to think that the NUT advertising in the press about teachers' retirement age..

[wimblehorse]

..is a bit off?
The advert is asking people to sign up to an online petition that teachers should not have to work until they're 68 and if you agree to sign up to the petition.

It also says that they don't think nurses, police, ambulance drivers etc should have to work until this age.
Teaching is a stressful, demanding job and I can quite understand not wanting to do it full-time until age 68.

However I am not convinced that teachers warrant such "singling out" above other jobs. Of course the NUT is standing up for its members, however there are many other deserving (and undeserving) jobs out there and I would feel happier if we were "all in this together" and could have some sensible discussions about retirement age, gradual winding down of work etc for everybody.
AIBU?

Sports I agree, we can't generalise.
People age differently. Many 60/70 year olds would be fine and others not. :)

One of the most significant reasons for me leaving teaching (for a desk job) was that I didn't want to be an old teacher. I met plenty of them and many of them were exhausted, struggling with health issues and counting down to retirement at 60. I can't imagine either of my parents (both in their mid sixties and fairly normal for their age) having the stamina to teach a full day not to mention a full week. I don't think this is necessarily different to many physically demanding jobs. It is worth considering the impact on retention and recruitment in teaching (and other similar careers) it we don't begin to present an alternative end of career pathway. Otherwise lots of young teachers or potential teachers will career switch early to avoid a crisis point where they are perceived as too old to retrain in a new career, have financial commitments but are burnt out and either performing badly or signed off sick.

tbh I find many people in their 60's who are friends may look healthy and active; but in reality many many have chronic health problems that are invisible and leave them tired and/or in pain. Yes there are people who this does not apply to, but it is actually really common to be in your 60's and have illnesses such as angina, diabetes, arthritis, etc.

the current teacher retirement age is 60, going to 66 in 2020, right? If people want to retire earlier, or go to part time work, they can save their money - that applies to everyone.

I'm not saying it's ideal but what can be done? I really think everyone is going to have start saving a lot earlier for their retirements as life expectancy rises. Maybe quality of life goes down when we're younger, to make up for needing to have income for longer.

The proposals are to link the pension to state pension age. So for older people that will be 66, but rising up to 68 depending on your current age.

Well, I don't like those stupid recruitment adverts they have, trying to lure gullible graduates into teaching.
They are full of glamour and smoke and mirrors-type deception, I'd like to see a counter campaign of adverts with slogans gleaned from those exiting the profession.
I think the NUT campaign is pointless, the majority will just want to play the 4 Yorkshiremen sketch in all its variants
'Think you've got it hard, well I...'

Don't like the petition? Ignore it.

'The best teachers at my old school were in their late 60's'
Was that in the last 10 years? Because the job has changed beyond belief or sanity in the last decade, especially in Primary. Which is why I loved supply work. You get the teaching without the quadruple paperwork and the pressure. Rather like teaching used to be.

My parents talk about the elderly teachers brought out of retirement who taught them after the war - severe shortage of teachers. They say that many of them really weren't up to the job, struggled to cope and would look visibly tired by the end of the day.

I will be 68 this year and was a secondary school teacher for 30+ years then retired at 55.I could not do the job today.I could not physically or mentally cope with the demands of a 30+ class of teenagers and all the attendant paperwork.I was good at my job and loved it but if I were doing it today then children's learning experience would suffer.I couldn't stand in front of a class for up to 90 minutes,my hearing has deteriorated,I couldn't cope with night after night of marking and preparation.For every elderly teacher working beyond age 60 a young teacher-fresh and enthusiastic,is out of a job.Maybe the administrators/managers could do it but not the classroom teachers-not if you really care about your dc education.

Going part time towards the end of their careers can be problematic if your hard earned pension is based on your final 3 years salary (I think this is how it currently works) and you have to give up your additional responsibilities (which pay extra). That is why the system needs to be remodelled to allow people to take easier roles rather than doing harder ones badly to retain their pension level.

If you go part time in same job your final salary for pension calculations is still based on your equivalent full salary - for lgps anyway. But if you take a downgraded job with less responsibility, yes your pension will go down.

"my 65 year old aunt teaches approx 2 classes a week and runs extra A-level revision sessions at the school she taught at for the last 40 years."

so how many hours a week is that?

Generally I have found that HT were loathed to have PT staff with significant responsibilities and if they were willing to let you do it PY would offer the full time responsibility with part time pay and hours for the responsibility. I hope it has changed.

I dont think A Level revision sessions or A level classes would be quite the same as 4G on a wet Friday last lesson especially following 1A for a double period and having been on duty at lunch time.That's reality :)I went on to do primary supply and private tuition for 5 years post retirement[I volunteered to take early retirement as we were moving].

