioned by the DfE but I accept it may have flaws. it is though the most detailed analysis that seems to have been taken.
ii) Of course there are variations - always the case with figures given in averages. No one could deny there are some teachers who do not work as hard as others but there will be others who exceed those averages. Sadly the most idle are not the ones who leave - it is more often the dedicated ones who burn out. This means the present situation is a lose-lose. The less committed stay in post and the most dedicated depart exhausted. The issue is more complex than time management - the education sector has been a political football for so long that it has been submerged in a never ending tsunami of political vanity projects and innovations - from both sides of the political divide. What was a relatively straightforward job when I entered the teaching profession has turned into a bureaucratic paper chase with time deflected from the core task of teaching and learning.
iii) In terms of the OECD data I think politicians and the media have been guilty of a very selective interpretation of what it shows. Ignoring for example its warnings on the danger of societal inequality or an enlarged private school sector. It is interesting that teachers from the Far East are coming to the UK because although their students can pass tests too many lack the skills to apply what they have learnt outside test situations. There is also a concern about the emotional health damage done to the young in the far East by the educational system they employ. That said I think in a global world there is an argument for sharing global practice in an attempt to get the right mix.
iv) I think you are too kind to this and past governments. What has been needed for some time is a non-political moratorium that looks to take a considered non-partisan view on how we develop an education system that is fit for the 21st century and that looks to get the best provision for all of the nation's young people. We are obsessed in this country with school structures - what you call a school is far less important than what you teach and how you teach it. Whilst that moratorium is working a break from new initiatives and a focus to the core elements of an effective school - teaching, learning and behaviour management - should be the priority.

Finally, I am though grateful you are open minded enough to look beyond the traditional teacher bashing so loved by some.
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: Express_a_view, I don't necessarily disagree with much of what you say. However, surely much of this is the teachers own making. Not convinced the results of the survey you mention mean anything - anyone can make up a number and exaggerate it. Not that I'm saying they have been, but it's very open to abuse. For instance if you simply ask me how many hours a week I work I can tell you it's 70 hours when I actually work many less than this. Unless there is some independent auditing of the claims it means nothing. In any case, an extra day (I assume you mean working day or approx 7 hours), spread over a week really isn't that much. What would happen if they refused to work so many hours outside of their contracts? Perhaps it could be said that some teachers are not efficient as others - certainly the claims of some teachers that they work 12 hours extra a week do not tally with the claims of other teachers that little extra work outside of school is needed. Someone is wrong, who is it? This kind of disparity is confusing to the general populace. Perhaps some teachers and head teachers are just less efficient or not very good at their job, perhaps some just require some additional training in time management? Final point, the quality of our education output has been in decline for many years as was identified by the OECD (http://www.bbc.co.u k/news/education-244 33320). Something clearly needs to change to reverse this decline so our future generations can remain competitive with the rest of the world. The government have recognised this and are attempting to make changes to the education system in order to do so. Teachers regularly state that the government is not listening to them. The same is true in reverse. The status quo is not working, and changes need to be made. Striking will not change that position.[/p][/quote]A few thoughts: i) The first survey I quoted was commissioned by the DfE but I accept it may have flaws. it is though the most detailed analysis that seems to have been taken. ii) Of course there are variations - always the case with figures given in averages. No one could deny there are some teachers who do not work as hard as others but there will be others who exceed those averages. Sadly the most idle are not the ones who leave - it is more often the dedicated ones who burn out. This means the present situation is a lose-lose. The less committed stay in post and the most dedicated depart exhausted. The issue is more complex than time management - the education sector has been a political football for so long that it has been submerged in a never ending tsunami of political vanity projects and innovations - from both sides of the political divide. What was a relatively straightforward job when I entered the teaching profession has turned into a bureaucratic paper chase with time deflected from the core task of teaching and learning. iii) In terms of the OECD data I think politicians and the media have been guilty of a very selective interpretation of what it shows. Ignoring for example its warnings on the danger of societal inequality or an enlarged private school sector. It is interesting that teachers from the Far East are coming to the UK because although their students can pass tests too many lack the skills to apply what they have learnt outside test situations. There is also a concern about the emotional health damage done to the young in the far East by the educational system they employ. That said I think in a global world there is an argument for sharing global practice in an attempt to get the right mix. iv) I think you are too kind to this and past governments. What has been needed for some time is a non-political moratorium that looks to take a considered non-partisan view on how we develop an education system that is fit for the 21st century and that looks to get the best provision for all of the nation's young people. We are obsessed in this country with school structures - what you call a school is far less important than what you teach and how you teach it. Whilst that moratorium is working a break from new initiatives and a focus to the core elements of an effective school - teaching, learning and behaviour management - should be the priority. Finally, I am though grateful you are open minded enough to look beyond the traditional teacher bashing so loved by some. express_a_view
  • Score: 7

2:04pm Wed 12 Mar 14

express_a_view says...

house on the hill wrote:
express_a_view wrote:
I totally understand the frustration of parents. I also am not sure strike action is the best option - I would much prefer that teachers cut out the time devoted to implementing new government initiatives so often pursued for ministerial vanity rather than the benefit of pupils or schools.

However, I do think that the morale of teachers is at an all time low. When between 2 and 3 in every 5 teachers leave post in the first five years something is wrong. A Department for Education survey found that Primary School teachers were working almost 60 hours a week. Meanwhile headteachers in secondary schools recorded an average of 63 hours and 20 minutes a week. The teaching profession has become plagued by long hours and unnecessary and bureaucratic tasks that deflect from the core task of teaching and learning, It has been estimated that teachers are now fitting in the equivalent of an extra full day a week by working during evenings and weekends. Meanwhile data obtained by the TUC from the nationwide Labour Force Survey, shows that teachers carried out more unpaid overtime in 2013 than any other profession. The average of 12 hours extra a week was higher than financial directors (11 hours) or lawyers (nine hours) - so to those who cite the long teacher holidays do factor that data into your calculations. A survey of Headteachers meanwhile found that 75% of NAHT members had been physically threatened by parents and one in 10 had been physically assaulted by one. Assaults on head teachers used to be a rarity - now they seem to be societally and politically accepted as an occupational hazard. Countrywide complaints of schools being unable to find candidates for vacated headships are becoming ever more common. School governors have complained of having to repeatedly readvertise headteacher vacancies because of a dearth of candidates, according to the National Governors' Association. The degree of crisis is reflected by the fact that the shortage of headteachers will worsen within the next 12 months as those born in the 1950s come to the close of their careers. Something like half of all heads are within 10 years of retirement, a third are within five years.

Teachers are exasperated. They are drained by initiative fatigue; tired of the constant dissing from politicians and much of the media; fed up of being expected by politicians to cure a plethora societal ill when it is the politicians who have the greater influence on decision making; and energy sapped by overly oppressive systems of accountability that detract from, rather than enhance, effective teaching and learning for all pupils.

Those who criticise the striking teachers should ask themselves why if teaching is such an easy option recruitment and retention is so problematic? Teaching should be a wonderful vocation but currently our pupils are taught by the fraught and this serves neither pupils nor teachers well. Put people in this situation and, rightly or wrongly, they may feel they have little option but to strike. It is too easy to blame the unions - perhaps people ought to ask how societally and politically we have allowed teacher morale to plummet to the depths it is currently at?
Even assuming your premise is correct, all the strike does is disrupt the lives of pupils and parents and why should they suffer when it isnt their fault? Sorry, striking is very selfish and hurts entirely the wrong people. The Govt don't care as it saves them a days wages for all the teachers. Find a way of getting back at Govt if you must strike but stop disrupting the kids.
I actually don't disagree with you that ideally there ought to be more creative ways of making the point. See my initial sentence. I do though fear it is only when we do not have sufficient teachers in-situ and class sizes shoot up accordingly that people will realise the degree of the problems.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]express_a_view[/bold] wrote: I totally understand the frustration of parents. I also am not sure strike action is the best option - I would much prefer that teachers cut out the time devoted to implementing new government initiatives so often pursued for ministerial vanity rather than the benefit of pupils or schools. However, I do think that the morale of teachers is at an all time low. When between 2 and 3 in every 5 teachers leave post in the first five years something is wrong. A Department for Education survey found that Primary School teachers were working almost 60 hours a week. Meanwhile headteachers in secondary schools recorded an average of 63 hours and 20 minutes a week. The teaching profession has become plagued by long hours and unnecessary and bureaucratic tasks that deflect from the core task of teaching and learning, It has been estimated that teachers are now fitting in the equivalent of an extra full day a week by working during evenings and weekends. Meanwhile data obtained by the TUC from the nationwide Labour Force Survey, shows that teachers carried out more unpaid overtime in 2013 than any other profession. The average of 12 hours extra a week was higher than financial directors (11 hours) or lawyers (nine hours) - so to those who cite the long teacher holidays do factor that data into your calculations. A survey of Headteachers meanwhile found that 75% of NAHT members had been physically threatened by parents and one in 10 had been physically assaulted by one. Assaults on head teachers used to be a rarity - now they seem to be societally and politically accepted as an occupational hazard. Countrywide complaints of schools being unable to find candidates for vacated headships are becoming ever more common. School governors have complained of having to repeatedly readvertise headteacher vacancies because of a dearth of candidates, according to the National Governors' Association. The degree of crisis is reflected by the fact that the shortage of headteachers will worsen within the next 12 months as those born in the 1950s come to the close of their careers. Something like half of all heads are within 10 years of retirement, a third are within five years. Teachers are exasperated. They are drained by initiative fatigue; tired of the constant dissing from politicians and much of the media; fed up of being expected by politicians to cure a plethora societal ill when it is the politicians who have the greater influence on decision making; and energy sapped by overly oppressive systems of accountability that detract from, rather than enhance, effective teaching and learning for all pupils. Those who criticise the striking teachers should ask themselves why if teaching is such an easy option recruitment and retention is so problematic? Teaching should be a wonderful vocation but currently our pupils are taught by the fraught and this serves neither pupils nor teachers well. Put people in this situation and, rightly or wrongly, they may feel they have little option but to strike. It is too easy to blame the unions - perhaps people ought to ask how societally and politically we have allowed teacher morale to plummet to the depths it is currently at?[/p][/quote]Even assuming your premise is correct, all the strike does is disrupt the lives of pupils and parents and why should they suffer when it isnt their fault? Sorry, striking is very selfish and hurts entirely the wrong people. The Govt don't care as it saves them a days wages for all the teachers. Find a way of getting back at Govt if you must strike but stop disrupting the kids.[/p][/quote]I actually don't disagree with you that ideally there ought to be more creative ways of making the point. See my initial sentence. I do though fear it is only when we do not have sufficient teachers in-situ and class sizes shoot up accordingly that people will realise the degree of the problems. express_a_view
  • Score: 3

2:07pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Davey Gravey says...

Fair play to the teachers I say.
Fair play to the teachers I say. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -1

2:29pm Wed 12 Mar 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

express_a_view wrote:
trolley dolley wrote:
Is it any wonder that our children's education is well below that of other developed countries.

It is all about the quality of teachers.

This strike shows what the mentality is of the people who are supposed to teach.

I have always felt that they get far too much time off (school holidays) etc.

In a real job, training is given before you start the job and then you retrain as you go along. If they worked 9 to 5 they would have plenty of time to do the things they claim they must do after school.

To disrupt a child's education for purely selfish reasons is neither acceptable or professional.

Try doing a proper days work, it will not kill you.
As you are willing to ignore any data that might challenge the spurious nature of your argument I fear there is little point arguing. If you think teaching is not a "real job" you say an awful lot about your own anti-teacher sentiments.
If you can do! if you can't teach.......
[quote][p][bold]express_a_view[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: Is it any wonder that our children's education is well below that of other developed countries. It is all about the quality of teachers. This strike shows what the mentality is of the people who are supposed to teach. I have always felt that they get far too much time off (school holidays) etc. In a real job, training is given before you start the job and then you retrain as you go along. If they worked 9 to 5 they would have plenty of time to do the things they claim they must do after school. To disrupt a child's education for purely selfish reasons is neither acceptable or professional. Try doing a proper days work, it will not kill you.[/p][/quote]As you are willing to ignore any data that might challenge the spurious nature of your argument I fear there is little point arguing. If you think teaching is not a "real job" you say an awful lot about your own anti-teacher sentiments.[/p][/quote]If you can do! if you can't teach....... A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: -4

2:34pm Wed 12 Mar 14

ChannelX says...

express_a_view wrote:
ChannelX wrote:

When between 2 and 3 in every 5 teachers leave post in the first five years something is wrong.


How many employees in jobs outside of the public sector have the luxury of knowing they can remain in-situ for five years unless THEY choose otherwise?

I've previously worked for two (very different) public sector organisations in the past - I left both, of my own choosing, within three years. It wasn't anything to do with the jobs themselves, it was to do with an ingrained culture amongst many of the employees (often older ones who'd 'achieved' high ranking positions simply by, er, being there a long time) that made me realise I had to escape such a narrow-minded, inefficient, stifling environment that rewarded mediocrity and was scared of anyone who wanted to improve things/themselves.

I can fully understand why bright individuals who have secured degrees and undergone specific, dedicated training then become massively disapppointed and disillusioned by the public sector workplace. But I'd also suggest it has little to do with the government or the roles themselves.
So the whole public service is to be judged on your personal experience of it. Furthermore, job security should now be deemed a luxury. I think that sums up a societal problem. A race to the bottom where zero hour contracts are the norm - this is surely not something you deem acceptable?

As an aside the banks don't have an ingrained culture nor the city of London which falls someway short of a meritocracy. The private energy companies with their massive remuneration for those at the top reward "efficiency" - your having a laugh.
Not just mine, no.

But - just as you're doing - I'm relating my own direct experience and also considering the experience of public sectors colleagues I used to work with and also family, friends and associates I currently know.

Clearly, you don't know all teachers and even less public sector employees generally. You can only talk from experience and what your Union's most recent email told you to believe.

'Job security' doesn't really exist anymore, no. It hasn't for many, many years. Only in some areas of the public sector does the concept exist and, frankly, it is responsible for many of the downsides to public sector employment: very mediocre people coasting along doing the bare minimum, ensuring they pay their union subs and simply sitting around gaining promotions based on chronology and then hanging on desperately until their massive pension arrives. It may well be 'good' for those individuals who connive to 'achieve' it, but it's not good for the people they're supposed to be serving and it's not good for younger public sector employees who want to better things.

'A race to the bottom' is a very well-worn catchphrase of the Left these days, but the irony is that public sector/state employment results in the very same thing, just in a slightly different way.

Which services were ever improved, made more efficient and more productive by being taken under the wing of the State? Answer: none. However, almost every service that was ever privatised has resulted in all three things.

