The Year Of The Fox Posted 23 March 2014 Share Posted 23 March 2014 I'm friends with a couple of teachers and regularly have this debate with them. 'No payrise in years' - same as my company then 'Performance related pay' - many construction trades pay with price work which is pretty much performance related pay. I do hard physical work for at least 50 hours a week. At least if teachers are working at home they're actually at home- sofa, plenty of coffee, tv on possibly? Ok that last paragraph is a poor argument but each profession has their downsides. I'm pretty sure most were aware of the circumstances before becoming a teacher. It's quite hypocritical when you can get fined for taking a child on holiday during term time yet striking is allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zingari Posted 23 March 2014 Share Posted 23 March 2014 Notice how if a parent takes a kid out of school its a criminal offence! yes , especially if it's a kid that belongs to someone else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADK Posted 23 March 2014 Share Posted 23 March 2014 Different shools will have different students obviously. An inner City school won't attract the best teachers if they think they will be marked down because of the attitude of students but a school in suburbia will be more beneficial to them if less challenging. So the poorer schools will be left with the crap teachers and no-hope students destined for a life on JSA having not being motivated by unmotivated teachers. Not everyone will see it like this though. Are you implying people on JSA are simply unmotivated then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AoWW Posted 23 March 2014 Share Posted 23 March 2014 Different shools will have different students obviously. An inner City school won't attract the best teachers if they think they will be marked down because of the attitude of students but a school in suburbia will be more beneficial to them if less challenging. So the poorer schools will be left with the crap teachers and no-hope students destined for a life on JSA having not being motivated by unmotivated teachers. Not everyone will see it like this though. No, they won't because you're wrong on so many levels. Inner city schools are full to the brim with amazing teachers and they're getting fantastic results. 'Surburbia' isn't necessarily less challenging and it certainly isn't full of excellent teachers because it's 'easier'. You've made huge generalisations that are, quite simply, wrong. As for your comment about those on JSA I can't trust myself to reply without picking up a ban in the process, so I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guesty Posted 23 March 2014 Share Posted 23 March 2014 In regards to performance related pay I can see why teachers are worried. Do you do it on results?: in which case inner-city school teachers will struggle because of poor behaviour and the fact some schools have over half of their students with English as a second language. A teacher could be a lot better at their job than someone who got a job in cushy school because they were related to someone yet doesn't get a pay rise. When I worked in a school (wasn't a teacher) most of the poorer/crappiest teachers were the ones who sucked up to leadership team and helped cover up the schools failings; making the leadership team look good whilst the children's education suffered. Whereas, the good teachers who spoke up against the schools failings were maligned and rail-roaded into the background. So I can understand why performance related pay might not work, or at least cause worries. It's not always the best teachers that run a school and make the decisions - sometimes it's the arse-kissing bureaucrats who care more about there pay and covering their backsides than they do about the children they teach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted 23 March 2014 Share Posted 23 March 2014 Think i've made this point/arguement last time a strike was on. Performance related pay would make it even worse for the less academic students. For example I was no good academically and because of this I was left to struggle, teachers only seemed to bother with the academic kids who would get the grades/results and make the teachers/school look good. Results are all schools care about so they focus on the brighter kids. Thats how I percieve it anyway, when really it should be the other way round, surely the kids that need more help should get it? Or atleast it should be across the board that all levels of learning skills are catered for - Hard job, I agree, 1 teacher can't help however many kids are in a class all at 1 time. So performance related pay would simply make these facts even worse, it was make teachers focus on the more academical kids even more I would think leaving less academic kids to stuggle even more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 23 March 2014 Share Posted 23 March 2014 No, they won't because you're wrong on so many levels. Inner city schools are full to the brim with amazing teachers and they're getting fantastic results. 