Just to answer a question further down. Firefighters can retire at 55 - for a full pension you need 25 years service. You can retire after 25 years service only if you are over 50. Under the newer 2006 scheme retirement age is already 60. Also there are less desk jobs than there used to be as they are usually done by 'civilians' as it's cheaper, different T&Cs.

I don't know what to say to be honest.

I'm a midwife - there is no way that I will be able to physically cope with my job when I'm 68. I can't retire till 68. There are very few non clinical midwife jobs - I can think of 5 out of over 100 where I work that are office based.

There was some minister on Newsnight a few months ago who was asked about this issue and he basically said that people in jobs such as mine, so including police, teachers, firefighters, etc have to forget about the idea of a job for life.

Instead they have to view their job as a job for when they're fit. When they can no longer do the job they have to go and work in b&q. Obviously b&q won't have enough jobs for all of us but I'm sure he wasn't being literal.

It just worries me that if I'm a midwife for 20 years who else will employ me when I'm 55? I'd be up against younger people, with more experience, transferable skills, etc. Will I get a job?

I may be a teacher but I am working class not middleclass! I can`t wait to be 68 and old and decrepit in my classroom!

Wow, a nice reward for educating the next generation, used up, spat out and expected to stack shelves.

Those suggesting older teachers go part time - many heads would be reluctant to allow this. Apart from fucking up the timetable (I'm part time but still have to teach every day and being part time means some of my classes have to be split) having too many part time teachers isn't good for the school, especially as positions of responsibility are usually given to full time staff only. Part time jobs need to be prioritised for those with young children - if I couldn't teach part time I'd have to give up work as even at 3 days a week equivalent I work a 40 hour week.

My Mum is 68, she has had one hip replacement and is currently walking with a stick while she waits for another hip replacement. She still teaches albeit part time but she has moved into the realms of adult education teaching small groups and individuals and I can't see her giving up for a while yet.

All careers are dynamic and change with age and experience.

Shell we look at footballers pensions instead? I think that they can retire at about 30 something.

Not a teacher - just for the record. But this is what happens as far as I can see. I am happy to be corrected.
The debate is sort of being presented as though teachers don't pay into a pension - that they just draw on public money leaving 'tax payers' to pick up the bill. Which is wrong - teachers do pay into pension schemes, on top of the taxes they also pay. So it's not exactly as though they are waiting for the rest of us to fund an idyllic retirement.
Yes, other people have had pension plans changed, me included.
However, if you work in the private sector, there are options (in theory at least) to move jobs for more money. Teaching is different - obviously you can earn more for more responsibility, but wages don't change from school to school as they might do if you were moving between private sector firms.

Teachers do loads of overtime - it's expected really. After school activities, school trips (which might involve working into the night trying to get kids to sleep) etc etc. Yes they get long holidays but I do know lots of teachers, and very few of them actually take all those holidays as holidays - they use them as time for marking, writing reports and other paperwork, setting up classrooms etc. I know teachers who spend their own money on resources. Yes, they went into it because it was a vocation, but with all the other downsides, a decent (although not exactly extravagant) pension was one plus which encouraged them into teaching vs trying to find a better paid job in the private sector. And again, it's not as though teachers don't contribute to it.
I'd be worried that the more we chip away at these plusses, the more people who would be, could be, bloody good teachers, will look at the profession and think "That is so not for me - there seems to be nothing other than the love of the job and frankly, on top of my student loan, is it really worth doing it for just that? Can I afford it? Nope, I'll look for my job elsewhere."
It strikes me as a bit odd that at the same time as wringing our hands about the state of education and worrying about the education our kids get, we are busy making the profession in charge of that less and less desireable.

We all need to be more realistic about what we will be doing in our late 50s and 60s. For example we need to consider whether we will be able to continue in our jobs as they stand and whether to make financial commitments which rely on that level of income. For example our mortgage is due to be paid off when we are 57. Notionally we might have been able to arrange a mortgage to be paid off at 65, but that might not be realistic. I don't know if 57 is realistic or not.

Teaching is a stressful, demanding job and I can quite understand not wanting to do it full-time until age 68.

We have one who is 72 ....and she still commands a class, old school style .... far more up with the play than the NQTs. Only concession she gets is no form group to deal with. She gets results a well.

Trois - how many have retired from your school in the last few years who you thought could easily carry on and continue until 72? Very few 72 year old ex teachers look ready to go back into battle!

part time jobs need to be prioritised for those with young children
going part time is problematic for those on final salary pensions
positions of responsibility are usually only given to full time staff
See these are attitudes that should or will have to change.
If and when we do all end up working until we're 70, flexible options that make the most of older people's experience will have to be the norm.
That or the workhouse

Agree breatheslowly, I read an article over the weekend stating that the majority of improvements to living standards over the last 40 years had been due to relaxed credit rather than increased productivity.
Now that credit has dried up.