Teachers Strike March 26th

[Tielemans63]

The whole 70k thing was reported but it's mostly bollocks. Reason? Gove has given schools the power to set their own pay scales so how he can then tell us what they're then going to offer I'm not sure.

As well as this, the vast majority of schools are making cuts left right and centre - they're not immune from austerity - to give you an idea of how ridiculous those figures are, I know for a fact that our Head teacher earns less than that and no member of our SLT team earns more than 60k and we are a 'Good' school.

If that figure is true then it's only true for a tiny percentage of teachers who work in the most financially-backed schools - again a tiny minority.

[katieakita]

And I'd like you to give me the link to the site that tells about the LEA or school that has implemented a pay scale that allows a classroom teacher to earn 70k, rather than a generic report from a policy think tank saying they could earn it. Performance related pay has been in place since September. The DfE even gives examples of how schools have used it on their website and none mention any kind of pay scale that even remotely suggests classroom teachers earning that much. I'm still struggling to find where these best teachers in our country will actually be earning 70k 5 years from now, all I'm asking is for you to give me a link to where it'll happen.

 

Must have read it in the Daily Mail so it must be true. Still waiting for Moosebreath to tell us what he does for a living

[AoWW]

Must have read it in the Daily Mail so it must be true. Still waiting for Moosebreath to tell us what he does for a living

 

Fiction writer. 

[MC Prussian]

Well obviously it hasn't happened yet because it takes five years. You're a teacher? Christ. The reports are all over the Internet like I said

Proof, Moose. Proof beats claims any day.

 

You know what a proof is, right?

It's something to back up your argument, especially when using numbers and stats.

[Bilo]

No point in reading most of this thread, 99% will end up being ignorant teacher bashing anyway.

 

My other half is a teacher, not part of the NUT, she went into school to work on October 1st when there was a strike which included her union, she'll be going into work on Wednesday when there's a strike as it's not part of her union (and as you'll see she'd have gone in anyway.)

 

But of course she's probably a c*nt in most of your eyes, that's fine. She works her absolute bollocks off and is marking right now, and probably spend 8 hours on a Sunday marking. Leaves for work at half seven and gets home around 6pm each weekday, and if there's nothing on on Saturday she'll probably mark too. Pretty difficult to pin her down to do things. My sister is just the same as she's a teacher as well.

 

But of course they're probably c*nts to you lot because they became teachers.

 

During the summer holidays, Easter holidays and half term they work. They might get a couple of weeks where they will have a vacation but in the main they work, planning for the year ahead in the summer, marking assessments and catching up with what they can't get done in the working day in term-time holidays. But of course these are classed as holidays, so they're c*nts, I forgot about that.

 

My OH and sister care about the kids they teach, a lot. They work their fingers off, buying things with their own money to reward kids (which I think is ridiculous but SOME kids aged 11-16 these days seem to need things given to them to motivate them) and spending a vast amount of their evenings and weekends planning, producing and marking when they're home from work.

 

They themselves will tell you that there are some teachers that enforce the ignorant stereotype you perpetuate. Some don't deserve to be called teachers, there are older ones there collecting their pension and younger ones who float on by when they can. But most care and work hard, the fact they're called a teacher instantly means they're a workshy c*nt though, isn't it?

 

Oh yes, the Tories moan about teaching standards but they seem to be doing everything right in driving the decent teachers away from the industry, I'd hate to think what my OH and sister earn on an hourly basis, it'll be pathetic. The sooner I can persuade her to teach abroad the better.

 

This is pretty much spot on.

 

The ignorance on Facebook last night was genuinely spellbinding.

 

I genuinely don't think you can understand how demanding teaching is until you've either taught yourself or been close to somebody who does, as condescending as that might sound to others. Some of the stuff I heard was that teachers retire at 50, stop work at three and do fvck all for six weeks. I want a teaching job at that school if I can, not sure I'd send my kids there though.

 

There are plenty of teachers I know personally who are teaching well into their sixties, in one of the most stressful jobs you can enter into as well. Take into account the fact our pension contributions are rising, the curriculum is being ruined by Gove, the profession is being subjected to a relentless barrage of criticism, the ever increasing spectre of OFSTED and you don't exactly have a happy working environment. Morale, genuinely, is on its knees.

Marking is a massive part of the job as well. Everything has to be marked and assessed according to a wealth of criteria, it isn't as simple as 'ticking and flicking,' it has to offer real feedback for children to progress. If your kids don't make that progress, your position could be in jeopardy. Planning has to be differentiated, employ opportunities to demonstrate the progression of ALL students and engage children whilst demonstrating a high level of subject knowledge. I myself regularly spend up to an hour planning a lesson to ensure it does this. Marking according to AFL followed by planning even three lessons can take an evening, very easily. The 60 hour week is no exaggeration, especially when coursework deadline dates are looming. The amount of boxes you have to tick these days is far greater than it was 20 years ago in my view.