'Surburbia' isn't necessarily less challenging and it certainly isn't full of excellent teachers because it's 'easier'. You've made huge generalisations that are, quite simply, wrong. As for your comment about those on JSA I can't trust myself to reply without picking up a ban in the process, so I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions on that one. OK I'll conede and apologise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr The Singh Posted 23 March 2014 Share Posted 23 March 2014 I have no issues with teachers striking but why don't they strike those in those hours post school hours, as they are doing about 60!!! Now i'm having to take time off, if they striked 4pm till 8pm, we would all be happy!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benji Posted 23 March 2014 Share Posted 23 March 2014 Think i've made this point/arguement last time a strike was on. Performance related pay would make it even worse for the less academic students. For example I was no good academically and because of this I was left to struggle, teachers only seemed to bother with the academic kids who would get the grades/results and make the teachers/school look good. Results are all schools care about so they focus on the brighter kids. Thats how I percieve it anyway, when really it should be the other way round, surely the kids that need more help should get it? Or atleast it should be across the board that all levels of learning skills are catered for - Hard job, I agree, 1 teacher can't help however many kids are in a class all at 1 time. So performance related pay would simply make these facts even worse, it was make teachers focus on the more academical kids even more I would think leaving less academic kids to stuggle even more. Maybe have a sliding scale on the reward so a teacher gets even more if they manage to get the best out of the lower sets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charl91 Posted 23 March 2014 Share Posted 23 March 2014 I've made myself clear on this matter a number of times, so I wont write too much. I don't think striking is the best way to go about this (it annoys parents, and gives fuel to those who already think Teachers are lazy) but on the other hand something has to be done. I'll just bring out the same statistic I do every time this comes up. 40% of Teachers leave the profession within 5 years. Why would they do that, when it's clearly a cushy job? If you did the job for a while, you'd be amazed. I remember when I was blissfully ignorant, believing in a lot of the misconceptions about teachers that many people still seem to believe in. How I laugh about it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haydos Posted 23 March 2014 Share Posted 23 March 2014 Think i've made this point/arguement last time a strike was on. Performance related pay would make it even worse for the less academic students. For example I was no good academically and because of this I was left to struggle, teachers only seemed to bother with the academic kids who would get the grades/results and make the teachers/school look good. Results are all schools care about so they focus on the brighter kids. Thats how I percieve it anyway, when really it should be the other way round, surely the kids that need more help should get it? Or atleast it should be across the board that all levels of learning skills are catered for - Hard job, I agree, 1 teacher can't help however many kids are in a class all at 1 time. So performance related pay would simply make these facts even worse, it was make teachers focus on the more academical kids even more I would think leaving less academic kids to stuggle even more. This is all absolute conjecture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charl91 Posted 23 March 2014 Share Posted 23 March 2014 This is all absolute conjecture. How would you measure performance related pay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadt Posted 23 March 2014 Share Posted 23 March 2014 The focus in lessons has shifted towards the less academic kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Hat Posted 23 March 2014 Share Posted 23 March 2014 Bloody Teachers. Do a job I couldn't do, I don't have the patience. The good ones are given a bad name by the crap ones. We should make it easier to get rid of the useless ones. They also make everyone else's job harder. They don't really get lots of holidays. There is plenty to do when school's out for the summer. They do appear have generous pensions which I am not sure they deserve any more than anyone else does. They don't have any physical requirements which mean they should be able to retire early, unless I suppose they are PE teachers. Their unions make them look like *****, but then again they took the benefits of those unions action. They need to realise that to achieve better working conditions, they need to accept performance related pay (like the private sector), and that they have less job security (to get rid of the lazy and the useless who are holding them back). They also need to recognise that standards have dropped, and not aimlessly support - or let those who speak for them - support the status quo. On top of that, all I can say is thank **** for the teachers who care for our kids, who passionately want them to learn, to do well and to enjoy learning. Thanks for the extra hours, for the commitment and the love they give our kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haydos Posted 23 March 2014 Share Posted 23 March 2014 How would you measure performance related pay? That wasn't my point. He's talking as though everything he's saying is fact. Just because he