Of course, as a teacher, you'll have numerous skills with which to set up and prosper in your own small business. Ever thought of giving it a go?
[quote][p][bold]express_a_view[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote] When between 2 and 3 in every 5 teachers leave post in the first five years something is wrong. [/quote] How many employees in jobs outside of the public sector have the luxury of knowing they can remain in-situ for five years unless THEY choose otherwise? I've previously worked for two (very different) public sector organisations in the past - I left both, of my own choosing, within three years. It wasn't anything to do with the jobs themselves, it was to do with an ingrained culture amongst many of the employees (often older ones who'd 'achieved' high ranking positions simply by, er, being there a long time) that made me realise I had to escape such a narrow-minded, inefficient, stifling environment that rewarded mediocrity and was scared of anyone who wanted to improve things/themselves. I can fully understand why bright individuals who have secured degrees and undergone specific, dedicated training then become massively disapppointed and disillusioned by the public sector workplace. But I'd also suggest it has little to do with the government or the roles themselves.[/p][/quote]So the whole public service is to be judged on your personal experience of it. Furthermore, job security should now be deemed a luxury. I think that sums up a societal problem. A race to the bottom where zero hour contracts are the norm - this is surely not something you deem acceptable? As an aside the banks don't have an ingrained culture nor the city of London which falls someway short of a meritocracy. The private energy companies with their massive remuneration for those at the top reward "efficiency" - your having a laugh.[/p][/quote]Not just mine, no. But - just as you're doing - I'm relating my own direct experience and also considering the experience of public sectors colleagues I used to work with and also family, friends and associates I currently know. Clearly, you don't know all teachers and even less public sector employees generally. You can only talk from experience and what your Union's most recent email told you to believe. 'Job security' doesn't really exist anymore, no. It hasn't for many, many years. Only in some areas of the public sector does the concept exist and, frankly, it is responsible for many of the downsides to public sector employment: very mediocre people coasting along doing the bare minimum, ensuring they pay their union subs and simply sitting around gaining promotions based on chronology and then hanging on desperately until their massive pension arrives. It may well be 'good' for those individuals who connive to 'achieve' it, but it's not good for the people they're supposed to be serving and it's not good for younger public sector employees who want to better things. 'A race to the bottom' is a very well-worn catchphrase of the Left these days, but the irony is that public sector/state employment results in the very same thing, just in a slightly different way. Which services were ever improved, made more efficient and more productive by being taken under the wing of the State? Answer: none. However, almost every service that was ever privatised has resulted in all three things. Of course, as a teacher, you'll have numerous skills with which to set up and prosper in your own small business. Ever thought of giving it a go? ChannelX
  • Score: -3

2:41pm Wed 12 Mar 14

ChannelX says...

I'm sure there are plenty of unemployed people very keen to gain this kind of employment:


Teachers in England paid higher salaries than those in most other countries.

England’s teachers are paid some of the highest salaries despite working fewer hours than their counterparts in other countries.


Source: http://is.gd/afeBhX
I'm sure there are plenty of unemployed people very keen to gain this kind of employment: [quote] Teachers in England paid higher salaries than those in most other countries. England’s teachers are paid some of the highest salaries despite working fewer hours than their counterparts in other countries. [/quote] Source: http://is.gd/afeBhX ChannelX
  • Score: 1

2:57pm Wed 12 Mar 14

purplerose says...

my hubby works more than 60 hours a week and he only gets 30 days leave a year now what do teachers do oh thats right 60 hours a week then 190 odd days holiday yea thats really something to complain about cause i know i would (not)
my hubby works more than 60 hours a week and he only gets 30 days leave a year now what do teachers do oh thats right 60 hours a week then 190 odd days holiday yea thats really something to complain about cause i know i would (not) purplerose
  • Score: -7

3:24pm Wed 12 Mar 14

King Doink says...

trolley dolley wrote:
Is it any wonder that our children's education is well below that of other developed countries.

It is all about the quality of teachers.

This strike shows what the mentality is of the people who are supposed to teach.

I have always felt that they get far too much time off (school holidays) etc.

In a real job, training is given before you start the job and then you retrain as you go along. If they worked 9 to 5 they would have plenty of time to do the things they claim they must do after school.

To disrupt a child's education for purely selfish reasons is neither acceptable or professional.

Try doing a proper days work, it will not kill you.
D***. You really do not have a clue!
[quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: Is it any wonder that our children's education is well below that of other developed countries. It is all about the quality of teachers. This strike shows what the mentality is of the people who are supposed to teach. I have always felt that they get far too much time off (school holidays) etc. In a real job, training is given before you start the job and then you retrain as you go along. If they worked 9 to 5 they would have plenty of time to do the things they claim they must do after school. To disrupt a child's education for purely selfish reasons is neither acceptable or professional. Try doing a proper days work, it will not kill you.[/p][/quote]D***. You really do not have a clue! King Doink
  • Score: -2

4:26pm Wed 12 Mar 14

express_a_view says...

ChannelX wrote:
express_a_view wrote:
ChannelX wrote:

When between 2 and 3 in every 5 teachers leave post in the first five years something is wrong.


How many employees in jobs outside of the public sector have the luxury of knowing they can remain in-situ for five years unless THEY choose otherwise?

I've previously worked for two (very different) public sector organisations in the past - I left both, of my own choosing, within three years. It wasn't anything to do with the jobs themselves, it was to do with an ingrained culture amongst many of the employees (often older ones who'd 'achieved' high ranking positions simply by, er, being there a long time) that made me realise I had to escape such a narrow-minded, inefficient, stifling environment that rewarded mediocrity and was scared of anyone who wanted to improve things/themselves.

I can fully understand why bright individuals who have secured degrees and undergone specific, dedicated training then become massively disapppointed and disillusioned by the public sector workplace. But I'd also suggest it has little to do with the government or the roles themselves.
So the whole public service is to be judged on your personal experience of it. Furthermore, job security should now be deemed a luxury. I think that sums up a societal problem. A race to the bottom where zero hour contracts are the norm - this is surely not something you deem acceptable?

As an aside the banks don't have an ingrained culture nor the city of London which falls someway short of a meritocracy. The private energy companies with their massive remuneration for those at the top reward "efficiency" - your having a laugh.
Not just mine, no.

But - just as you're doing - I'm relating my own direct experience and also considering the experience of public sectors colleagues I used to work with and also family, friends and associates I currently know.

Clearly, you don't know all teachers and even less public sector employees generally. You can only talk from experience and what your Union's most recent email told you to believe.

'Job security' doesn't really exist anymore, no. It hasn't for many, many years. Only in some areas of the public sector does the concept exist and, frankly, it is responsible for many of the downsides to public sector employment: very mediocre people coasting along doing the bare minimum, ensuring they pay their union subs and simply sitting around gaining promotions based on chronology and then hanging on desperately until their massive pension arrives. It may well be 'good' for those individuals who connive to 'achieve' it, but it's not good for the people they're supposed to be serving and it's not good for younger public sector employees who want to better things.

'A race to the bottom' is a very well-worn catchphrase of the Left these days, but the irony is that public sector/state employment results in the very same thing, just in a slightly different way.

Which services were ever improved, made more efficient and more productive by being taken under the wing of the State? Answer: none. However, almost every service that was ever privatised has resulted in all three things.

Of course, as a teacher, you'll have numerous skills with which to set up and prosper in your own small business. Ever thought of giving it a go?
i) I am not in a union and therefore do not get information from them.
ii) The data I have given is not my own. Indeed, the key data comes from the DfE - that organisation run by Michael Gove - hardly a left wing bastion of radicalism.
iii) These "mediocre" public servants - such as the doctor who might operate on you or I; the fireman who may pull you or I from the wreckage of a car at great risk to themselves; the teacher who has dedicated themselves to working with children with severe learning difficulties; the social worker trying to manage the majority of potential child abuse cases that are well managed but, as a result, unreported; the paramedic who administers life saving first aid. Are they worthy of the title "mediocre"? In fairness I do not for a moment believe all public service workers are good and yes there is undoubtedly some mediocrity - nor though do I swallow the myth of the right that all private sector organisations and workers are so brilliant that mediocrity has been banished. There is good and bad practice in both sectors - to suggest otherwise is frankly foolish. Try embarking on a customer query to some of our private sector companies listening to an abysmal muzak recording of Vivaldi as you press button after button and are greeted by automatic recordings - then when you follow your query up find that three successive private sector employees have failed to act upon it accept the delusional rhetoric of private sector efficiency. Try booking a rail ticket for a journey that crosses franchises. Look at the efficiency of the energy companies where the only people who seem to prosper from their service are those in the higher echelons of their organisation. This myth that the private sector is always improved and more efficient is living proof that "the greater the myth the more easily it is swallowed."
iv) The "race to the bottom" is a popular phrase because it is the reality for large numbers of people.
v) I left teaching sometime ago and have set up my own business. It is trundling along quite nicely so yes I have thought of "giving it a go.".
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]express_a_view[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote] When between 2 and 3 in every 5 teachers leave post in the first five years something is wrong. [/quote] How many employees in jobs outside of the public sector have the luxury of knowing they can remain in-situ for five years unless THEY choose otherwise? I've previously worked for two (very different) public sector organisations in the past - I left both, of my own choosing, within three years. It wasn't anything to do with the jobs themselves, it was to do with an ingrained culture amongst many of the employees (often older ones who'd 'achieved' high ranking positions simply by, er, being there a long time) that made me realise I had to escape such a narrow-minded, inefficient, stifling environment that rewarded mediocrity and was scared of anyone who wanted to improve things/themselves. I can fully understand why bright individuals who have secured degrees and undergone specific, dedicated training then become massively disapppointed and disillusioned by the public sector workplace. But I'd also suggest it has little to do with the government or the roles themselves.[/p][/quote]So the whole public service is to be judged on your personal experience of it. Furthermore, job security should now be deemed a luxury. I think that sums up a societal problem. A race to the bottom where zero hour contracts are the norm - this is surely not something you deem acceptable? As an aside the banks don't have an ingrained culture nor the city of London which falls someway short of a meritocracy. The private energy companies with their massive remuneration for those at the top reward "efficiency" - your having a laugh.[/p][/quote]Not just mine, no. But - just as you're doing - I'm relating my own direct experience and also considering the experience of public sectors colleagues I used to work with and also family, friends and associates I currently know. Clearly, you don't know all teachers and even less public sector employees generally. You can only talk from experience and what your Union's most recent email told you to believe. 'Job security' doesn't really exist anymore, no. It hasn't for many, many years. Only in some areas of the public sector does the concept exist and, frankly, it is responsible for many of the downsides to public sector employment: very mediocre people coasting along doing the bare minimum, ensuring they pay their union subs and simply sitting around gaining promotions based on chronology and then hanging on desperately until their massive pension arrives. It may well be 'good' for those individuals who connive to 'achieve' it, but it's not good for the people they're supposed to be serving and it's not good for younger public sector employees who want to better things. 'A race to the bottom' is a very well-worn catchphrase of the Left these days, but the irony is that public sector/state employment results in the very same thing, just in a slightly different way. Which services were ever improved, made more efficient and more productive by being taken under the wing of the State? Answer: none. However, almost every service that was ever privatised has resulted in all three things. Of course, as a teacher, you'll have numerous skills with which to set up and prosper in your own small business. Ever thought of giving it a go?[/p][/quote]i) I am not in a union and therefore do not get information from them. ii) The data I have given is not my own. Indeed, the key data comes from the DfE - that organisation run by Michael Gove - hardly a left wing bastion of radicalism. iii) These "mediocre" public servants - such as the doctor who might operate on you or I; the fireman who may pull you or I from the wreckage of a car at great risk to themselves; the teacher who has dedicated themselves to working with children with severe learning difficulties; the social worker trying to manage the majority of potential child abuse cases that are well managed but, as a result, unreported; the paramedic who administers life saving first aid. Are they worthy of the title "mediocre"? In fairness I do not for a moment believe all public service workers are good and yes there is undoubtedly some mediocrity - nor though do I swallow the myth of the right that all private sector organisations and workers are so brilliant that mediocrity has been banished. There is good and bad practice in both sectors - to suggest otherwise is frankly foolish. Try embarking on a customer query to some of our private sector companies listening to an abysmal muzak recording of Vivaldi as you press button after button and are greeted by automatic recordings - then when you follow your query up find that three successive private sector employees have failed to act upon it accept the delusional rhetoric of private sector efficiency. Try booking a rail ticket for a journey that crosses franchises. Look at the efficiency of the energy companies where the only people who seem to prosper from their service are those in the higher echelons of their organisation. This myth that the private sector is always improved and more efficient is living proof that "the greater the myth the more easily it is swallowed." iv) The "race to the bottom" is a popular phrase because it is the reality for large numbers of people. v) I left teaching sometime ago and have set up my own business. It is trundling along quite nicely so yes I have thought of "giving it a go.". express_a_view
  • Score: 6

4:34pm Wed 12 Mar 14

house on the hill says...

express_a_view wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
express_a_view wrote:
I totally understand the frustration of parents. I also am not sure strike action is the best option - I would much prefer that teachers cut out the time devoted to implementing new government initiatives so often pursued for ministerial vanity rather than the benefit of pupils or schools.

However, I do think that the morale of teachers is at an all time low. When between 2 and 3 in every 5 teachers leave post in the first five years something is wrong. A Department for Education survey found that Primary School teachers were working almost 60 hours a week. Meanwhile headteachers in secondary schools recorded an average of 63 hours and 20 minutes a week. The teaching profession has become plagued by long hours and unnecessary and bureaucratic tasks that deflect from the core task of teaching and learning, It has been estimated that teachers are now fitting in the equivalent of an extra full day a week by working during evenings and weekends. Meanwhile data obtained by the TUC from the nationwide Labour Force Survey, shows that teachers carried out more unpaid overtime in 2013 than any other profession. The average of 12 hours extra a week was higher than financial directors (11 hours) or lawyers (nine hours) - so to those who cite the long teacher holidays do factor that data into your calculations. A survey of Headteachers meanwhile found that 75% of NAHT members had been physically threatened by parents and one in 10 had been physically assaulted by one. Assaults on head teachers used to be a rarity - now they seem to be societally and politically accepted as an occupational hazard. Countrywide complaints of schools being unable to find candidates for vacated headships are becoming ever more common. School governors have complained of having to repeatedly readvertise headteacher vacancies because of a dearth of candidates, according to the National Governors' Association. The degree of crisis is reflected by the fact that the shortage of headteachers will worsen within the next 12 months as those born in the 1950s come to the close of their careers. Something like half of all heads are within 10 years of retirement, a third are within five years.

Teachers are exasperated. They are drained by initiative fatigue; tired of the constant dissing from politicians and much of the media; fed up of being expected by politicians to cure a plethora societal ill when it is the politicians who have the greater influence on decision making; and energy sapped by overly oppressive systems of accountability that detract from, rather than enhance, effective teaching and learning for all pupils.