As for teacher training days, they are just that. TRAINING days. This can include marking scrutinies, performance reviews, first aid training, SEN courses and a host of other things. It isn't just a bunch of teachers sitting around drinking tea and lobbing darts at a picture of Michael Gove as some people seem to think it is, that doesn't happen until after 3.

 

I think what's most irritating is that there seems to be this focus in the media on grasping teachers wanting to be mollycoddled and feather their nests, but it's far from a reflection of the reality on the ground. There is little more stressful than standing in front of a class of 30 kids three-four times a day, many of whom are FAR from perfectly behaved, knowing that their future is largely dependent on how well you can deliver your lesson and how effectively you can help them to make progress. 50-60 hour weeks are what we signed up for, but for people to claim that teachers are not working hard enough is just blind ignorance. No ifs, ands or buts. I understand the arguments regarding the pension, but it's not the only issue. There is a host of reasons why Gove is loathed, but it suits the agenda of some to claim that it's all about pensions because then it makes it easier for media outlets to play the 'greedy teacher' card.

 

I am trying to persuade my missus to start her teacher training, she's bloody good at what she does with very challenging kids, but she just isn't that interested due to the sheer workload and stress teachers have to take on board.

 

Amazon is your friend when it comes to rewards and stuff though. Never underestimate the power of stickers in books. 

[DennisNedry]

Teachers do get paid relatively well (especially with experience), they do get good pensions (even the changes they are striking over would leave them better off that most private sector workers), and they do get a huge amount of holiday time.

 

I DO NOT begrudge them what they earn. I only left full time education a few years ago and on the whole they are very committed to do the best for their students. I know how many utter twats they have to put up with. And I know how much pressure they are under to get their students achieving their target grades.

 

However,  I don't think teachers do themselves any favours regarding their reputation with the general public when striking. There must be other ways to try and achieve whatever it is they are after without causing such disruption.

[Guest MattP]

However,  I don't think teachers do themselves any favours regarding their reputation with the general public when striking. There must be other ways to try and achieve whatever it is they are after without causing such disruption.

 

That's certainly a fact.

 

A lot of them don't quite seemed to have grasped that to get some support for these strikes and get sympathy whilst people are running around trying to find people to look after their children while they go to work they are going to have to explain why they are doing this.

 

A lot of the excuses just aren't cutting the mustard, pensions we've covered over and over, unsustainable and had to be changed, need to have something enshrined into law as well to stop the Labour party usuing this as a political weapon in the public sector. Get in power, promise something we can't afford, sit back and watch them kick off when it's changed and cause discomfort for the Tories, honestly, what a way to get people to vote for you.

 

The hours of work I'm sure people could get behind, same as the fact Gove is implementing this and that but you have to explain and tell us what it is. Parents want to see change in schools, that's quite clear and something needs to be done to stop our nation continually falling down the league tables, offer us some alternatives, If you don't then we can't make an informed opinion on it, we're not settling for "we wouldn't understand either".

 

Believe me, when you are teaching our children and their future is in your hands the last thing we want to hear is "It's too difficult to explain, you wouldn't understand"!!!!

 

They aren't helped by the image you get of them on the TV either, or that picture I posted of them in the Questions thread, when you watch some of them on the news and the way they act and strop it feels like, rather ironically, they are acting like children to get their own way.

[MooseBreath]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?redir_esc=&redir_esc=&hl=en-GB&client=ms-android-orange-gb&source=android-browser-type&v=200400000&qsubts=1395908495551&action=devloc&q=teachers%2070000

Proof, Moose. Proof beats claims any day.

You know what a proof is, right?

It's something to back up your argument, especially when using numbers and stats.

Google, prussian. Googling beats assumptions any day.

You know what google is, right etc etc

[Nick]

I find it incredible that somebody can watch a TV programme on 'throwing unqualified teachers in at the deep end' and conclude that despite having any theoretical training leading to applied good practice can 'wing it' at the deep end and come out looking like they know what they are doing on any long term, significant level.

 

The fact I have jumped from a plane and pulled a cord does not make me a sky diving expert - it means I lived once, despite the odds, had good fortune and managed not to damage myself or anybody else.

 

The arrogance of assuming good teaching is easy, is swilling from this thread.