had an experience where 'more academic kids' were given preferential treatment it must mean that's what happens everywhere. While we're providing anecdotal evidence, at my school it seemed pretty common that the 'more academic kids' were less likely to be shitbags, skivers, disrupters, mouthy, loud. This was why they got more attention at my school, because they didn't want to learn. Some kids are doomed to drop out and you can see it from the start. Obviously some of them change their ways, either at school or when they're a bit older but all this 'non academic' nonsense grates a bit. These kids get just as much attention, it's just that after a while teachers realise their time is spent better on enthusiastic kids who don't talk back, doss around and skive off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charl91 Posted 23 March 2014 Share Posted 23 March 2014 Bloody Teachers. Do a job I couldn't do, I don't have the patience. The good ones are given a bad name by the crap ones. We should make it easier to get rid of the useless ones. They also make everyone else's job harder. They don't really get lots of holidays. There is plenty to do when school's out for the summer. They do appear have generous pensions which I am not sure they deserve any more than anyone else does. They don't have any physical requirements which mean they should be able to retire early, unless I suppose they are PE teachers. Their unions make them look like *****, but then again they took the benefits of those unions action. They need to realise that to achieve better working conditions, they need to accept performance related pay (like the private sector), and that they have less job security (to get rid of the lazy and the useless who are holding them back). They also need to recognise that standards have dropped, and not aimlessly support - or let those who speak for them - support the status quo. On top of that, all I can say is thank **** for the teachers who care for our kids, who passionately want them to learn, to do well and to enjoy learning. Thanks for the extra hours, for the commitment and the love they give our kids. I'd agree with pretty much all of that, to be honest. The only thing is, again, the performance related pay. The problem that most teacher have with it isn't that they oppose it, but that there isn't any fair way of actually enforcing it. How do you measure performance fairly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charl91 Posted 23 March 2014 Share Posted 23 March 2014 That wasn't my point. He's talking as though everything he's saying is fact. Just because he had an experience where 'more academic kids' were given preferential treatment it must mean that's what happens everywhere. While we're providing anecdotal evidence, at my school it seemed pretty common that the 'more academic kids' were less likely to be shitbags, skivers, disrupters, mouthy, loud. This was why they got more attention at my school, because they didn't want to learn. Some kids are doomed to drop out and you can see it from the start. Obviously some of them change their ways, either at school or when they're a bit older but all this 'non academic' nonsense grates a bit. These kids get just as much attention, it's just that after a while teachers realise their time is spent better on enthusiastic kids who don't talk back, doss around and skive off. Sorry, I misinterpreted your point, I was only skim-reading. I agree with most of what you say to be fair, in my experience it's the less-academic that get the most support. It's the children in the middle who are missed out - the ones who aren't gifted or falling behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katieakita Posted 23 March 2014 Share Posted 23 March 2014 Don't think they have a problem with PRP but i is how as other's have said you implement it. Gove is a cvnt of the highest order, never taught in his life and the guy who want's more kids to be better than average! Many Ofsted people are failed teachers, like so many occupations it is a problem getting people telling you how to do a job they can't do themselves.. Like so much of the public sector moral seems to be at an all time low and like any profession getting rid of the better performers is hardly the key to success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted 23 March 2014 Share Posted 23 March 2014 That wasn't my point. He's talking as though everything he's saying is fact. Just because he had an experience where 'more academic kids' were given preferential treatment it must mean that's what happens everywhere. While we're providing anecdotal evidence, at my school it seemed pretty common that the 'more academic kids' were less likely to be shitbags, skivers, disrupters, mouthy, loud. This was why they got more attention at my school, because they didn't want to learn. Some kids are doomed to drop out and you can see it from the start. Obviously some of them change their ways, either at school or when they're a bit older but all this 'non academic' nonsense grates a bit. These kids get just as much attention, it's just that after a while teachers realise their time is spent better on enthusiastic kids who don't talk back, doss around and skive off. Well it is fact as far as i'm concerned, I can only comment on my experiences, perhaps I generalise alot but it's my experience, something I can only