Those who criticise the striking teachers should ask themselves why if teaching is such an easy option recruitment and retention is so problematic? Teaching should be a wonderful vocation but currently our pupils are taught by the fraught and this serves neither pupils nor teachers well. Put people in this situation and, rightly or wrongly, they may feel they have little option but to strike. It is too easy to blame the unions - perhaps people ought to ask how societally and politically we have allowed teacher morale to plummet to the depths it is currently at?
Even assuming your premise is correct, all the strike does is disrupt the lives of pupils and parents and why should they suffer when it isnt their fault? Sorry, striking is very selfish and hurts entirely the wrong people. The Govt don't care as it saves them a days wages for all the teachers. Find a way of getting back at Govt if you must strike but stop disrupting the kids.
I actually don't disagree with you that ideally there ought to be more creative ways of making the point. See my initial sentence. I do though fear it is only when we do not have sufficient teachers in-situ and class sizes shoot up accordingly that people will realise the degree of the problems.
I am actually on your side, Just trying to think of a more productive way of getting the message over. And also playing devils advocate, never forgetting the bigger picture, if more money is put into education where does it get taken away from when the overall pot is pretty static and a massive debt to be paid off too. And morale is pretty low in most of the Public Sector too to be fair, it is so badly mismanaged at all levels. At least you will have 60 Chinese maths teachers to help soon!!!!
[quote][p][bold]express_a_view[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]express_a_view[/bold] wrote: I totally understand the frustration of parents. I also am not sure strike action is the best option - I would much prefer that teachers cut out the time devoted to implementing new government initiatives so often pursued for ministerial vanity rather than the benefit of pupils or schools. However, I do think that the morale of teachers is at an all time low. When between 2 and 3 in every 5 teachers leave post in the first five years something is wrong. A Department for Education survey found that Primary School teachers were working almost 60 hours a week. Meanwhile headteachers in secondary schools recorded an average of 63 hours and 20 minutes a week. The teaching profession has become plagued by long hours and unnecessary and bureaucratic tasks that deflect from the core task of teaching and learning, It has been estimated that teachers are now fitting in the equivalent of an extra full day a week by working during evenings and weekends. Meanwhile data obtained by the TUC from the nationwide Labour Force Survey, shows that teachers carried out more unpaid overtime in 2013 than any other profession. The average of 12 hours extra a week was higher than financial directors (11 hours) or lawyers (nine hours) - so to those who cite the long teacher holidays do factor that data into your calculations. A survey of Headteachers meanwhile found that 75% of NAHT members had been physically threatened by parents and one in 10 had been physically assaulted by one. Assaults on head teachers used to be a rarity - now they seem to be societally and politically accepted as an occupational hazard. Countrywide complaints of schools being unable to find candidates for vacated headships are becoming ever more common. School governors have complained of having to repeatedly readvertise headteacher vacancies because of a dearth of candidates, according to the National Governors' Association. The degree of crisis is reflected by the fact that the shortage of headteachers will worsen within the next 12 months as those born in the 1950s come to the close of their careers. Something like half of all heads are within 10 years of retirement, a third are within five years. Teachers are exasperated. They are drained by initiative fatigue; tired of the constant dissing from politicians and much of the media; fed up of being expected by politicians to cure a plethora societal ill when it is the politicians who have the greater influence on decision making; and energy sapped by overly oppressive systems of accountability that detract from, rather than enhance, effective teaching and learning for all pupils. Those who criticise the striking teachers should ask themselves why if teaching is such an easy option recruitment and retention is so problematic? Teaching should be a wonderful vocation but currently our pupils are taught by the fraught and this serves neither pupils nor teachers well. Put people in this situation and, rightly or wrongly, they may feel they have little option but to strike. It is too easy to blame the unions - perhaps people ought to ask how societally and politically we have allowed teacher morale to plummet to the depths it is currently at?[/p][/quote]Even assuming your premise is correct, all the strike does is disrupt the lives of pupils and parents and why should they suffer when it isnt their fault? Sorry, striking is very selfish and hurts entirely the wrong people. The Govt don't care as it saves them a days wages for all the teachers. Find a way of getting back at Govt if you must strike but stop disrupting the kids.[/p][/quote]I actually don't disagree with you that ideally there ought to be more creative ways of making the point. See my initial sentence. I do though fear it is only when we do not have sufficient teachers in-situ and class sizes shoot up accordingly that people will realise the degree of the problems.[/p][/quote]I am actually on your side, Just trying to think of a more productive way of getting the message over. And also playing devils advocate, never forgetting the bigger picture, if more money is put into education where does it get taken away from when the overall pot is pretty static and a massive debt to be paid off too. And morale is pretty low in most of the Public Sector too to be fair, it is so badly mismanaged at all levels. At least you will have 60 Chinese maths teachers to help soon!!!! house on the hill
  • Score: -3

4:44pm Wed 12 Mar 14

express_a_view says...

purplerose wrote:
my hubby works more than 60 hours a week and he only gets 30 days leave a year now what do teachers do oh thats right 60 hours a week then 190 odd days holiday yea thats really something to complain about cause i know i would (not)
I would revisit your sums. on holidays.

If the job is so cushy just explain to me why recruitment and retention is so problematic? I am not for a moment saying there are not other people out there having it tough. What I am saying is that if graduates increasingly opt for careers other than teaching and if less people opt to become head teachers then this is not good for the nation's future generations. I cannot comprehend why any thinking person of any political persuasion cannot see that we need nationally to do something to make teaching sufficiently attractive a profession that it recruits and retains the best practitioners. In a decent society, such as happens in Finland, teaching would be such a prestigious job that there would even be the capacity to be more selective about who taught.
[quote][p][bold]purplerose[/bold] wrote: my hubby works more than 60 hours a week and he only gets 30 days leave a year now what do teachers do oh thats right 60 hours a week then 190 odd days holiday yea thats really something to complain about cause i know i would (not)[/p][/quote]I would revisit your sums. on holidays. If the job is so cushy just explain to me why recruitment and retention is so problematic? I am not for a moment saying there are not other people out there having it tough. What I am saying is that if graduates increasingly opt for careers other than teaching and if less people opt to become head teachers then this is not good for the nation's future generations. I cannot comprehend why any thinking person of any political persuasion cannot see that we need nationally to do something to make teaching sufficiently attractive a profession that it recruits and retains the best practitioners. In a decent society, such as happens in Finland, teaching would be such a prestigious job that there would even be the capacity to be more selective about who taught. express_a_view
  • Score: 4

5:04pm Wed 12 Mar 14

express_a_view says...

ChannelX wrote:
I'm sure there are plenty of unemployed people very keen to gain this kind of employment:


Teachers in England paid higher salaries than those in most other countries.

England’s teachers are paid some of the highest salaries despite working fewer hours than their counterparts in other countries.


Source: http://is.gd/afeBhX
From the same article:

"However, a teacher's salary at the top of the scale does not increase after 10 years' experience in England, and eventually falls behind an OECD average of around £29,500 later in a teacher’s career."

As with all international comparators one can always find something to counter argue with. This quote implies that those who remain in teaching more than ten years do less well in terms of remuneration than the majority of teachers in OECD countries.

I can tell you schools are not being overwhelmed by suitably qualified unemployed people keen to gain "this kind of employment." I assume of course you are not suggesting that teaching should be open to those without suitable qualifications/train
ing? I actually do not think this is because of pay - it is because teaching is seen by many graduates to be unduly stressful, bureaucratic and overly subject to political interference/fads.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: I'm sure there are plenty of unemployed people very keen to gain this kind of employment: [quote] Teachers in England paid higher salaries than those in most other countries. England’s teachers are paid some of the highest salaries despite working fewer hours than their counterparts in other countries. [/quote] Source: http://is.gd/afeBhX[/p][/quote]From the same article: "However, a teacher's salary at the top of the scale does not increase after 10 years' experience in England, and eventually falls behind an OECD average of around £29,500 later in a teacher’s career." As with all international comparators one can always find something to counter argue with. This quote implies that those who remain in teaching more than ten years do less well in terms of remuneration than the majority of teachers in OECD countries. I can tell you schools are not being overwhelmed by suitably qualified unemployed people keen to gain "this kind of employment." I assume of course you are not suggesting that teaching should be open to those without suitable qualifications/train ing? I actually do not think this is because of pay - it is because teaching is seen by many graduates to be unduly stressful, bureaucratic and overly subject to political interference/fads. express_a_view
  • Score: 5

5:35pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Brasil2014 says...

trolley dolley wrote:
Is it any wonder that our children's education is well below that of other developed countries.

It is all about the quality of teachers.

This strike shows what the mentality is of the people who are supposed to teach.

I have always felt that they get far too much time off (school holidays) etc.

In a real job, training is given before you start the job and then you retrain as you go along. If they worked 9 to 5 they would have plenty of time to do the things they claim they must do after school.

To disrupt a child's education for purely selfish reasons is neither acceptable or professional.

Try doing a proper days work, it will not kill you.
"Our children's education is well below that of other developed countries" says who? There are some statistics that says our level of achievement are lower than others but as we all know statistics can be made to mean anything. My wife teaches, 5 days a week leaving by 7.30 am and usually gets home at about 6.30 but often later. In addition one day every weekend is spent doing preparation, marking, seating plans, lesson plans etc. As a conservative estimate I would say an average 8 hours work at the weekend. Each weeknight from 8 till 11 would be a fair average, at least 4 nights a week. In addition when exams, inspections are about much longer preparing and supporting students and doing pointless paperwork. Holidays - spends many days in school: schemes of work, preparation, displays, etc.
Training days are just that. School year is the same now as it was when I went to school many years ago and "Baker days" were introduced in addition to the 195 school days. They don't work 9-5, when they are in they are teaching or carrying out other specified duties. Teachers are doing an unbelievable job and the biggest problem they face are the constantly changing goalpost (Gov new rules every week) and the low aspirations of many of our young people which is fuelled by a lack of parental involvement which is so vital for children to succeed. The abuse, attitude and lack of support they receive is unbelievable, I have worked internationally and the biggest difference in education abroad is the push from home, children's attitude and the ethos to achieve.
As a footnote my wife's not striking and the vast majority won't either and the vast majority do a proper day (and nights) work and are not selfish, unprofessional and don't wish to disrupt anyone's education.
[quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: Is it any wonder that our children's education is well below that of other developed countries. It is all about the quality of teachers. This strike shows what the mentality is of the people who are supposed to teach. I have always felt that they get far too much time off (school holidays) etc. In a real job, training is given before you start the job and then you retrain as you go along. If they worked 9 to 5 they would have plenty of time to do the things they claim they must do after school. To disrupt a child's education for purely selfish reasons is neither acceptable or professional. Try doing a proper days work, it will not kill you.[/p][/quote]"Our children's education is well below that of other developed countries" says who? There are some statistics that says our level of achievement are lower than others but as we all know statistics can be made to mean anything. My wife teaches, 5 days a week leaving by 7.30 am and usually gets home at about 6.30 but often later. In addition one day every weekend is spent doing preparation, marking, seating plans, lesson plans etc. As a conservative estimate I would say an average 8 hours work at the weekend. Each weeknight from 8 till 11 would be a fair average, at least 4 nights a week. In addition when exams, inspections are about much longer preparing and supporting students and doing pointless paperwork. Holidays - spends many days in school: schemes of work, preparation, displays, etc. Training days are just that. School year is the same now as it was when I went to school many years ago and "Baker days" were introduced in addition to the 195 school days. They don't work 9-5, when they are in they are teaching or carrying out other specified duties. Teachers are doing an unbelievable job and the biggest problem they face are the constantly changing goalpost (Gov new rules every week) and the low aspirations of many of our young people which is fuelled by a lack of parental involvement which is so vital for children to succeed. The abuse, attitude and lack of support they receive is unbelievable, I have worked internationally and the biggest difference in education abroad is the push from home, children's attitude and the ethos to achieve. As a footnote my wife's not striking and the vast majority won't either and the vast majority do a proper day (and nights) work and are not selfish, unprofessional and don't wish to disrupt anyone's education. Brasil2014
  • Score: 5

5:38pm Wed 12 Mar 14

trolley dolley says...

What should happen is that teachers should be required to pass extremely vigorous tests before they can start training, then the training should weed out anyone who has not got the aptitude to do the job.

After that teachers should be tested regularly for competence and dismissed unless they retain high standards.

Non of this is will be done, our children will continue to be the lowest achievers in the developed world and the teachers will blame the Government of the day for their failings.
What should happen is that teachers should be required to pass extremely vigorous tests before they can start training, then the training should weed out anyone who has not got the aptitude to do the job. After that teachers should be tested regularly for competence and dismissed unless they retain high standards. Non of this is will be done, our children will continue to be the lowest achievers in the developed world and the teachers will blame the Government of the day for their failings. trolley dolley
  • Score: -1

5:53pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Brasil2014 says...

express_a_view wrote:
purplerose wrote:
my hubby works more than 60 hours a week and he only gets 30 days leave a year now what do teachers do oh thats right 60 hours a week then 190 odd days holiday yea thats really something to complain about cause i know i would (not)
I would revisit your sums. on holidays.

If the job is so cushy just explain to me why recruitment and retention is so problematic? I am not for a moment saying there are not other people out there having it tough. What I am saying is that if graduates increasingly opt for careers other than teaching and if less people opt to become head teachers then this is not good for the nation's future generations. I cannot comprehend why any thinking person of any political persuasion cannot see that we need nationally to do something to make teaching sufficiently attractive a profession that it recruits and retains the best practitioners. In a decent society, such as happens in Finland, teaching would be such a prestigious job that there would even be the capacity to be more selective about who taught.
30 days holiday is very generous and more than most. Yea the maths is very dodgy. Perhaps a teacher could explain about the number of days in the year and also how weekends work with regard to holidays!
[quote][p][bold]express_a_view[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]purplerose[/bold] wrote: my hubby works more than 60 hours a week and he only gets 30 days leave a year now what do teachers do oh thats right 60 hours a week then 190 odd days holiday yea thats really something to complain about cause i know i would (not)[/p][/quote]I would revisit your sums. on holidays. If the job is so cushy just explain to me why recruitment and retention is so problematic? I am not for a moment saying there are not other people out there having it tough. What I am saying is that if graduates increasingly opt for careers other than teaching and if less people opt to become head teachers then this is not good for the nation's future generations. I cannot comprehend why any thinking person of any political persuasion cannot see that we need nationally to do something to make teaching sufficiently attractive a profession that it recruits and retains the best practitioners. In a decent society, such as happens in Finland, teaching would be such a prestigious job that there would even be the capacity to be more selective about who taught.[/p][/quote]30 days holiday is very generous and more than most. Yea the maths is very dodgy. Perhaps a teacher could explain about the number of days in the year and also how weekends work with regard to holidays! Brasil2014
  • Score: 3

5:57pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Brasil2014 says...

trolley dolley wrote:
What should happen is that teachers should be required to pass extremely vigorous tests before they can start training, then the training should weed out anyone who has not got the aptitude to do the job.

After that teachers should be tested regularly for competence and dismissed unless they retain high standards.