 

Oh and as for 70K a year - after 5-12 years, how is that in any way real or sustainable - it's spin reported widely by media coverage - the idea that this makes it true is pretty deluded:

 

 

Chris Keates, general secretary of the NASUWT, the largest teachers' union, said: "Under the system imposed by the coalition, however hard a teacher works and however well they perform, there is no guarantee of any pay progression. In addition, under the new system, schools, not the secretary of state, determine their salary scales. The secretary of state therefore cannot make the claim that teachers can achieve £70,000 in five to eight years. This is another example of the misleading propaganda the secretary of state issues to seek to mislead the public and mask the deeply damaging policies he is pursuing.

"As teachers have had their pay related to performance since 2003, it is perhaps not surprising that there is support among teachers for the principle. However, as an NASUWT survey of over 15,000 teachers demonstrated, what teachers do not support is the system recently imposed by the coalition government, which has replaced fairness, transparency and clear expectations with a system based on excessive managerial discretion and grace and favour, designed not to pay good teachers more, as the secretary of state claims, but to pay everybody less."

[Alf Bentley]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?redir_esc=&redir_esc=&hl=en-GB&client=ms-android-orange-gb&source=android-browser-type&v=200400000&qsubts=1395908495551&action=devloc&q=teachers%2070000

Google, prussian. Googling beats assumptions any day.

You know what google is, right etc etc

 

Hmmm! I'm not against the idea of performance-related pay in principle, but this idea sounds like it could be a mirage crossed with Pandora's box:

- Mirage: These hypothetical £70k performance-related salaries would apparently be decided on by local schools, but would they have the funds (under any government) in the current financial climate? If so, would they really spend them on raising pay, rather than spending on school infrastructure, educational resources etc?

- Pandora's box: How would the schools assess teachers' performance? "Value-added" (i.e. improvement achieved by kids) as shown by exam results seems the only remotely objective method, but many teachers (including all primary teachers, unless you use the dubious SATS) do not even teach exam classes. Plus, some teachers are invaluable in the personal support they offer kids or in extra-curricular activities/organisation. How would you assess that? If it ended up being perceived as a system whereby heads/governors reward those teachers who suck up the most or who they're most friendly with, it could destroy morale and fuel bitterness.

[Captain...]

How about a performance related pension, I think that would solve all the issues, basically you can't measure success on exam results, and we shouldn't be aiming to teach kids to pass exams, we should be preparing them for real life, but the result of those formative years won't be seen until they are much older.

 

So, stick with the same basic salary structure, but reward them with their massive pension based on how their pupils turn out, so for every pupil that goes on to become a valid tax paying useful member of society they get a pension bonus, and for every year that a former pupil spends on the dole, or in jail or as a member of a manufactured boyband they get their pension reduced. Simple, I'm on the phone to Gove now.

[Rincewind]

Fenn Street kids teachers are fecked then.

[Nick]

Everybody should buy this book, it's inspirational.

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Everything-I-know-about-teaching/dp/1492912417

 

[MooseBreath]

I find it incredible that somebody can watch a TV programme on 'throwing unqualified teachers in at the deep end' and conclude that despite having any theoretical training leading to applied good practice can 'wing it' at the deep end and come out looking like they know what they are doing on any long term, significant level.

The fact I have jumped from a plane and pulled a cord does not make me a sky diving expert - it means I lived once, despite the odds, had good fortune and managed not to damage myself or anybody else.

The arrogance of assuming good teaching is easy, is swilling from this thread.

Oh and as for 70K a year - after 5-12 years, how is that in any way real or sustainable - it's spin reported widely by media coverage - the idea that this makes it true is pretty deluded:

Chris Keates, general secretary of the NASUWT, the largest teachers' union, said: "Under the system imposed by the coalition, however hard a teacher works and however well they perform, there is no guarantee of any pay progression. In addition, under the new system, schools, not the secretary of state, determine their salary scales. The secretary of state therefore cannot make the claim that teachers can achieve £70,000 in five to eight years. This is another example of the misleading propaganda the secretary of state issues to seek to mislead the public and mask the deeply damaging policies he is pursuing.

"As teachers have had their pay related to performance since 2003, it is perhaps not surprising that there is support among teachers for the principle. However, as an NASUWT survey of over 15,000 teachers demonstrated, what teachers do not support is the system recently imposed by the coalition government, which has replaced fairness, transparency and clear expectations with a system based on excessive managerial discretion and grace and favour, designed not to pay good teachers more, as the secretary of state claims, but to pay everybody less."

Teachers disagreeing with everybody else, what's new?

[MooseBreath]

Hmmm! I'm not against the idea of performance-related pay in principle, but this idea sounds like it could be a mirage crossed with Pandora's box:

- Mirage: These hypothetical £70k performance-related salaries would apparently be decided on by local schools, but would they have the funds (under any government) in the current financial climate? If so, would they really spend them on raising pay, rather than spending on school infrastructure, educational resources etc?