comment on. I wasn't a shitbag, skiver, disrupter, mouthy or loud (I'm not saying you think I am, like I have perhaps generalised abit, maybe you have by saying that?) infact I was complete opposite and still am, infact it seems you got more if you were any of the things you have listed, if I was any of those listed I could have left school early, gone to college, learnt something alot more hands on and beneficial to me, because they didn't want any of those type of kids in the school. I'd have happily left early, had a couple of days out of school to go college and learn more Vocational skills, but no because I was quiet and a good kid I got punished - what kind of example is that to set? I got very little help in academic lessons (English, Maths, Science, e.t.c), I was a top student getting quite alot of help/attention in the likes of Design, Technology, Art, e.t.c, coincidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illusion35 Posted 24 March 2014 Share Posted 24 March 2014 I'm a primary school teacher and an NUT member. I'm not striking. I don't think it sends the right message because it creates inconvenience for other working parents. It also doesn't achieve anything in the long term. My colleagues all share my view and our school will be 100% open to all children. I work very hard in difficult circumstances. It's often hard to meet the educational needs of some of today's children. But it's my choice to do so. Incidentally, I think performance related pay is fine, in line with other professions. I do my job well, I get rewarded. Seems fine to me. I have lots of concerns about the education secretary, education policy, the new national curriculum, the behaviour of children, the unrealistic expectations of some parents (there's 30 in my class not just your child!) but strike about it? No! Unjustified and pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnegan Posted 25 March 2014 Share Posted 25 March 2014 Anyone that willingly spends 50+ hours of their week working is ****ing insane. Work to live, don't live to work. Fair enough if you're doing overtime in spells to save for a holiday or a car or something but doing it indefinitely and just accepting it? Fuuuuck no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 25 March 2014 Share Posted 25 March 2014 Spot on there Finners. You need to relax, working yourself into an early grave otherwise. What I can't understand in this day and age is with the computer and data systems we have how do teachers seem to have so much more lesson planning and marking than 15 years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Prussian Posted 25 March 2014 Share Posted 25 March 2014 Spot on there Finners. You need to relax, working yourself into an early grave otherwise. What I can't understand in this day and age is with the computer and data systems we have how do teachers seem to have so much more lesson planning and marking than 15 years ago? I think part of it is down to the teacher's role in society in general. Teachers have become the sole father figure for kids at times, with parents (whether they have the time or not) delegating their tasks to them instead. Teachers are the new psychotherapists, essentially. It's not just the "marking and planning", it's also being a kind of a center of information. You've got a lot more instances to answer to these days, as well. The control mechanisms are rigid. I can but assume classes have grown in size and not shrunk. More work. If you're a general teacher, I can but assume your curriculum has become more demanding, as well. Apart from organizing for school, you're also bound to take extracurricular courses in order to stay competitive and in demand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 25 March 2014 Share Posted 25 March 2014 Anyone that willingly spends 50+ hours of their week working is ****ing insane. Work to live, don't live to work. Fair enough if you're doing overtime in spells to save for a holiday or a car or something but doing it indefinitely and just accepting it? Fuuuuck no. Totally this, I would add the qualifier of it's possibly justified if you want to retire early with a huge nest-egg after doing a high-octane high-hours job for a decade/decade and a half, but that will be no good to you if you drop dead from the stress before you ever get round to enjoying it. Spot on there Finners. You need to relax, working yourself into an early grave otherwise. What I can't understand in this day and age is with the computer and data systems we have how do teachers seem to have so much more lesson planning and marking than 15 years ago? Politicians like to show that education standards are falling/rising (depending on who's in power and who isn't) so everything has to be recorded and assessed for future use as a political football. Because those records are the only measure of how well teachers are doing their jobs, you see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooseBreath Posted 25 March 2014 Share Posted 25 March 2014 Anyone that willingly spends 50+ hours of their week working is ****ing insane. Work to live, don't live to work. Fair enough if you're doing overtime in spells to save for a holiday or a car or something but doing it indefinitely and just accepting it? Fuuuuck no. Anyone for a game of spot the public sector worker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.