Non of this is will be done, our children will continue to be the lowest achievers in the developed world and the teachers will blame the Government of the day for their failings.
As someone else said - you haven't got a clue. Do you really think they just walk off the streets and into a classroom?
[quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: What should happen is that teachers should be required to pass extremely vigorous tests before they can start training, then the training should weed out anyone who has not got the aptitude to do the job. After that teachers should be tested regularly for competence and dismissed unless they retain high standards. Non of this is will be done, our children will continue to be the lowest achievers in the developed world and the teachers will blame the Government of the day for their failings.[/p][/quote]As someone else said - you haven't got a clue. Do you really think they just walk off the streets and into a classroom? Brasil2014
  • Score: 6

8:02pm Wed 12 Mar 14

King Doink says...

Brasil2014 wrote:
trolley dolley wrote:
Is it any wonder that our children's education is well below that of other developed countries.

It is all about the quality of teachers.

This strike shows what the mentality is of the people who are supposed to teach.

I have always felt that they get far too much time off (school holidays) etc.

In a real job, training is given before you start the job and then you retrain as you go along. If they worked 9 to 5 they would have plenty of time to do the things they claim they must do after school.

To disrupt a child's education for purely selfish reasons is neither acceptable or professional.

Try doing a proper days work, it will not kill you.
"Our children's education is well below that of other developed countries" says who? There are some statistics that says our level of achievement are lower than others but as we all know statistics can be made to mean anything. My wife teaches, 5 days a week leaving by 7.30 am and usually gets home at about 6.30 but often later. In addition one day every weekend is spent doing preparation, marking, seating plans, lesson plans etc. As a conservative estimate I would say an average 8 hours work at the weekend. Each weeknight from 8 till 11 would be a fair average, at least 4 nights a week. In addition when exams, inspections are about much longer preparing and supporting students and doing pointless paperwork. Holidays - spends many days in school: schemes of work, preparation, displays, etc.
Training days are just that. School year is the same now as it was when I went to school many years ago and "Baker days" were introduced in addition to the 195 school days. They don't work 9-5, when they are in they are teaching or carrying out other specified duties. Teachers are doing an unbelievable job and the biggest problem they face are the constantly changing goalpost (Gov new rules every week) and the low aspirations of many of our young people which is fuelled by a lack of parental involvement which is so vital for children to succeed. The abuse, attitude and lack of support they receive is unbelievable, I have worked internationally and the biggest difference in education abroad is the push from home, children's attitude and the ethos to achieve.
As a footnote my wife's not striking and the vast majority won't either and the vast majority do a proper day (and nights) work and are not selfish, unprofessional and don't wish to disrupt anyone's education.
Well said!! A lot of these morons that comment on this article really do not understand the role of a great teacher that puts the hours in. They can get back to watching Jeremy Kyle now!!!
[quote][p][bold]Brasil2014[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: Is it any wonder that our children's education is well below that of other developed countries. It is all about the quality of teachers. This strike shows what the mentality is of the people who are supposed to teach. I have always felt that they get far too much time off (school holidays) etc. In a real job, training is given before you start the job and then you retrain as you go along. If they worked 9 to 5 they would have plenty of time to do the things they claim they must do after school. To disrupt a child's education for purely selfish reasons is neither acceptable or professional. Try doing a proper days work, it will not kill you.[/p][/quote]"Our children's education is well below that of other developed countries" says who? There are some statistics that says our level of achievement are lower than others but as we all know statistics can be made to mean anything. My wife teaches, 5 days a week leaving by 7.30 am and usually gets home at about 6.30 but often later. In addition one day every weekend is spent doing preparation, marking, seating plans, lesson plans etc. As a conservative estimate I would say an average 8 hours work at the weekend. Each weeknight from 8 till 11 would be a fair average, at least 4 nights a week. In addition when exams, inspections are about much longer preparing and supporting students and doing pointless paperwork. Holidays - spends many days in school: schemes of work, preparation, displays, etc. Training days are just that. School year is the same now as it was when I went to school many years ago and "Baker days" were introduced in addition to the 195 school days. They don't work 9-5, when they are in they are teaching or carrying out other specified duties. Teachers are doing an unbelievable job and the biggest problem they face are the constantly changing goalpost (Gov new rules every week) and the low aspirations of many of our young people which is fuelled by a lack of parental involvement which is so vital for children to succeed. The abuse, attitude and lack of support they receive is unbelievable, I have worked internationally and the biggest difference in education abroad is the push from home, children's attitude and the ethos to achieve. As a footnote my wife's not striking and the vast majority won't either and the vast majority do a proper day (and nights) work and are not selfish, unprofessional and don't wish to disrupt anyone's education.[/p][/quote]Well said!! A lot of these morons that comment on this article really do not understand the role of a great teacher that puts the hours in. They can get back to watching Jeremy Kyle now!!! King Doink
  • Score: 1

8:44pm Wed 12 Mar 14

ChаnnelX says...

express_a_view wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
I'm sure there are plenty of unemployed people very keen to gain this kind of employment:


Teachers in England paid higher salaries than those in most other countries.

England’s teachers are paid some of the highest salaries despite working fewer hours than their counterparts in other countries.


Source: http://is.gd/afeBhX
From the same article:

"However, a teacher's salary at the top of the scale does not increase after 10 years' experience in England, and eventually falls behind an OECD average of around £29,500 later in a teacher’s career."

As with all international comparators one can always find something to counter argue with. This quote implies that those who remain in teaching more than ten years do less well in terms of remuneration than the majority of teachers in OECD countries.

I can tell you schools are not being overwhelmed by suitably qualified unemployed people keen to gain "this kind of employment." I assume of course you are not suggesting that teaching should be open to those without suitable qualifications/train

ing? I actually do not think this is because of pay - it is because teaching is seen by many graduates to be unduly stressful, bureaucratic and overly subject to political interference/fads.
Don't you just love it when the leftie socialists come out of the woodwork whenever there's a story about teachers going on strike.

I have spoken on the subject and I do NOT, under any circumstances, expect anyone to question my word. If you don't like earning £29,500 per year then walk out; let some other unemployed person do the job instead. It really isn't *that* difficult, I have a friend who knows a teacher and they don't work 'hard' by any stretch of the imagination.

Outstanding.
[quote][p][bold]express_a_view[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: I'm sure there are plenty of unemployed people very keen to gain this kind of employment: [quote] Teachers in England paid higher salaries than those in most other countries. England’s teachers are paid some of the highest salaries despite working fewer hours than their counterparts in other countries. [/quote] Source: http://is.gd/afeBhX[/p][/quote]From the same article: "However, a teacher's salary at the top of the scale does not increase after 10 years' experience in England, and eventually falls behind an OECD average of around £29,500 later in a teacher’s career." As with all international comparators one can always find something to counter argue with. This quote implies that those who remain in teaching more than ten years do less well in terms of remuneration than the majority of teachers in OECD countries. I can tell you schools are not being overwhelmed by suitably qualified unemployed people keen to gain "this kind of employment." I assume of course you are not suggesting that teaching should be open to those without suitable qualifications/train ing? I actually do not think this is because of pay - it is because teaching is seen by many graduates to be unduly stressful, bureaucratic and overly subject to political interference/fads.[/p][/quote]Don't you just love it when the leftie socialists come out of the woodwork whenever there's a story about teachers going on strike. I have spoken on the subject and I do NOT, under any circumstances, expect anyone to question my word. If you don't like earning £29,500 per year then walk out; let some other unemployed person do the job instead. It really isn't *that* difficult, I have a friend who knows a teacher and they don't work 'hard' by any stretch of the imagination. Outstanding. ChаnnelX
  • Score: -5

9:23pm Wed 12 Mar 14

express_a_view says...

Brasil2014 wrote:
express_a_view wrote:
purplerose wrote:
my hubby works more than 60 hours a week and he only gets 30 days leave a year now what do teachers do oh thats right 60 hours a week then 190 odd days holiday yea thats really something to complain about cause i know i would (not)
I would revisit your sums. on holidays.

If the job is so cushy just explain to me why recruitment and retention is so problematic? I am not for a moment saying there are not other people out there having it tough. What I am saying is that if graduates increasingly opt for careers other than teaching and if less people opt to become head teachers then this is not good for the nation's future generations. I cannot comprehend why any thinking person of any political persuasion cannot see that we need nationally to do something to make teaching sufficiently attractive a profession that it recruits and retains the best practitioners. In a decent society, such as happens in Finland, teaching would be such a prestigious job that there would even be the capacity to be more selective about who taught.
30 days holiday is very generous and more than most. Yea the maths is very dodgy. Perhaps a teacher could explain about the number of days in the year and also how weekends work with regard to holidays!
Let me start by putting anything I write into context. I am working on the basis of a five day working week - I of course totally acknowledge that there are significant numbers in the national workforce who work more days in a week than that.

Teachers are contracted to work in schools for 195 days. This leaves 65 working days that are not worked in school. Of those 65 days 8 are Bank Holidays that take the total down to 57. it is then estimated by a recent survey that teachers work on average an additional 12 unpaid hours per week. If we only count that 12 hours as applying to the 39 weeks in school that equates to an extra 468 hours. If we work on a basis of a 45 hour week this would equate to an additional 10.4 working weeks or 51 days - this could be argued to be a work equivalence of 246 days out of 260 days based on a five day working week.

Now of course all such surveys when using averages need to be treated with caution - the reality is that some teachers will work considerably more and others considerably less. What is indisputable is that the additional unpaid work does start to erode into some of the perceived "generous" holiday time that teacher critics cite.
[quote][p][bold]Brasil2014[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]express_a_view[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]purplerose[/bold] wrote: my hubby works more than 60 hours a week and he only gets 30 days leave a year now what do teachers do oh thats right 60 hours a week then 190 odd days holiday yea thats really something to complain about cause i know i would (not)[/p][/quote]I would revisit your sums. on holidays. If the job is so cushy just explain to me why recruitment and retention is so problematic? I am not for a moment saying there are not other people out there having it tough. What I am saying is that if graduates increasingly opt for careers other than teaching and if less people opt to become head teachers then this is not good for the nation's future generations. I cannot comprehend why any thinking person of any political persuasion cannot see that we need nationally to do something to make teaching sufficiently attractive a profession that it recruits and retains the best practitioners. In a decent society, such as happens in Finland, teaching would be such a prestigious job that there would even be the capacity to be more selective about who taught.[/p][/quote]30 days holiday is very generous and more than most. Yea the maths is very dodgy. Perhaps a teacher could explain about the number of days in the year and also how weekends work with regard to holidays![/p][/quote]Let me start by putting anything I write into context. I am working on the basis of a five day working week - I of course totally acknowledge that there are significant numbers in the national workforce who work more days in a week than that. Teachers are contracted to work in schools for 195 days. This leaves 65 working days that are not worked in school. Of those 65 days 8 are Bank Holidays that take the total down to 57. it is then estimated by a recent survey that teachers work on average an additional 12 unpaid hours per week. If we only count that 12 hours as applying to the 39 weeks in school that equates to an extra 468 hours. If we work on a basis of a 45 hour week this would equate to an additional 10.4 working weeks or 51 days - this could be argued to be a work equivalence of 246 days out of 260 days based on a five day working week. Now of course all such surveys when using averages need to be treated with caution - the reality is that some teachers will work considerably more and others considerably less. What is indisputable is that the additional unpaid work does start to erode into some of the perceived "generous" holiday time that teacher critics cite. express_a_view
  • Score: 4

9:46pm Wed 12 Mar 14

express_a_view says...

ChаnnelX wrote:
express_a_view wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
I'm sure there are plenty of unemployed people very keen to gain this kind of employment:


Teachers in England paid higher salaries than those in most other countries.

England’s teachers are paid some of the highest salaries despite working fewer hours than their counterparts in other countries.


Source: http://is.gd/afeBhX
From the same article:

"However, a teacher's salary at the top of the scale does not increase after 10 years' experience in England, and eventually falls behind an OECD average of around £29,500 later in a teacher’s career."

As with all international comparators one can always find something to counter argue with. This quote implies that those who remain in teaching more than ten years do less well in terms of remuneration than the majority of teachers in OECD countries.

I can tell you schools are not being overwhelmed by suitably qualified unemployed people keen to gain "this kind of employment." I assume of course you are not suggesting that teaching should be open to those without suitable qualifications/train


ing? I actually do not think this is because of pay - it is because teaching is seen by many graduates to be unduly stressful, bureaucratic and overly subject to political interference/fads.
Don't you just love it when the leftie socialists come out of the woodwork whenever there's a story about teachers going on strike.

I have spoken on the subject and I do NOT, under any circumstances, expect anyone to question my word. If you don't like earning £29,500 per year then walk out; let some other unemployed person do the job instead. It really isn't *that* difficult, I have a friend who knows a teacher and they don't work 'hard' by any stretch of the imagination.

Outstanding.
Don't you love it when right wing teacher baiting public sector knocking free marketeers creep out of the woodwork? I have a friend who knows someone who works in the private sector who does Sweet Felicity Arkwright. I of course do not work on the simplistic basis that this reflects the attitude of all private sector workers. Many of my friends in both sectors genuinely work really hard. There are good and bad practitioners in both sectors. Of course there is still an issue with recruiting and retaining appropriately qualified teachers for which you produce a back of the envelope half baked solution. Outstanding - not..
[quote][p][bold]ChаnnelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]express_a_view[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: I'm sure there are plenty of unemployed people very keen to gain this kind of employment: [quote] Teachers in England paid higher salaries than those in most other countries. England’s teachers are paid some of the highest salaries despite working fewer hours than their counterparts in other countries. [/quote] Source: http://is.gd/afeBhX[/p][/quote]From the same article: "However, a teacher's salary at the top of the scale does not increase after 10 years' experience in England, and eventually falls behind an OECD average of around £29,500 later in a teacher’s career." As with all international comparators one can always find something to counter argue with. This quote implies that those who remain in teaching more than ten years do less well in terms of remuneration than the majority of teachers in OECD countries. I can tell you schools are not being overwhelmed by suitably qualified unemployed people keen to gain "this kind of employment." I assume of course you are not suggesting that teaching should be open to those without suitable qualifications/train ing? I actually do not think this is because of pay - it is because teaching is seen by many graduates to be unduly stressful, bureaucratic and overly subject to political interference/fads.[/p][/quote]Don't you just love it when the leftie socialists come out of the woodwork whenever there's a story about teachers going on strike. I have spoken on the subject and I do NOT, under any circumstances, expect anyone to question my word. If you don't like earning £29,500 per year then walk out; let some other unemployed person do the job instead. It really isn't *that* difficult, I have a friend who knows a teacher and they don't work 'hard' by any stretch of the imagination. Outstanding.[/p][/quote]Don't you love it when right wing teacher baiting public sector knocking free marketeers creep out of the woodwork? I have a friend who knows someone who works in the private sector who does Sweet Felicity Arkwright. I of course do not work on the simplistic basis that this reflects the attitude of all private sector workers. Many of my friends in both sectors genuinely work really hard. There are good and bad practitioners in both sectors. Of course there is still an issue with recruiting and retaining appropriately qualified teachers for which you produce a back of the envelope half baked solution. Outstanding - not.. express_a_view
  • Score: 5

10:28pm Wed 12 Mar 14

purplerose says...