- Pandora's box: How would the schools assess teachers' performance? "Value-added" (i.e. improvement achieved by kids) as shown by exam results seems the only remotely objective method, but many teachers (including all primary teachers, unless you use the dubious SATS) do not even teach exam classes. Plus, some teachers are invaluable in the personal support they offer kids or in extra-curricular activities/organisation. How would you assess that? If it ended up being perceived as a system whereby heads/governors reward those teachers who suck up the most or who they're most friendly with, it could destroy morale and fuel bitterness.

Exam results, in class monitoring etc. We're talking about teaching here, it's pretty easy to pick good teachers from bad. If we're giving up on such a good idea because of some minor difficulties in measurement then we're pathetic really, aren't we?

[Nick]

Teachers disagreeing with everybody else, what's new?

 

Insightful.

 

Moose's 'Specialist Chosen Subject' for this episode is another opinion based on no real knowledge on the subject area.

 

As a result, he will be answering questions based on google searches, right wing headline news publications and sweeping baseless statements designed to discredit large demographics.

 

Edit: Apologies, I left out 'Sensationalist BBC3 TV documentary' as the 'deal closing' source of knowledge.

[MooseBreath]

Insightful.

Moose's 'Specialist Chosen Subject' for this episode is another opinion based on no real knowledge on the subject area.

As a result, he will be answering questions based on google searches, right wing headline news publications and sweeping baseless statements designed to discredit large demographics.

If you look again at the google search you'll see the results are actually dominated by left wing media publications.

I don't understand the reason for the rest of your post. All I've done is point out the results of an official report. If you disagree with it, fine. The fact that you get so aggressively defensive so easily just suggests to me that you're nervous about the truth being exposed.

[Nick]

If you look again at the google search you'll see the results are actually dominated by left wing media publications.

I don't understand the reason for the rest of your post. All I've done is point out the results of an official report. If you disagree with it, fine. The fact that you get so aggressively defensive so easily just suggests to me that you're nervous about the truth being exposed.

 

 

By 'Official Report' do you mean 'news report'? What makes what you linked/referred to 'official' or in some way quantifiable?

 

As for, 'aggressive defensive' you expect to baselessly discredit the professionalism and integrity of a professional discipline and then play the 'did I push your buttons card'? 

 

And then to 'top it all off', you have the arrogance and self assurance to credit your ignorance to another baseless sweeping statement that implies there is a truth which teachers are lying about which is being exposed!

 

Explain to everyone again how you're not a troll.

[MC Prussian]

Teachers disagreeing with everybody else, what's new?

MooseBreath coming up with false claims and generalizations - what's new?

[MooseBreath]

By 'Official Report' do you mean 'news report'? What makes what you linked/referred to 'official' or in some way quantifiable?

As for, 'aggressive defensive' you expect to baselessly discredit the professionalism and integrity of a professional discipline and then play the 'did I push your buttons card'?

And then to 'top it all off', you have the arrogance and self assurance to credit your ignorance to another baseless sweeping statement that implies there is a truth which teachers are lying about which is being exposed!

Explain to everyone again how you're not a troll.

It was produced by a specialist think tank not by journalists. So no, i don't mean news report.

Again with the rest of your post, you are overreacting again for some reason

[MooseBreath]

MooseBreath coming up with false claims and generalizations - what's new?

What false claim? I've just posted what the report said. Like confucius said, why u want shoot messenger

[Nick]

It was produced by a specialist think tank not by journalists. So no, i don't mean news report.

Again with the rest of your post, you are overreacting again for some reason

 

Oh a 'Specialist Think Tank' - Must be reliable then - who was in this think tank? Got a link to their findings?

 

And no 'over-reaction', simply illustrating that you make inflammatory statements and then take no responsibility for it.

[MooseBreath]

Oh a 'Specialist Think Tank' - Must be reliable then - who was in this think tank? Got a link to their findings?

And no 'over-reaction', simply illustrating that you make inflammatory statements and then take no responsibility for it.

I said it wasn't a news report. They are a specialist think tank. I didn't make any judgements as to their reliability. But you did. Therefore the onus is on you to prove your assertion.

I eagerly await your thorough dismantling of the think tank and their report.

[Nick]

1. I said it wasn't a news report. They are a specialist think tank. I didn't make any judgements as to their reliability. But you did. Therefore the onus is on you to prove your assertion.

2. I eagerly await your thorough dismantling of the think tank and their report.

 

1. No onus on me to do anything, wasting my time to further discredit the nonsense you've come up with in retort to my comments.

 

2. Hold your breath - it'll be ready in a jiffy.

 

[MooseBreath]

So your answer is no, then? You can't come up with anything specific about the think tank or the report that you disagree with? Let me guess, you haven't actually read the report?