If you do it right, the overheads shouldn't be too bad, and should be made up for by the general improvements. Again though, it all depends how you implement it.
More teacher strikes
- Thread starter Nitefly
- Start date
If you do it right, the overheads shouldn't be too bad, and should be made up for by the general improvements. Again though, it all depends how you implement it.
Isn't it more irresponsible to give children a poor education?
Without consequences to failure, the structural pressure to succeed is Iimited.
Let good schools expand and bad schools fail, we owe it to the children to be intolerant of bad schools.
To be fair, if I was only being paid ~£30k, I wouldn't have much incentive to work those hours (assuming those hours are working and not 'go home, cook, watch eastenders and mark whilst browsing OCUK)'.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,400
My wife is working as a teaching assistant at the local primary school and she is basically doing a lot of the teachers marking for her. She is even helping to arrange lesson plans and has recently arranged a trip for the class.
I do not envy teachers, but at the same time I don't have a lot of sympathy either. I am a private sector worker, and I also work anywhere from 12-14hrs a day (sometimes more, IE 18+) but I only get 23 days holiday a year, 3 of which I have to sacrifice straight away due to the Christmas shut down. My basic salary is less, and I dont have the luxury of striking as my employer does not recognise any unions and my pension is as basic as my employer can legally get away with.
In real terms, I know who I think has a harder working life. But I accept my role, I accept the good and the bad and if I don't like my job I can look elsewhere. So can teachers, to be fair.
That is not to belittle teachers because many of them do work hard and take pride in teaching. But perhaps some of them (as well as other public sector workers) should wake up and smell the coffee. Acting hard done to is not going to win the support of all the other people out there who work just as hard and have far fewer perks but who do not have the luxury of striking against their employers at every turn. I wish teachers all the best, but I do not support their strike.
In the private sector, if you don't like it then you leave. There is always someone else to do your work. Why do public sector workers feel that they are somehow special, and this principle should not be applied to them? The cynic in me suspects that there is a reason why so many teachers stick at it for a long time, and perhaps that reason is they know they don't have a bad life at all?
Or perhaps it is an aversion to giving up the holiday allowance that is 4x what most people get.
I mean, come on, 91 days a year! 
Even if half of that is used to do lesson planning and marking, teachers are still getting a good deal compared to the private sector - IE it is still 6.5 weeks a year 'off work', and the lesson planning/marking and suchlike that is done for the other 6.5 weeks of their annual leave can be done at home with the feet up in front of the TV with a cuppa. Hardly what you can call graft is it?
Yes teachers work hard, but then so does everyone else. As such I do not believe teachers are special, and should not be treated as such. Credit where credit is due, but at the end of the day they are workers choosing to do a job. If they dont like it, they can do something else.
Last edited:
People think that because their kids are off school at 3:30 and have months of holidays a year, that teachers do too. Nothing is further from the truth. Plus they take a lot of work home because you can't keep up if you just did work hours.
Nursing, midwifery, anatomy, first aid, even did English and maths to bring the 16-18 year old students up to the standards they hadn't learned properly. Lots of changes to courses over a few years, lots of long written coursework to mark, lots of lesson prep, plus the second highest contact hours in the country didn't help. That's just the core job, there are often a lot of non-core tasks too.
There's a reason why people who teach, or who are close to teachers and see how hard they work, are all repeating the same story in this thread. The workload is often very high, and most people just don't realise it. I certainly didn't before those five years my wife did it.
Last edited:
This is a great idea if it were not for two things: firstly I have never seen a fair and sensible measure - people go all airy fairy and can't give details how it would be done they just give blase manager speak explanations. And of course the other people it would most likely leave some areas without decent coverage (not that they have it anyway).
Many of you might remember back in ~83 to ~85 the teachers were striking then and they were leaving the profession and/or changing jobs and I lost count of the number half days I had off school (probably 1-2 per week on average). Those years were in turmoil with different supply teachers and others that held classes they knew little about. I would say that I got a reasonable education but due to the striking I could have got a better education.
So I say in my opinion that striking teachers will have an impact on your childrens education. It difficult to pick a side but 'we ARE all in it together' and why should one profession get a pay rise and not the other? It seems to me that someone has to lose in these cuts and many dont have ANY income due to these changes.
To me the truth is that we all give something positive to society reguardless of profession (except traffic wardens lol) and it will be hard to make decisions but somewhere along the line someone will have to suffer a loss in income.