Well my kids have roughly about 190 days off of school not including the 5 days for teacher training days so what your saying is that all teachers go to school when it's half term and in the six weeks holiday cause my friend who is a school teacher went to disney world during her 6 week holiday so where have I gone wrong
Well my kids have roughly about 190 days off of school not including the 5 days for teacher training days so what your saying is that all teachers go to school when it's half term and in the six weeks holiday cause my friend who is a school teacher went to disney world during her 6 week holiday so where have I gone wrong purplerose
  • Score: -4

10:41pm Wed 12 Mar 14

purplerose says...

And yes you are right my husband does not have an easy job he is in the Army and in the Army if you don't like something tough s**t you get on and do the job none of this strike business but my husband does his job because he likes it s**t and all if the teachers don't like it don't do the job in the first place they say they are doing this for the benefit of the children well all I ever see is pensions pay and work hours not a lot else and in the mean time my child has to suffer because if it. My other child who is doing his GCSE is also going to suffer after me being told that I am not allowed what so ever unless he has an arm hanging off to keep him off school so forgive me if I have no sympathy
And yes you are right my husband does not have an easy job he is in the Army and in the Army if you don't like something tough s**t you get on and do the job none of this strike business but my husband does his job because he likes it s**t and all if the teachers don't like it don't do the job in the first place they say they are doing this for the benefit of the children well all I ever see is pensions pay and work hours not a lot else and in the mean time my child has to suffer because if it. My other child who is doing his GCSE is also going to suffer after me being told that I am not allowed what so ever unless he has an arm hanging off to keep him off school so forgive me if I have no sympathy purplerose
  • Score: -1

9:02am Thu 13 Mar 14

ChannelX says...

express_a_view wrote:
ChаnnelX wrote:
express_a_view wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
I'm sure there are plenty of unemployed people very keen to gain this kind of employment:


Teachers in England paid higher salaries than those in most other countries.

England’s teachers are paid some of the highest salaries despite working fewer hours than their counterparts in other countries.


Source: http://is.gd/afeBhX
From the same article:

"However, a teacher's salary at the top of the scale does not increase after 10 years' experience in England, and eventually falls behind an OECD average of around £29,500 later in a teacher’s career."

As with all international comparators one can always find something to counter argue with. This quote implies that those who remain in teaching more than ten years do less well in terms of remuneration than the majority of teachers in OECD countries.

I can tell you schools are not being overwhelmed by suitably qualified unemployed people keen to gain "this kind of employment." I assume of course you are not suggesting that teaching should be open to those without suitable qualifications/train



ing? I actually do not think this is because of pay - it is because teaching is seen by many graduates to be unduly stressful, bureaucratic and overly subject to political interference/fads.
Don't you just love it when the leftie socialists come out of the woodwork whenever there's a story about teachers going on strike.

I have spoken on the subject and I do NOT, under any circumstances, expect anyone to question my word. If you don't like earning £29,500 per year then walk out; let some other unemployed person do the job instead. It really isn't *that* difficult, I have a friend who knows a teacher and they don't work 'hard' by any stretch of the imagination.

Outstanding.
Don't you love it when right wing teacher baiting public sector knocking free marketeers creep out of the woodwork? I have a friend who knows someone who works in the private sector who does Sweet Felicity Arkwright. I of course do not work on the simplistic basis that this reflects the attitude of all private sector workers. Many of my friends in both sectors genuinely work really hard. There are good and bad practitioners in both sectors. Of course there is still an issue with recruiting and retaining appropriately qualified teachers for which you produce a back of the envelope half baked solution. Outstanding - not..
The big difference is that you are not forced to pay for the person in the private sector to do 'Sweet FA'.

BTW, the previous comment that appears to be by me (that you replied to) was actually posted by the person who has cloned my account. Yes, I know people will claim that can't/doesn't happen (even though they know full well it does), but thought I'd point it out anyway.

I am quite happy to stand by any comment I actually make, but will also point out the ones made by the person who cloned my previous account, has cloned my current account and has already said they'll clone any other account I might decide to set-up to try and avoid them misrepresenting me.
[quote][p][bold]express_a_view[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChаnnelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]express_a_view[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: I'm sure there are plenty of unemployed people very keen to gain this kind of employment: [quote] Teachers in England paid higher salaries than those in most other countries. England’s teachers are paid some of the highest salaries despite working fewer hours than their counterparts in other countries. [/quote] Source: http://is.gd/afeBhX[/p][/quote]From the same article: "However, a teacher's salary at the top of the scale does not increase after 10 years' experience in England, and eventually falls behind an OECD average of around £29,500 later in a teacher’s career." As with all international comparators one can always find something to counter argue with. This quote implies that those who remain in teaching more than ten years do less well in terms of remuneration than the majority of teachers in OECD countries. I can tell you schools are not being overwhelmed by suitably qualified unemployed people keen to gain "this kind of employment." I assume of course you are not suggesting that teaching should be open to those without suitable qualifications/train ing? I actually do not think this is because of pay - it is because teaching is seen by many graduates to be unduly stressful, bureaucratic and overly subject to political interference/fads.[/p][/quote]Don't you just love it when the leftie socialists come out of the woodwork whenever there's a story about teachers going on strike. I have spoken on the subject and I do NOT, under any circumstances, expect anyone to question my word. If you don't like earning £29,500 per year then walk out; let some other unemployed person do the job instead. It really isn't *that* difficult, I have a friend who knows a teacher and they don't work 'hard' by any stretch of the imagination. Outstanding.[/p][/quote]Don't you love it when right wing teacher baiting public sector knocking free marketeers creep out of the woodwork? I have a friend who knows someone who works in the private sector who does Sweet Felicity Arkwright. I of course do not work on the simplistic basis that this reflects the attitude of all private sector workers. Many of my friends in both sectors genuinely work really hard. There are good and bad practitioners in both sectors. Of course there is still an issue with recruiting and retaining appropriately qualified teachers for which you produce a back of the envelope half baked solution. Outstanding - not..[/p][/quote]The big difference is that you are not forced to pay for the person in the private sector to do 'Sweet FA'. BTW, the previous comment that appears to be by me (that you replied to) was actually posted by the person who has cloned my account. Yes, I know people will claim that can't/doesn't happen (even though they know full well it does), but thought I'd point it out anyway. I am quite happy to stand by any comment I actually make, but will also point out the ones made by the person who cloned my previous account, has cloned my current account and has already said they'll clone any other account I might decide to set-up to try and avoid them misrepresenting me. ChannelX
  • Score: -3

10:00am Thu 13 Mar 14

express_a_view says...

ChannelX wrote:
express_a_view wrote:
ChаnnelX wrote:
express_a_view wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
I'm sure there are plenty of unemployed people very keen to gain this kind of employment:


Teachers in England paid higher salaries than those in most other countries.

England’s teachers are paid some of the highest salaries despite working fewer hours than their counterparts in other countries.


Source: http://is.gd/afeBhX
From the same article:

"However, a teacher's salary at the top of the scale does not increase after 10 years' experience in England, and eventually falls behind an OECD average of around £29,500 later in a teacher’s career."

As with all international comparators one can always find something to counter argue with. This quote implies that those who remain in teaching more than ten years do less well in terms of remuneration than the majority of teachers in OECD countries.

I can tell you schools are not being overwhelmed by suitably qualified unemployed people keen to gain "this kind of employment." I assume of course you are not suggesting that teaching should be open to those without suitable qualifications/train




ing? I actually do not think this is because of pay - it is because teaching is seen by many graduates to be unduly stressful, bureaucratic and overly subject to political interference/fads.
Don't you just love it when the leftie socialists come out of the woodwork whenever there's a story about teachers going on strike.

I have spoken on the subject and I do NOT, under any circumstances, expect anyone to question my word. If you don't like earning £29,500 per year then walk out; let some other unemployed person do the job instead. It really isn't *that* difficult, I have a friend who knows a teacher and they don't work 'hard' by any stretch of the imagination.

Outstanding.
Don't you love it when right wing teacher baiting public sector knocking free marketeers creep out of the woodwork? I have a friend who knows someone who works in the private sector who does Sweet Felicity Arkwright. I of course do not work on the simplistic basis that this reflects the attitude of all private sector workers. Many of my friends in both sectors genuinely work really hard. There are good and bad practitioners in both sectors. Of course there is still an issue with recruiting and retaining appropriately qualified teachers for which you produce a back of the envelope half baked solution. Outstanding - not..
The big difference is that you are not forced to pay for the person in the private sector to do 'Sweet FA'.

BTW, the previous comment that appears to be by me (that you replied to) was actually posted by the person who has cloned my account. Yes, I know people will claim that can't/doesn't happen (even though they know full well it does), but thought I'd point it out anyway.

I am quite happy to stand by any comment I actually make, but will also point out the ones made by the person who cloned my previous account, has cloned my current account and has already said they'll clone any other account I might decide to set-up to try and avoid them misrepresenting me.
"...The big difference is that you are not forced to pay for the person in the private sector to do FA"

Sadly, I am. I am forced to pay through my bank charges and low interest returns for the money that goes to the bank executives raking in excessive bonuses - even when their bank flounders. I am forced to pay for such people when I incur charges on my annuity or financial transactions. How about the public finance cost of bailing the banks per se who were a classic example of a private sector failing that needed public finance to bail them out? The charge for goods or services I purchase from the private sector does cover the costs of maintaining that organisations work force - whether they are efficient or not. To say otherwise is disingenuous. I am not defending those who are inefficient - I am saying we all pay some cost towards them whatever sector they are in, The method of payment may be different but we all pay in someway.

Sorry someone is cloning your account - I would be mortified if someone cloned my account and made me appear a Thatcherite. I fear we will never agree - we come from two very different perspectives.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]express_a_view[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChаnnelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]express_a_view[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: I'm sure there are plenty of unemployed people very keen to gain this kind of employment: [quote] Teachers in England paid higher salaries than those in most other countries. England’s teachers are paid some of the highest salaries despite working fewer hours than their counterparts in other countries. [/quote] Source: http://is.gd/afeBhX[/p][/quote]From the same article: "However, a teacher's salary at the top of the scale does not increase after 10 years' experience in England, and eventually falls behind an OECD average of around £29,500 later in a teacher’s career." As with all international comparators one can always find something to counter argue with. This quote implies that those who remain in teaching more than ten years do less well in terms of remuneration than the majority of teachers in OECD countries. I can tell you schools are not being overwhelmed by suitably qualified unemployed people keen to gain "this kind of employment." I assume of course you are not suggesting that teaching should be open to those without suitable qualifications/train ing? I actually do not think this is because of pay - it is because teaching is seen by many graduates to be unduly stressful, bureaucratic and overly subject to political interference/fads.[/p][/quote]Don't you just love it when the leftie socialists come out of the woodwork whenever there's a story about teachers going on strike. I have spoken on the subject and I do NOT, under any circumstances, expect anyone to question my word. If you don't like earning £29,500 per year then walk out; let some other unemployed person do the job instead. It really isn't *that* difficult, I have a friend who knows a teacher and they don't work 'hard' by any stretch of the imagination. Outstanding.[/p][/quote]Don't you love it when right wing teacher baiting public sector knocking free marketeers creep out of the woodwork? I have a friend who knows someone who works in the private sector who does Sweet Felicity Arkwright. I of course do not work on the simplistic basis that this reflects the attitude of all private sector workers. Many of my friends in both sectors genuinely work really hard. There are good and bad practitioners in both sectors. Of course there is still an issue with recruiting and retaining appropriately qualified teachers for which you produce a back of the envelope half baked solution. Outstanding - not..[/p][/quote]The big difference is that you are not forced to pay for the person in the private sector to do 'Sweet FA'. BTW, the previous comment that appears to be by me (that you replied to) was actually posted by the person who has cloned my account. Yes, I know people will claim that can't/doesn't happen (even though they know full well it does), but thought I'd point it out anyway. I am quite happy to stand by any comment I actually make, but will also point out the ones made by the person who cloned my previous account, has cloned my current account and has already said they'll clone any other account I might decide to set-up to try and avoid them misrepresenting me.[/p][/quote]"...The big difference is that you are not forced to pay for the person in the private sector to do FA" Sadly, I am. I am forced to pay through my bank charges and low interest returns for the money that goes to the bank executives raking in excessive bonuses - even when their bank flounders. I am forced to pay for such people when I incur charges on my annuity or financial transactions. How about the public finance cost of bailing the banks per se who were a classic example of a private sector failing that needed public finance to bail them out? The charge for goods or services I purchase from the private sector does cover the costs of maintaining that organisations work force - whether they are efficient or not. To say otherwise is disingenuous. I am not defending those who are inefficient - I am saying we all pay some cost towards them whatever sector they are in, The method of payment may be different but we all pay in someway. Sorry someone is cloning your account - I would be mortified if someone cloned my account and made me appear a Thatcherite. I fear we will never agree - we come from two very different perspectives. express_a_view
  • Score: 3

10:14am Thu 13 Mar 14

express_a_view says...

purplerose wrote:
And yes you are right my husband does not have an easy job he is in the Army and in the Army if you don't like something tough s**t you get on and do the job none of this strike business but my husband does his job because he likes it s**t and all if the teachers don't like it don't do the job in the first place they say they are doing this for the benefit of the children well all I ever see is pensions pay and work hours not a lot else and in the mean time my child has to suffer because if it. My other child who is doing his GCSE is also going to suffer after me being told that I am not allowed what so ever unless he has an arm hanging off to keep him off school so forgive me if I have no sympathy
On your post prior to this please just read what I wrote. I very specifically said the data was based on averages and that there will be exceptions at either extreme. For every example you give that is an exception at one end of the extreme I could give another that shows the complete opposite.

As for your husband being a soldier I have family members in the armed services too and do empathise with the demands upon them. My issue is that if we do not at least acknowledge that teacher morale, recruitment and retention are problems at the moment we risk the reality of a qualified teacher shortage in years to come. It is not about sympathy it is about recognising that such a scenario serves no one well.

NB - If you read my earlier posts you will have seen my reservations about striking being the best way to present the case.
[quote][p][bold]purplerose[/bold] wrote: And yes you are right my husband does not have an easy job he is in the Army and in the Army if you don't like something tough s**t you get on and do the job none of this strike business but my husband does his job because he likes it s**t and all if the teachers don't like it don't do the job in the first place they say they are doing this for the benefit of the children well all I ever see is pensions pay and work hours not a lot else and in the mean time my child has to suffer because if it. My other child who is doing his GCSE is also going to suffer after me being told that I am not allowed what so ever unless he has an arm hanging off to keep him off school so forgive me if I have no sympathy[/p][/quote]On your post prior to this please just read what I wrote. I very specifically said the data was based on averages and that there will be exceptions at either extreme. For every example you give that is an exception at one end of the extreme I could give another that shows the complete opposite. As for your husband being a soldier I have family members in the armed services too and do empathise with the demands upon them. My issue is that if we do not at least acknowledge that teacher morale, recruitment and retention are problems at the moment we risk the reality of a qualified teacher shortage in years to come. It is not about sympathy it is about recognising that such a scenario serves no one well. NB - If you read my earlier posts you will have seen my reservations about striking being the best way to present the case. express_a_view
  • Score: 3

11:21am Thu 13 Mar 14

ChannelX says...

express_a_view wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
express_a_view wrote:
ChаnnelX wrote:
express_a_view wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
I'm sure there are plenty of unemployed people very keen to gain this kind of employment:


Teachers in England paid higher salaries than those in most other countries.

