To think teachers are actually better off than those in the private sector(489 Posts)
Please may I rephrase the debate in a more measured way)
Hard to see why handcream is going on about it being difficult to sack a bad teacher when it is, as of 1st September, far easier. As ilovesooty pointed out.
I've seen teachers get the chop, it's a very detailed procedure, and so it should be; the same procedures protects someone who is being picked on. I've also seen incompetent management who mishandled capability, then whinged when the unions came in to support a teacher who had been treated unjustly. This then becomes "unions supporting crap teachers" instead of "unions supporting just and legal treatment of union members".
It boils my piss when I see managers who won't manage people. It IS hard, but that's what they're paid to do. Well, part of it.
So when all these bad teachers have been easily sacked, where are the new teachers coming from? Seeing as the profession has such a bad image and poor attrition?
Certainly the ones coming in wringing their hands with anticipation at the short days and long holidays aren't going to stick it out for long. Agreed get rid of the dead wood and the water treaders, but you then need to make it an attractive profession to attract the good teachers in and keep them.
Is it not the responsibility of the people in charge of state education to do that too?
"That's the worrying thing. It is difficult to fire a bad teacher."
Its no more difficult than in the "real world". In order to fire anyone you have to make a case to do so and as with all jobs you have to prove that you have tried everything within reason to improve that persons skills or they will sue the company for wrongful dismissal.
(unless its gross misconduct but you still have to prove that they have done it)
"So tell me how a pension can be deemed 'affordable' when it's relying on massive contributions from an entity that has no money?"
when you tie the above ^^ with
"(Let's ignore the fact that teacher's salary is also government money for now.)"
it actually means that the government is spending money that is from the teachers pension fund. So I for one will not "ignore the fact"
Those are only the ones struck off by the GTC. Of course the real number of teachers leaving due to competency proceedings is higher than that.
That's the worrying thing. It is difficult to fire a bad teacher. It shouldnt be but is. No wonder they want to keep their T&C's!
Is this figure correct?
'17 duff teachers axed in 10 years '
I dont mean for example teachers that have been fired for say dating their pupils or for fighting. I had a collegue who hit one of our customers (who was a horrible, bullying bastard) and he was fired immediately even though the guy had pushed him just too far
Sovery well as many schools are graded Outstanding or Good one would kind of presume the progress and teaching would be.
It is very hard and not very pleasant to get info out of a school if they don't want to give it.
And as for moving kids that isn't easy either.
We've just visited a school where a head has just got rid of half a department after years of trying.
That is years of kids being let down.
Not if you're not given those levels,aren't told what good progress should be,aren't given info and have a weak head.
I am interested now. How many teachers over say the last 20 years were fired because they werent up to the job?
Previously it was impossible
No it wasn't.
And not all the teachers being forced out were bad teachers.
So last month it was easier to get bad teachers out. Previously it was impossible. What a great time a bad teacher must have had, yearly pay rises, no real chance of being fired and more money for just turning up.
* Its difficult to get rid of a bad teacher. Why should these crap teachers automatically get a pay rise just for being in place for longer*
Automatic progression has gone now. And it's possible to get rid of teachers HTs want out in weeks as from last month.
Well the money fairy aint going to wave it's wand so that is what people will have to do.
Unless you start young, you have to put a lot of money in every month to get anything much of a pension. Most people can't afford that - even with tax cuts
In an ideal world we'd all be paying less tax so we can put more into our own pensions.
I personally would rather do this than pay more tax to fund a few in upper class pensions the rest can only dream of whilst cutting teaching jobs so we have fewer on pay we can't afford to maintain.
Family households have to cut their cloth,the gov are no different.
Yes I think there are going to be a lot of very poor pensioners in the future. Those inheriting expensive houses will be okay. Those who don't inherit will largely be up shit creek.
To clarify, I mean benefits that the private sector will ultimately need to support their meagre retirement income. Because unless we intend to be stepping over homeless people in the streets, there's going to have to be a whole new tier of benefits for these people. Because they simply won't have enough money to live on.
But we do need to tackle the pension timebomb and teacher's need to play their part in this if we don't want to sell our kids short.
Tbh the real pensions time bomb is that the vast majority of this generation will not have enough money to live on in retirement. So whichever way you look at it, our kids' tax will be funding someone anyway.
Either it's the public sector pensions now or the impovershished private sector with their crap DC pensions and insufficient retirement income.
Even as a private sector worker, I would question why we should be more deserving of state money in the form of benefits than the public sector who are providing a service of which the private sector is benefitting.
My personal view is that most of these debates come down to ideology and whether you value public services and if they are deserving of state money. Your own comment that teachers' own contributions is state money too makes your views clear on that front. Obviously the fact that their work their arses off for their salary still doesn't make it their own money.
I had a final salary pension. I now have career average. Its fair tbh because it stops people getting large pay rises at the end and the pension being based on a larger salary. I think with us all living longer that a career average IS better. I could live until my 90's.
There are some terrible teachers out there. Its difficult to get rid of a bad teacher. Why should these crap teachers automatically get a pay rise just for being in place for longer.
Teachers need to get into the real world and recognise they are no different than the rest of us who are also working longer hours with stacks of paperwork.
Affordable is such a relative word isn't it?
The government pay the equivalent of 14% of a teacher's gross salary into the pension fund. The teacher pays around 7-9%. So in effect the vast majority of the fund relies upon government money. (Let's ignore the fact that teacher's salary is also government money for now.)
I don't know if you've been reading the news recently but the government is rather skint at the moment. In fact not only is it skint, it's borrowing money like a drowning man trying to grab a lifevest.
So tell me how a pension can be deemed 'affordable' when it's relying on massive contributions from an entity that has no money?
I'm not trying to say that teacher's pensions alone is responsible for saddling our kids with debt. Clearly the government today and of yesteryear are all responsible. But we do need to tackle the pension timebomb and teacher's need to play their part in this if we don't want to sell our kids short.
so a pension that was deemed affordable when last checked is going to be responsible for our "children saddled with crippling debts"?
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.