Teachers and MANY others are feeling the squeeze but its up to the voters to decide what is more important - I fear that no matter which box I tick, in this new economic climate, little will change and that teachers will do it more out of passion than for financial gain - like it's always been, at least in my life-time.
So I say in my opinion that striking teachers will have an impact on your childrens education. It difficult to pick a side but 'we ARE all in it together' and why should one profession get a pay rise and not the other? It seems to me that someone has to lose in these cuts and many dont have ANY income due to these changes.
To me the truth is that we all give something positive to society reguardless of profession (except traffic wardens lol) and it will be hard to make decisions but somewhere along the line someone will have to suffer a loss in income.
Teachers and MANY others are feeling the squeeze but its up to the voters to decide what is more important - I fear that no matter which box I tick, in this new economic climate, little will change and that teachers will do it more out of passion than for financial gain - like it's always been, at least in my life-time.
Last edited:
My Mrs is a teacher (English, secondary school).
Been doing it about 8 years so gets 30k odd.
She works 8.30 until about 16.30 then in the evening about 20.00 until 22.00/23.00.
So probably 9-10 hour days.
There will be exceptions like parent's evening etc where more work is involved.
Holidays will generally be one day of work for each week off.
Last edited:
I have nothing to add, this post is pretty much spot on with my opinion.
The point is that the solution you prescribe isn't a solution, it has more problems than it solves. A poor education is better than no education at all, however creating a system that means that failing schools close rather than given greater support and attention is flawed, as this will simply create a system whereby limited school places puts ever increasing burdens on the available schools therefore causing more failing schools and so the Catch22 I mentioned. Better to address the root causes of failing schools, which would include social measures aimed at low income and deprived areas of our society as well as the actual schools themselves.
Or perhaps it is an aversion to giving up the holiday allowance that is 4x what most people get.
Most teachers don't get 91 days off, even ignoring all of the work that teachers do outside of the classroom. As soon as you enter any kind of senior role, you're expected to book holiday off like any private sector worker. Most get around 35-45 days off but they obviously have to be booked for times when holidays are at their most expensive.
Teachers working at academies and free schools tend to get an even worse deal.
That is a really annoying sub-point as it assumes everyone in the private sector can afford to go abroad regardless.
Deleted member 66701
D
Deleted member 66701
I suggest you lawyer up then as that's below the legal entitlement, presuming you're full time.
Or perhaps it is an aversion to giving up the holiday allowance that is 4x what most people get.
Where did you get 91 days from? It's 65 days (6 weeks summer, 3 half terms, two weeks xmas and two weeks easter).
I used to get 35 days annual leave in the private sector. If you aren't getting a good AL allowance then move to a better employer (because let's face it, you too chicken **** to fight for it with your current employer). Or, and here's and idea, become a teacher?
Last edited by a moderator:
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 1,671
From my experience of a family member who teaches, the figures seem slightly inflated. Regardless, many jobs have things you have to take home and I don't particularly enjoy working 8-6+ monday to friday (with nights and weekends) and then doing more work at home, but I suck it up because I enjoy my job.
Last edited:
I never said they didn't work hard during term time, I just disagreed with your statement that they had "many days less" than the students, this isn't the case for most teachers.
So more a lecturer than a teacher? Very different terms and conditions.
Not everyone arguing against you has no teaching experience or knowledge of the profession...
It is legal if he isn't including bank holidays.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 5,365
- Location
- West Sussex
Why don't teachers sit at home and communicate with their assistants over Skype?
Then they will not have to worry about staying behind to mark, prepare lessons and deal with problem students.
Job done really, they work work longer and harder than anyone on the planet so it is only fair. It is not like they chose this as a career.
I work 50 hours a week earning rubbish money, I didn't choose this I worked hard and got qualifications. I don't have a choice I work 50 hours, unsocial hours or I get kicked out of my home and am penniless.
Why is it that working in the civil service shields you from the real working world?
Then they will not have to worry about staying behind to mark, prepare lessons and deal with problem students.
Job done really, they work work longer and harder than anyone on the planet so it is only fair. It is not like they chose this as a career.
I work 50 hours a week earning rubbish money, I didn't choose this I worked hard and got qualifications. I don't have a choice I work 50 hours, unsocial hours or I get kicked out of my home and am penniless.
Why is it that working in the civil service shields you from the real working world?