England’s teachers are paid some of the highest salaries despite working fewer hours than their counterparts in other countries.


Source: http://is.gd/afeBhX
From the same article:

"However, a teacher's salary at the top of the scale does not increase after 10 years' experience in England, and eventually falls behind an OECD average of around £29,500 later in a teacher’s career."

As with all international comparators one can always find something to counter argue with. This quote implies that those who remain in teaching more than ten years do less well in terms of remuneration than the majority of teachers in OECD countries.

I can tell you schools are not being overwhelmed by suitably qualified unemployed people keen to gain "this kind of employment." I assume of course you are not suggesting that teaching should be open to those without suitable qualifications/train





ing? I actually do not think this is because of pay - it is because teaching is seen by many graduates to be unduly stressful, bureaucratic and overly subject to political interference/fads.
Don't you just love it when the leftie socialists come out of the woodwork whenever there's a story about teachers going on strike.

I have spoken on the subject and I do NOT, under any circumstances, expect anyone to question my word. If you don't like earning £29,500 per year then walk out; let some other unemployed person do the job instead. It really isn't *that* difficult, I have a friend who knows a teacher and they don't work 'hard' by any stretch of the imagination.

Outstanding.
Don't you love it when right wing teacher baiting public sector knocking free marketeers creep out of the woodwork? I have a friend who knows someone who works in the private sector who does Sweet Felicity Arkwright. I of course do not work on the simplistic basis that this reflects the attitude of all private sector workers. Many of my friends in both sectors genuinely work really hard. There are good and bad practitioners in both sectors. Of course there is still an issue with recruiting and retaining appropriately qualified teachers for which you produce a back of the envelope half baked solution. Outstanding - not..
The big difference is that you are not forced to pay for the person in the private sector to do 'Sweet FA'.

BTW, the previous comment that appears to be by me (that you replied to) was actually posted by the person who has cloned my account. Yes, I know people will claim that can't/doesn't happen (even though they know full well it does), but thought I'd point it out anyway.

I am quite happy to stand by any comment I actually make, but will also point out the ones made by the person who cloned my previous account, has cloned my current account and has already said they'll clone any other account I might decide to set-up to try and avoid them misrepresenting me.
"...The big difference is that you are not forced to pay for the person in the private sector to do FA"

Sadly, I am. I am forced to pay through my bank charges and low interest returns for the money that goes to the bank executives raking in excessive bonuses - even when their bank flounders. I am forced to pay for such people when I incur charges on my annuity or financial transactions. How about the public finance cost of bailing the banks per se who were a classic example of a private sector failing that needed public finance to bail them out? The charge for goods or services I purchase from the private sector does cover the costs of maintaining that organisations work force - whether they are efficient or not. To say otherwise is disingenuous. I am not defending those who are inefficient - I am saying we all pay some cost towards them whatever sector they are in, The method of payment may be different but we all pay in someway.

Sorry someone is cloning your account - I would be mortified if someone cloned my account and made me appear a Thatcherite. I fear we will never agree - we come from two very different perspectives.
The difference is that you do not HAVE to use banks... and, of course, if/when you do not use banks you do not pay for them.

The same with goods and services, you only pay for them if and when you use them - and you do not HAVE to use them.

There are some things that are difficult to avoid using and paying for, absolutely, but in the case of the public sector we are forced to pay for it, all of the time and whether we ever use those services or not.

It's not 'the same costs', at all. I never drink Guiness because I don't like it, so how am I helping that company to pay their employees in any way?

That's why some people can wind up feeling a little annoyed when they see underperforming public sector employees or see, from their own experience, exactly what goes on in certain public sector organisations. It is an eternal problem in any organisation that has money provided but no easily identifiable means of knowing (or considering) where it comes from. So, a public sector manager will overlook poorly performing team members because as long as the work is done overall and he/she meets objectives and secures their own pay rise/promotion, they don't actually care because it's a nebulous 'fund' that provides that poorly performing employee's salary, benefits and pension. It just doesn't matter, ultimately.

In much the same way, I'd hate to appear as some kind of flat-cap, union leader stuck in the late 1970s.

Loads of jobs (most?) involve employees not having great levels of morale, becoming disillusioned and wanting to do other things. Loads of jobs (most?) see people deciding to leave and persue other careers and opportunities within the first five years of them starting their job. None of this is unique to teachers - although a very major difference is that teachers will often claim they have some kind of 'calling' or vocation that makes the job special and of great satisfaction to them. A bonus that most people do not enjoy, no?
[quote][p][bold]express_a_view[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]express_a_view[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChаnnelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]express_a_view[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: I'm sure there are plenty of unemployed people very keen to gain this kind of employment: [quote] Teachers in England paid higher salaries than those in most other countries. England’s teachers are paid some of the highest salaries despite working fewer hours than their counterparts in other countries. [/quote] Source: http://is.gd/afeBhX[/p][/quote]From the same article: "However, a teacher's salary at the top of the scale does not increase after 10 years' experience in England, and eventually falls behind an OECD average of around £29,500 later in a teacher’s career." As with all international comparators one can always find something to counter argue with. This quote implies that those who remain in teaching more than ten years do less well in terms of remuneration than the majority of teachers in OECD countries. I can tell you schools are not being overwhelmed by suitably qualified unemployed people keen to gain "this kind of employment." I assume of course you are not suggesting that teaching should be open to those without suitable qualifications/train ing? I actually do not think this is because of pay - it is because teaching is seen by many graduates to be unduly stressful, bureaucratic and overly subject to political interference/fads.[/p][/quote]Don't you just love it when the leftie socialists come out of the woodwork whenever there's a story about teachers going on strike. I have spoken on the subject and I do NOT, under any circumstances, expect anyone to question my word. If you don't like earning £29,500 per year then walk out; let some other unemployed person do the job instead. It really isn't *that* difficult, I have a friend who knows a teacher and they don't work 'hard' by any stretch of the imagination. Outstanding.[/p][/quote]Don't you love it when right wing teacher baiting public sector knocking free marketeers creep out of the woodwork? I have a friend who knows someone who works in the private sector who does Sweet Felicity Arkwright. I of course do not work on the simplistic basis that this reflects the attitude of all private sector workers. Many of my friends in both sectors genuinely work really hard. There are good and bad practitioners in both sectors. Of course there is still an issue with recruiting and retaining appropriately qualified teachers for which you produce a back of the envelope half baked solution. Outstanding - not..[/p][/quote]The big difference is that you are not forced to pay for the person in the private sector to do 'Sweet FA'. BTW, the previous comment that appears to be by me (that you replied to) was actually posted by the person who has cloned my account. Yes, I know people will claim that can't/doesn't happen (even though they know full well it does), but thought I'd point it out anyway. I am quite happy to stand by any comment I actually make, but will also point out the ones made by the person who cloned my previous account, has cloned my current account and has already said they'll clone any other account I might decide to set-up to try and avoid them misrepresenting me.[/p][/quote]"...The big difference is that you are not forced to pay for the person in the private sector to do FA" Sadly, I am. I am forced to pay through my bank charges and low interest returns for the money that goes to the bank executives raking in excessive bonuses - even when their bank flounders. I am forced to pay for such people when I incur charges on my annuity or financial transactions. How about the public finance cost of bailing the banks per se who were a classic example of a private sector failing that needed public finance to bail them out? The charge for goods or services I purchase from the private sector does cover the costs of maintaining that organisations work force - whether they are efficient or not. To say otherwise is disingenuous. I am not defending those who are inefficient - I am saying we all pay some cost towards them whatever sector they are in, The method of payment may be different but we all pay in someway. Sorry someone is cloning your account - I would be mortified if someone cloned my account and made me appear a Thatcherite. I fear we will never agree - we come from two very different perspectives.[/p][/quote]The difference is that you do not HAVE to use banks... and, of course, if/when you do not use banks you do not pay for them. The same with goods and services, you only pay for them if and when you use them - and you do not HAVE to use them. There are some things that are difficult to avoid using and paying for, absolutely, but in the case of the public sector we are forced to pay for it, all of the time and whether we ever use those services or not. It's not 'the same costs', at all. I never drink Guiness because I don't like it, so how am I helping that company to pay their employees in any way? That's why some people can wind up feeling a little annoyed when they see underperforming public sector employees or see, from their own experience, exactly what goes on in certain public sector organisations. It is an eternal problem in any organisation that has money provided but no easily identifiable means of knowing (or considering) where it comes from. So, a public sector manager will overlook poorly performing team members because as long as the work is done overall and he/she meets objectives and secures their own pay rise/promotion, they don't actually care because it's a nebulous 'fund' that provides that poorly performing employee's salary, benefits and pension. It just doesn't matter, ultimately. In much the same way, I'd hate to appear as some kind of flat-cap, union leader stuck in the late 1970s. Loads of jobs (most?) involve employees not having great levels of morale, becoming disillusioned and wanting to do other things. Loads of jobs (most?) see people deciding to leave and persue other careers and opportunities within the first five years of them starting their job. None of this is unique to teachers - although a very major difference is that teachers will often claim they have some kind of 'calling' or vocation that makes the job special and of great satisfaction to them. A bonus that most people do not enjoy, no? ChannelX
  • Score: 1

12:32pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Highworth Lad says...

Should be a no strike rule for teachers, other professions are not allowed too, even white collar workers. If they strike sack them
Should be a no strike rule for teachers, other professions are not allowed too, even white collar workers. If they strike sack them Highworth Lad
  • Score: -3

2:04pm Thu 13 Mar 14

express_a_view says...

ChannelX wrote:
express_a_view wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
express_a_view wrote:
ChаnnelX wrote:
express_a_view wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
I'm sure there are plenty of unemployed people very keen to gain this kind of employment:


Teachers in England paid higher salaries than those in most other countries.

England’s teachers are paid some of the highest salaries despite working fewer hours than their counterparts in other countries.


Source: http://is.gd/afeBhX
From the same article:

"However, a teacher's salary at the top of the scale does not increase after 10 years' experience in England, and eventually falls behind an OECD average of around £29,500 later in a teacher’s career."

As with all international comparators one can always find something to counter argue with. This quote implies that those who remain in teaching more than ten years do less well in terms of remuneration than the majority of teachers in OECD countries.

I can tell you schools are not being overwhelmed by suitably qualified unemployed people keen to gain "this kind of employment." I assume of course you are not suggesting that teaching should be open to those without suitable qualifications/train






ing? I actually do not think this is because of pay - it is because teaching is seen by many graduates to be unduly stressful, bureaucratic and overly subject to political interference/fads.
Don't you just love it when the leftie socialists come out of the woodwork whenever there's a story about teachers going on strike.

I have spoken on the subject and I do NOT, under any circumstances, expect anyone to question my word. If you don't like earning £29,500 per year then walk out; let some other unemployed person do the job instead. It really isn't *that* difficult, I have a friend who knows a teacher and they don't work 'hard' by any stretch of the imagination.

Outstanding.
Don't you love it when right wing teacher baiting public sector knocking free marketeers creep out of the woodwork? I have a friend who knows someone who works in the private sector who does Sweet Felicity Arkwright. I of course do not work on the simplistic basis that this reflects the attitude of all private sector workers. Many of my friends in both sectors genuinely work really hard. There are good and bad practitioners in both sectors. Of course there is still an issue with recruiting and retaining appropriately qualified teachers for which you produce a back of the envelope half baked solution. Outstanding - not..
The big difference is that you are not forced to pay for the person in the private sector to do 'Sweet FA'.

BTW, the previous comment that appears to be by me (that you replied to) was actually posted by the person who has cloned my account. Yes, I know people will claim that can't/doesn't happen (even though they know full well it does), but thought I'd point it out anyway.

I am quite happy to stand by any comment I actually make, but will also point out the ones made by the person who cloned my previous account, has cloned my current account and has already said they'll clone any other account I might decide to set-up to try and avoid them misrepresenting me.
"...The big difference is that you are not forced to pay for the person in the private sector to do FA"

Sadly, I am. I am forced to pay through my bank charges and low interest returns for the money that goes to the bank executives raking in excessive bonuses - even when their bank flounders. I am forced to pay for such people when I incur charges on my annuity or financial transactions. How about the public finance cost of bailing the banks per se who were a classic example of a private sector failing that needed public finance to bail them out? The charge for goods or services I purchase from the private sector does cover the costs of maintaining that organisations work force - whether they are efficient or not. To say otherwise is disingenuous. I am not defending those who are inefficient - I am saying we all pay some cost towards them whatever sector they are in, The method of payment may be different but we all pay in someway.

Sorry someone is cloning your account - I would be mortified if someone cloned my account and made me appear a Thatcherite. I fear we will never agree - we come from two very different perspectives.
The difference is that you do not HAVE to use banks... and, of course, if/when you do not use banks you do not pay for them.

The same with goods and services, you only pay for them if and when you use them - and you do not HAVE to use them.

There are some things that are difficult to avoid using and paying for, absolutely, but in the case of the public sector we are forced to pay for it, all of the time and whether we ever use those services or not.

It's not 'the same costs', at all. I never drink Guiness because I don't like it, so how am I helping that company to pay their employees in any way?

That's why some people can wind up feeling a little annoyed when they see underperforming public sector employees or see, from their own experience, exactly what goes on in certain public sector organisations. It is an eternal problem in any organisation that has money provided but no easily identifiable means of knowing (or considering) where it comes from. So, a public sector manager will overlook poorly performing team members because as long as the work is done overall and he/she meets objectives and secures their own pay rise/promotion, they don't actually care because it's a nebulous 'fund' that provides that poorly performing employee's salary, benefits and pension. It just doesn't matter, ultimately.

In much the same way, I'd hate to appear as some kind of flat-cap, union leader stuck in the late 1970s.

Loads of jobs (most?) involve employees not having great levels of morale, becoming disillusioned and wanting to do other things. Loads of jobs (most?) see people deciding to leave and persue other careers and opportunities within the first five years of them starting their job. None of this is unique to teachers - although a very major difference is that teachers will often claim they have some kind of 'calling' or vocation that makes the job special and of great satisfaction to them. A bonus that most people do not enjoy, no?
You are now entering the realms of fantasy in trying to knock the public sector and defend the private. I have happily conceded that not all aspects of the public sector are perfect - it is a shame you are clinging to the misplaced notion that virtually everything in the private sector world is hunky dory.

As a former public sector manager I have removed numerous under performers. I would be the first to admit the process is more long-winded than the private sector but It can and is done. Did it frustrate me it can take more time that ideal? Yes - as I have constantly said not everything in the public sector is ideal.

You state of private sector service providers: "you only pay for them if and when you use them - and you do not HAVE to use them." As you state I, like many, have to use the energy suppliers and most people have to buy food to eat. I also as a taxpayer had to contribute to the bank bail out of private sector banks I do not use - if you go back long enough I also had to pay for a Tory government to briefly nationalise Rolls Royce as a short term measure to put it back on its feet. I have to pay taxation towards welfare benefits to those on excessively low wages, often employed by private sector companies, who pay their workforce well below the living wage meaning their employees need state funding to survive. I see my taxes directed to private sector care homes, such as the one in Bristol, where vulnerable young people were abused. Taxes going to private firms to provide appropriate security at the Olympics who failed to deliver and required rescue by the army, police and volunteers. Payments going, some would argue fraudulently, to private sector firms charging for transporting prisoners who are found to have been deceased. My taxes have also subsidised the extra court costs of retrials that have occurred when private sector companies have delivered the wrong prisoners to the wrong court or not even delivered them at all. There are numerous private and public sector organisations that do a brilliant job but there is inefficiency in both sectors and there are private sector companies who many would argue fleece the taxpayer. Taxpayers that also do include those who work in the public sector.

As for your comment "...in the case of the public sector we are forced to pay for it, all of the time and whether we ever use those services or not." That is what happens to lots of us. I do not agree with a nuclear deterrent but my money goes towards it. I have friends who do not have children but they accept they have a societal duty to contribute to the communal pot - which is essentially what taxation is. I have never used the fire service but I accept that without my paying for it it would not be there when I had an emergency, I might not live to an old age but I am more than happy to pay taxes for health care for those who need such support in their final years - whether they worked in the public or private sector. If you want to ring fence individual tax contributions only to the things we individually agree with fine but accept the substantial cost that will be accrued in administrating such an unwieldy tax system and the societal disharmony that may well result. We pay taxes to fund a range of services because there is, thankfully, still such a thing as society.

The dismissive view you have of the importance of workforce morale says much about the prevailing attitude in this country. It is surely logical that whether a workforce is in the private or public sector you will enhance recruitment; increase retention and improve performance if you offer the workforce (a) the best work place environment you can within the constraints in which they operate; (b) impose a realistic level of challenge and (c) you do not absorb disproportionate amounts of workplace time in vanity projects that deflect from the core task of the organisation.

This private sector always good - public sector always bad argument is overly simplistic. The reality is much more subtle and nuanced than that.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]express_a_view[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]express_a_view[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChаnnelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]express_a_view[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: I'm sure there are plenty of unemployed people very keen to gain this kind of employment: [quote] Teachers in England paid higher salaries than those in most other countries. England’s teachers are paid some of the highest salaries despite working fewer hours than their counterparts in other countries. [/quote] Source: http://is.gd/afeBhX[/p][/quote]From the same article: "However, a teacher's salary at the top of the scale does not increase after 10 years' experience in England, and eventually falls behind an OECD average of around £29,500 later in a teacher’s career." As with all international comparators one can always find something to counter argue with. This quote implies that those who remain in teaching more than ten years do less well in terms of remuneration than the majority of teachers in OECD countries. I can tell you schools are not being overwhelmed by suitably qualified unemployed people keen to gain "this kind of employment." I assume of course you are not suggesting that teaching should be open to those without suitable qualifications/train ing? I actually do not think this is because of pay - it is because teaching is seen by many graduates to be unduly stressful, bureaucratic and overly subject to political interference/fads.[/p][/quote]Don't you just love it when the leftie socialists come out of the woodwork whenever there's a story about teachers going on strike. I have spoken on the subject and I do NOT, under any circumstances, expect anyone to question my word. If you don't like earning £29,500 per year then walk out; let some other unemployed person do the job instead. It really isn't *that* difficult, I have a friend who knows a teacher and they don't work 'hard' by any stretch of the imagination. Outstanding.[/p][/quote]Don't you love it when right wing teacher baiting public sector knocking free marketeers creep out of the woodwork? I have a friend who knows someone who works in the private sector who does Sweet Felicity Arkwright. I of course do not work on the simplistic basis that this reflects the attitude of all private sector workers. Many of my friends in both sectors genuinely work really hard. There are good and bad practitioners in both sectors. Of course there is still an issue with recruiting and retaining appropriately qualified teachers for which you produce a back of the envelope half baked solution. Outstanding - not..[/p][/quote]The big difference is that you are not forced to pay for the person in the private sector to do 'Sweet FA'. BTW, the previous comment that appears to be by me (that you replied to) was actually posted by the person who has cloned my account. Yes, I know people will claim that can't/doesn't happen (even though they know full well it does), but thought I'd point it out anyway. I am quite happy to stand by any comment I actually make, but will also point out the ones made by the person who cloned my previous account, has cloned my current account and has already said they'll clone any other account I might decide to set-up to try and avoid them misrepresenting me.[/p][/quote]"...The big difference is that you are not forced to pay for the person in the private sector to do FA" Sadly, I am. I am forced to pay through my bank charges and low interest returns for the money that goes to the bank executives raking in excessive bonuses - even when their bank flounders. I am forced to pay for such people when I incur charges on my annuity or financial transactions. How about the public finance cost of bailing the banks per se who were a classic example of a private sector failing that needed public finance to bail them out? The charge for goods or services I purchase from the private sector does cover the costs of maintaining that organisations work force - whether they are efficient or not. To say otherwise is disingenuous. I am not defending those who are inefficient - I am saying we all pay some cost towards them whatever sector they are in, The method of payment may be different but we all pay in someway. Sorry someone is cloning your account - I would be mortified if someone cloned my account and made me appear a Thatcherite. I fear we will never agree - we come from two very different perspectives.[/p][/quote]The difference is that you do not HAVE to use banks... and, of course, if/when you do not use banks you do not pay for them. The same with goods and services, you only pay for them if and when you use them - and you do not HAVE to use them. There are some things that are difficult to avoid using and paying for, absolutely, but in the case of the public sector we are forced to pay for it, all of the time and whether we ever use those services or not. It's not 'the same costs', at all. I never drink Guiness because I don't like it, so how am I helping that company to pay their employees in any way? That's why some people can wind up feeling a little annoyed when they see underperforming public sector employees or see, from their own experience, exactly what goes on in certain public sector organisations. It is an eternal problem in any organisation that has money provided but no easily identifiable means of knowing (or considering) where it comes from. So, a public sector manager will overlook poorly performing team members because as long as the work is done overall and he/she meets objectives and secures their own pay rise/promotion, they don't actually care because it's a nebulous 'fund' that provides that poorly performing employee's salary, benefits and pension. It just doesn't matter, ultimately. In much the same way, I'd hate to appear as some kind of flat-cap, union leader stuck in the late 1970s. Loads of jobs (most?) involve employees not having great levels of morale, becoming disillusioned and wanting to do other things. Loads of jobs (most?) see people deciding to leave and persue other careers and opportunities within the first five years of them starting their job. None of this is unique to teachers - although a very major difference is that teachers will often claim they have some kind of 'calling' or vocation that makes the job special and of great satisfaction to them. A bonus that most people do not enjoy, no?[/p][/quote]You are now entering the realms of fantasy in trying to knock the public sector and defend the private. I have happily conceded that not all aspects of the public sector are perfect - it is a shame you are clinging to the misplaced notion that virtually everything in the private sector world is hunky dory. As a former public sector manager I have removed numerous under performers. I would be the first to admit the process is more long-winded than the private sector but It can and is done. Did it frustrate me it can take more time that ideal? Yes - as I have constantly said not everything in the public sector is ideal. You state of private sector service providers: "you only pay for them if and when you use them - and you do not HAVE to use them." As you state I, like many, have to use the energy suppliers and most people have to buy food to eat. I also as a taxpayer had to contribute to the bank bail out of private sector banks I do not use - if you go back long enough I also had to pay for a Tory government to briefly nationalise Rolls Royce as a short term measure to put it back on its feet. I have to pay taxation towards welfare benefits to those on excessively low wages, often employed by private sector companies, who pay their workforce well below the living wage meaning their employees need state funding to survive. I see my taxes directed to private sector care homes, such as the one in Bristol, where vulnerable young people were abused. Taxes going to private firms to provide appropriate security at the Olympics who failed to deliver and required rescue by the army, police and volunteers. Payments going, some would argue fraudulently, to private sector firms charging for transporting prisoners who are found to have been deceased. My taxes have also subsidised the extra court costs of retrials that have occurred when private sector companies have delivered the wrong prisoners to the wrong court or not even delivered them at all. There are numerous private and public sector organisations that do a brilliant job but there is inefficiency in both sectors and there are private sector companies who many would argue fleece the taxpayer. Taxpayers that also do include those who work in the public sector. As for your comment "...in the case of the public sector we are forced to pay for it, all of the time and whether we ever use those services or not." That is what happens to lots of us. I do not agree with a nuclear deterrent but my money goes towards it. I have friends who do not have children but they accept they have a societal duty to contribute to the communal pot - which is essentially what taxation is. I have never used the fire service but I accept that without my paying for it it would not be there when I had an emergency, I might not live to an old age but I am more than happy to pay taxes for health care for those who need such support in their final years - whether they worked in the public or private sector. If you want to ring fence individual tax contributions only to the things we individually agree with fine but accept the substantial cost that will be accrued in administrating such an unwieldy tax system and the societal disharmony that may well result. We pay taxes to fund a range of services because there is, thankfully, still such a thing as society. The dismissive view you have of the importance of workforce morale says much about the prevailing attitude in this country. It is surely logical that whether a workforce is in the private or public sector you will enhance recruitment; increase retention and improve performance if you offer the workforce (a) the best work place environment you can within the constraints in which they operate; (b) impose a realistic level of challenge and (c) you do not absorb disproportionate amounts of workplace time in vanity projects that deflect from the core task of the organisation. This private sector always good - public sector always bad argument is overly simplistic. The reality is much more subtle and nuanced than that. express_a_view
  • Score: 2

2:39pm Thu 13 Mar 14

trolley dolley says...

All of the long winded comments from 'express_a_view' assume that you have the right calibre of people as teachers in the first place.

Clearly with threats to disrupt childrens education for personal gain some people are not in the right job.

PLEASE LEAVE.
All of the long winded comments from 'express_a_view' assume that you have the right calibre of people as teachers in the first place. Clearly with threats to disrupt childrens education for personal gain some people are not in the right job. PLEASE LEAVE. trolley dolley
  • Score: 0

3:46pm Thu 13 Mar 14

express_a_view says...

trolley dolley wrote:
All of the long winded comments from 'express_a_view' assume that you have the right calibre of people as teachers in the first place.

Clearly with threats to disrupt childrens education for personal gain some people are not in the right job.

PLEASE LEAVE.
My very first sentence in the very first post:

"I totally understand the frustration of parents. I also am not sure strike action is the best option - I would much prefer that teachers cut out the time devoted to implementing new government initiatives so often pursued for ministerial vanity rather than the benefit of pupils or schools."

Pretty clear that I am unconvinced that strike action is the way to win the argument. There is though a major problem looming and I have long argued for a non-political moratorium on education to plan how we make the education system suited to the 21st century and how we recruit/retain the best teachers. Is that really so illogical or militant?
[quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: All of the long winded comments from 'express_a_view' assume that you have the right calibre of people as teachers in the first place. Clearly with threats to disrupt childrens education for personal gain some people are not in the right job. PLEASE LEAVE.[/p][/quote]My very first sentence in the very first post: "I totally understand the frustration of parents. I also am not sure strike action is the best option - I would much prefer that teachers cut out the time devoted to implementing new government initiatives so often pursued for ministerial vanity rather than the benefit of pupils or schools." Pretty clear that I am unconvinced that strike action is the way to win the argument. There is though a major problem looming and I have long argued for a non-political moratorium on education to plan how we make the education system suited to the 21st century and how we recruit/retain the best teachers. Is that really so illogical or militant? express_a_view
  • Score: 4

4:01pm Thu 13 Mar 14

express_a_view says...

Highworth Lad wrote:
Should be a no strike rule for teachers, other professions are not allowed too, even white collar workers. If they strike sack them
And replace them with who? The problem is we have a recruitment and retention crisis. If a head teacher sacks those colleagues who go on strike who teaches their lessons when the one day strike is over? Classic "cutting off your nose to spite your face."
[quote][p][bold]Highworth Lad[/bold] wrote: Should be a no strike rule for teachers, other professions are not allowed too, even white collar workers. If they strike sack them[/p][/quote]And replace them with who? The problem is we have a recruitment and retention crisis. If a head teacher sacks those colleagues who go on strike who teaches their lessons when the one day strike is over? Classic "cutting off your nose to spite your face." express_a_view
  • Score: 2

5:55pm Thu 13 Mar 14

ChannelX says...


it is a shame you are clinging to the misplaced notion that virtually everything in the private sector world is hunky dory.


I've never claimed that AT ALL. What I have made clear (or so I thought) is that you have the CHOICE not to use private sector organisations that you would rather not use - for whatever reason.

Are all private companies run well and staffed with excellent employees? No, but the rather massive difference is that nobody is forced to pay those people's wages if they don't want to.

It's you who is pretending it's a reductive case of: private sector good / public sector bad, probably because you know your own argument is on rocky ground (ie, plain wrong).

You don't like a certain company, its ethos and its hopeless staff? Don't use them and don't therefore fund them.

If you don't like a certain public sector organisation, its ethos and its hopeless staff? Tough, you'll be forced to pay for it all in any case - even if you never use the service - regardless of how wasteful and incapable it may be.

You REALLY don't see the difference between the two things?
[quote] it is a shame you are clinging to the misplaced notion that virtually everything in the private sector world is hunky dory. [/quote] I've never claimed that AT ALL. What I have made clear (or so I thought) is that you have the CHOICE not to use private sector organisations that you would rather not use - for whatever reason. Are all private companies run well and staffed with excellent employees? No, but the rather massive difference is that nobody is forced to pay those people's wages if they don't want to. It's you who is pretending it's a reductive case of: private sector good / public sector bad, probably because you know your own argument is on rocky ground (ie, plain wrong). You don't like a certain company, its ethos and its hopeless staff? Don't use them and don't therefore fund them. If you don't like a certain public sector organisation, its ethos and its hopeless staff? Tough, you'll be forced to pay for it all in any case - even if you never use the service - regardless of how wasteful and incapable it may be. You REALLY don't see the difference between the two things? ChannelX
  • Score: -2

6:40pm Thu 13 Mar 14

express_a_view says...

ChannelX wrote:

it is a shame you are clinging to the misplaced notion that virtually everything in the private sector world is hunky dory.


I've never claimed that AT ALL. What I have made clear (or so I thought) is that you have the CHOICE not to use private sector organisations that you would rather not use - for whatever reason.

Are all private companies run well and staffed with excellent employees? No, but the rather massive difference is that nobody is forced to pay those people's wages if they don't want to.

It's you who is pretending it's a reductive case of: private sector good / public sector bad, probably because you know your own argument is on rocky ground (ie, plain wrong).

You don't like a certain company, its ethos and its hopeless staff? Don't use them and don't therefore fund them.

If you don't like a certain public sector organisation, its ethos and its hopeless staff? Tough, you'll be forced to pay for it all in any case - even if you never use the service - regardless of how wasteful and incapable it may be.

You REALLY don't see the difference between the two things?
You say:

"If you don't like a certain public sector organisation, its ethos and its hopeless staff? Tough, you'll be forced to pay for it all in any case - even if you never use the service - regardless of how wasteful and incapable it may be."

Yes and the same applies to inefficient private sector companies who this, and past, governments decided to fund from the public exchequer thus forcing all of us to pay their staff wages through taxation even if we dislike their ethos and hopeless management. i.e. G4S whose inefficiency led to them claiming public money for non existent tags and the tagging of the deceased. I could also mention private sector firms providing a less than efficient internet service from SBC council tax funds.I have no more say over national/local government funding many sectors of the private sector than I do over being forced to pay for a public sector organisation. You REALLY don't see the similarities?

The notion of choice is also far from realistic in a nation of privatised cartels as in energy and the rail companies. Additionally, exactly what choice was I given as a taxpayer in bailing out those inefficient risk taking banks to avert a fiscal meltdown?
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote] it is a shame you are clinging to the misplaced notion that virtually everything in the private sector world is hunky dory. [/quote] I've never claimed that AT ALL. What I have made clear (or so I thought) is that you have the CHOICE not to use private sector organisations that you would rather not use - for whatever reason. Are all private companies run well and staffed with excellent employees? No, but the rather massive difference is that nobody is forced to pay those people's wages if they don't want to. It's you who is pretending it's a reductive case of: private sector good / public sector bad, probably because you know your own argument is on rocky ground (ie, plain wrong). You don't like a certain company, its ethos and its hopeless staff? Don't use them and don't therefore fund them. If you don't like a certain public sector organisation, its ethos and its hopeless staff? Tough, you'll be forced to pay for it all in any case - even if you never use the service - regardless of how wasteful and incapable it may be. You REALLY don't see the difference between the two things?[/p][/quote]You say: "If you don't like a certain public sector organisation, its ethos and its hopeless staff? Tough, you'll be forced to pay for it all in any case - even if you never use the service - regardless of how wasteful and incapable it may be." Yes and the same applies to inefficient private sector companies who this, and past, governments decided to fund from the public exchequer thus forcing all of us to pay their staff wages through taxation even if we dislike their ethos and hopeless management. i.e. G4S whose inefficiency led to them claiming public money for non existent tags and the tagging of the deceased. I could also mention private sector firms providing a less than efficient internet service from SBC council tax funds.I have no more say over national/local government funding many sectors of the private sector than I do over being forced to pay for a public sector organisation. You REALLY don't see the similarities? The notion of choice is also far from realistic in a nation of privatised cartels as in energy and the rail companies. Additionally, exactly what choice was I given as a taxpayer in bailing out those inefficient risk taking banks to avert a fiscal meltdown? express_a_view
  • Score: 3

6:42pm Thu 13 Mar 14

PJC says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
express_a_view wrote:
I totally understand the frustration of parents. I also am not sure strike action is the best option - I would much prefer that teachers cut out the time devoted to implementing new government initiatives so often pursued for ministerial vanity rather than the benefit of pupils or schools.

However, I do think that the morale of teachers is at an all time low. When between 2 and 3 in every 5 teachers leave post in the first five years something is wrong. A Department for Education survey found that Primary School teachers were working almost 60 hours a week. Meanwhile headteachers in secondary schools recorded an average of 63 hours and 20 minutes a week. The teaching profession has become plagued by long hours and unnecessary and bureaucratic tasks that deflect from the core task of teaching and learning, It has been estimated that teachers are now fitting in the equivalent of an extra full day a week by working during evenings and weekends. Meanwhile data obtained by the TUC from the nationwide Labour Force Survey, shows that teachers carried out more unpaid overtime in 2013 than any other profession. The average of 12 hours extra a week was higher than financial directors (11 hours) or lawyers (nine hours) - so to those who cite the long teacher holidays do factor that data into your calculations. A survey of Headteachers meanwhile found that 75% of NAHT members had been physically threatened by parents and one in 10 had been physically assaulted by one. Assaults on head teachers used to be a rarity - now they seem to be societally and politically accepted as an occupational hazard. Countrywide complaints of schools being unable to find candidates for vacated headships are becoming ever more common. School governors have complained of having to repeatedly readvertise headteacher vacancies because of a dearth of candidates, according to the National Governors' Association. The degree of crisis is reflected by the fact that the shortage of headteachers will worsen within the next 12 months as those born in the 1950s come to the close of their careers. Something like half of all heads are within 10 years of retirement, a third are within five years.

Teachers are exasperated. They are drained by initiative fatigue; tired of the constant dissing from politicians and much of the media; fed up of being expected by politicians to cure a plethora societal ill when it is the politicians who have the greater influence on decision making; and energy sapped by overly oppressive systems of accountability that detract from, rather than enhance, effective teaching and learning for all pupils.

Those who criticise the striking teachers should ask themselves why if teaching is such an easy option recruitment and retention is so problematic? Teaching should be a wonderful vocation but currently our pupils are taught by the fraught and this serves neither pupils nor teachers well. Put people in this situation and, rightly or wrongly, they may feel they have little option but to strike. It is too easy to blame the unions - perhaps people ought to ask how societally and politically we have allowed teacher morale to plummet to the depths it is currently at?
Teachers should get on with the task at hand, if they do not like it, they can leave the public sector and work in the private or work abroad.
Education is huge cost, and it does not make sense to keep pouring precious public money into it anymore.
Maybe we could keep the schools under public ownership and get the staff under private contracts only, this would save a lot of money and wasted days.
So, are you saying we shouldn't bother educating children and shove 'em back up chimneys and into factories? What if all the teachers give it up and what will happen then?
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]express_a_view[/bold] wrote: I totally understand the frustration of parents. I also am not sure strike action is the best option - I would much prefer that teachers cut out the time devoted to implementing new government initiatives so often pursued for ministerial vanity rather than the benefit of pupils or schools. However, I do think that the morale of teachers is at an all time low. When between 2 and 3 in every 5 teachers leave post in the first five years something is wrong. A Department for Education survey found that Primary School teachers were working almost 60 hours a week. Meanwhile headteachers in secondary schools recorded an average of 63 hours and 20 minutes a week. The teaching profession has become plagued by long hours and unnecessary and bureaucratic tasks that deflect from the core task of teaching and learning, It has been estimated that teachers are now fitting in the equivalent of an extra full day a week by working during evenings and weekends. Meanwhile data obtained by the TUC from the nationwide Labour Force Survey, shows that teachers carried out more unpaid overtime in 2013 than any other profession. The average of 12 hours extra a week was higher than financial directors (11 hours) or lawyers (nine hours) - so to those who cite the long teacher holidays do factor that data into your calculations. A survey of Headteachers meanwhile found that 75% of NAHT members had been physically threatened by parents and one in 10 had been physically assaulted by one. Assaults on head teachers used to be a rarity - now they seem to be societally and politically accepted as an occupational hazard. Countrywide complaints of schools being unable to find candidates for vacated headships are becoming ever more common. School governors have complained of having to repeatedly readvertise headteacher vacancies because of a dearth of candidates, according to the National Governors' Association. The degree of crisis is reflected by the fact that the shortage of headteachers will worsen within the next 12 months as those born in the 1950s come to the close of their careers. Something like half of all heads are within 10 years of retirement, a third are within five years. Teachers are exasperated. They are drained by initiative fatigue; tired of the constant dissing from politicians and much of the media; fed up of being expected by politicians to cure a plethora societal ill when it is the politicians who have the greater influence on decision making; and energy sapped by overly oppressive systems of accountability that detract from, rather than enhance, effective teaching and learning for all pupils. Those who criticise the striking teachers should ask themselves why if teaching is such an easy option recruitment and retention is so problematic? Teaching should be a wonderful vocation but currently our pupils are taught by the fraught and this serves neither pupils nor teachers well. Put people in this situation and, rightly or wrongly, they may feel they have little option but to strike. It is too easy to blame the unions - perhaps people ought to ask how societally and politically we have allowed teacher morale to plummet to the depths it is currently at?[/p][/quote]Teachers should get on with the task at hand, if they do not like it, they can leave the public sector and work in the private or work abroad. Education is huge cost, and it does not make sense to keep pouring precious public money into it anymore. Maybe we could keep the schools under public ownership and get the staff under private contracts only, this would save a lot of money and wasted days.[/p][/quote]So, are you saying we shouldn't bother educating children and shove 'em back up chimneys and into factories? What if all the teachers give it up and what will happen then? PJC
  • Score: 1

6:45pm Thu 13 Mar 14

PJC says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
express_a_view wrote:
trolley dolley wrote:
Is it any wonder that our children's education is well below that of other developed countries.

It is all about the quality of teachers.

This strike shows what the mentality is of the people who are supposed to teach.

I have always felt that they get far too much time off (school holidays) etc.

In a real job, training is given before you start the job and then you retrain as you go along. If they worked 9 to 5 they would have plenty of time to do the things they claim they must do after school.

To disrupt a child's education for purely selfish reasons is neither acceptable or professional.

Try doing a proper days work, it will not kill you.
As you are willing to ignore any data that might challenge the spurious nature of your argument I fear there is little point arguing. If you think teaching is not a "real job" you say an awful lot about your own anti-teacher sentiments.
If you can do! if you can't teach.......
Lazy, lazy, trite comment. Many teachers 'can' do, but choose to pass on their knowledge.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]express_a_view[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: Is it any wonder that our children's education is well below that of other developed countries. It is all about the quality of teachers. This strike shows what the mentality is of the people who are supposed to teach. I have always felt that they get far too much time off (school holidays) etc. In a real job, training is given before you start the job and then you retrain as you go along. If they worked 9 to 5 they would have plenty of time to do the things they claim they must do after school. To disrupt a child's education for purely selfish reasons is neither acceptable or professional. Try doing a proper days work, it will not kill you.[/p][/quote]As you are willing to ignore any data that might challenge the spurious nature of your argument I fear there is little point arguing. If you think teaching is not a "real job" you say an awful lot about your own anti-teacher sentiments.[/p][/quote]If you can do! if you can't teach.......[/p][/quote]Lazy, lazy, trite comment. Many teachers 'can' do, but choose to pass on their knowledge. PJC
  • Score: 2

7:34pm Thu 13 Mar 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

ChannelX wrote:

it is a shame you are clinging to the misplaced notion that virtually everything in the private sector world is hunky dory.


I've never claimed that AT ALL. What I have made clear (or so I thought) is that you have the CHOICE not to use private sector organisations that you would rather not use - for whatever reason.

Are all private companies run well and staffed with excellent employees? No, but the rather massive difference is that nobody is forced to pay those people's wages if they don't want to.

It's you who is pretending it's a reductive case of: private sector good / public sector bad, probably because you know your own argument is on rocky ground (ie, plain wrong).

You don't like a certain company, its ethos and its hopeless staff? Don't use them and don't therefore fund them.

If you don't like a certain public sector organisation, its ethos and its hopeless staff? Tough, you'll be forced to pay for it all in any case - even if you never use the service - regardless of how wasteful and incapable it may be.

You REALLY don't see the difference between the two things?
Unless you're suggesting I somehow dig a well in my garden and create my own personal water treatment works your argument is invalid. I have no choice over giving my money to Thames Water.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote] it is a shame you are clinging to the misplaced notion that virtually everything in the private sector world is hunky dory. [/quote] I've never claimed that AT ALL. What I have made clear (or so I thought) is that you have the CHOICE not to use private sector organisations that you would rather not use - for whatever reason. Are all private companies run well and staffed with excellent employees? No, but the rather massive difference is that nobody is forced to pay those people's wages if they don't want to. It's you who is pretending it's a reductive case of: private sector good / public sector bad, probably because you know your own argument is on rocky ground (ie, plain wrong). You don't like a certain company, its ethos and its hopeless staff? Don't use them and don't therefore fund them. If you don't like a certain public sector organisation, its ethos and its hopeless staff? Tough, you'll be forced to pay for it all in any case - even if you never use the service - regardless of how wasteful and incapable it may be. You REALLY don't see the difference between the two things?[/p][/quote]Unless you're suggesting I somehow dig a well in my garden and create my own personal water treatment works your argument is invalid. I have no choice over giving my money to Thames Water. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 1

7:34pm Thu 13 Mar 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

ChannelX wrote:

it is a shame you are clinging to the misplaced notion that virtually everything in the private sector world is hunky dory.


I've never claimed that AT ALL. What I have made clear (or so I thought) is that you have the CHOICE not to use private sector organisations that you would rather not use - for whatever reason.

Are all private companies run well and staffed with excellent employees? No, but the rather massive difference is that nobody is forced to pay those people's wages if they don't want to.

It's you who is pretending it's a reductive case of: private sector good / public sector bad, probably because you know your own argument is on rocky ground (ie, plain wrong).

You don't like a certain company, its ethos and its hopeless staff? Don't use them and don't therefore fund them.

If you don't like a certain public sector organisation, its ethos and its hopeless staff? Tough, you'll be forced to pay for it all in any case - even if you never use the service - regardless of how wasteful and incapable it may be.

You REALLY don't see the difference between the two things?
Unless you're suggesting I somehow dig a well in my garden and create my own personal water treatment works your argument is invalid. I have no choice over giving my money to Thames Water.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote] it is a shame you are clinging to the misplaced notion that virtually everything in the private sector world is hunky dory. [/quote] I've never claimed that AT ALL. What I have made clear (or so I thought) is that you have the CHOICE not to use private sector organisations that you would rather not use - for whatever reason. Are all private companies run well and staffed with excellent employees? No, but the rather massive difference is that nobody is forced to pay those people's wages if they don't want to. It's you who is pretending it's a reductive case of: private sector good / public sector bad, probably because you know your own argument is on rocky ground (ie, plain wrong). You don't like a certain company, its ethos and its hopeless staff? Don't use them and don't therefore fund them. If you don't like a certain public sector organisation, its ethos and its hopeless staff? Tough, you'll be forced to pay for it all in any case - even if you never use the service - regardless of how wasteful and incapable it may be. You REALLY don't see the difference between the two things?[/p][/quote]Unless you're suggesting I somehow dig a well in my garden and create my own personal water treatment works your argument is invalid. I have no choice over giving my money to Thames Water. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 1

11:24pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Brasil2014 says...

trolley dolley wrote:
All of the long winded comments from 'express_a_view' assume that you have the right calibre of people as teachers in the first place.

Clearly with threats to disrupt childrens education for personal gain some people are not in the right job.

PLEASE LEAVE.
and parents who don't support their children LEAVE TOO!
[quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: All of the long winded comments from 'express_a_view' assume that you have the right calibre of people as teachers in the first place. Clearly with threats to disrupt childrens education for personal gain some people are not in the right job. PLEASE LEAVE.[/p][/quote]and parents who don't support their children LEAVE TOO! Brasil2014
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree