to think that this is sexual discrimination?

[kumquatsarethelonelyfruit]

The vast majority of SAHP are women. Like me. I have been at home, raised my kids and 5 years later NEED to go back to work (pressing financial reasons) but apparently I am no longer employable as a teacher because I have forgotten everything I have ever learned. I can't even do supply as the agencies require you to have classroom experience within the last 2 years. One supply agency said they would consider taking me on as a TA (would only break even on childcare costs). This is despite me continuously working as a tutor and GCSE examiner! I am so pissed off. I have a good degree from a good university and got top grades in my PGCE. What the frig was the point in any of it? AND I still owe 7k in loans! To make matters worse they will employ cover supervisors with any degree and no teaching qualification but not take me on their books as I have no reference from the last two years. I feel so angry. I will never regret being at home with my kids but I know from here that there are so many women in my position and it is wrong and unfair both on SAHP and their children.
OH, and I can't even take a return to teaching course as the Tories have axed them :(

No it's not sexual discrimination because it's not based on your gender

It won't be because you've forgotten everything you've learned either, it will be because you need up to date training I expect.

5 years is a very long time to be out of the classroom given how education is constantly changing and moving on.

It's similar to saying you sold mobile phones 5yrs ago and now you want to sell them again.

Too much would have changed in that time without you having ongoing training.

The European Court of Justice sees employment policies which disproportionately effect one gender as sex discrimination and illegal.

OP- threaten to sue agencies that use a 'recent experience' excuse to refuse you. They are breaking the law.

OP I think that they are short-sighted setting that criteria and thus excluding a lot of highly skilled people.

I also think the term you are looking for is indirect discrimination and I think you would have an argument that this policy does indirectly discriminate against women (as the rule will disproportionately affect them).

victims of other people's perceptions. Victim of the belief some people have that you have nothing of value to offer.

There is probably a better word, but I can't think of it. But I certainly think that people suffer because of this. Aren't given a fair chance. Suffer people not looking beyond that CV gap.

Or just not as competitive as others against a set of criteria which includes recent experience and up to date training.

Agree re indirect discrimination if they are refusing to take you in books/ad states they won't employ you soley because no recent reference or experience.

However if it is competitive job market and employer can pick and choose candidates, it is hardly unexpected that they select someone with more recent relevant experience...

Not sexual discrimination at all - sorry. A bummer all the same though.

Sadly I think you're being discriminated more on your subject choice than your gender. As someone else has already said, if you were a physics specialist they'd probably be much more willing to overlook the five years out.

However, there aren't that many English jobs about. And if you were a head, you'd probably rather employ a cheap NQT than someone who is more expensive, but yet not up to date with all the latest "initiatives".

Having said that, have you considered independent schools? They may not mind so much about the missed "initiatives", especially if you have a good degree and can offer something extra-curricular.

It could absolutely be viewed as indirect discrimination on grounds of sex - the fact that it applies to men and women doesn't matter, as it disproportionally affects women.

I feel for the OP, but I really don't think an employer should be accused of discrimination simply because they want someone with recent experience. This can be applied to anyone, male or female, parent or not. It's not an issue for discrimination, it's about providing ways back into teaching (etc) for anyone who has not worked in the field for a number of years.

I don't see why you are making out its sexual discrimination. You made a choice to stay at home, and are now having to compete against other candidates for jobs who have more recent experience than you. Many of them are no doubt women with children too, only they have continued working rather than give up. It's a perfectly valid choice to stop working if you want to and have a partner willing to support you, but I don't think it's then reasonable to cry 'sex discrimination' when you find it harder to get back into the workplace.

It's something to consider seriously when you have children, and sadly I think some women don't consider the long term carefully enough

Don't bother with agencies - try writing to schools directly and ask them to bear you in mind of maternity cover/part time jobs/teacher dropping dead slots - as well as full-time permanent jobs.

My mum had never worked as a teacher. When I was 10 she started teaching, 1 girl, 8 lessons a week (A-level). She went full time, became head of department and when I was 21 she was appointed head of a different school. That was independent sector - they have a bit more flexibility AFAIK.

When she was head she was always interviewing people looking to come back after having children. Having done it herself she didn't see it as a disadvantage. You just need to find an employer that's less hidebound.

It's really shocking how many people don't see the sex discrimination here. Indirect sex discrimination is just as illegal as direct discrimination. This isn't even a new law!

Attacks on the op are just thinly veiled wohm vs samh resentments.

Most English teachers are female. I'm sure many of the jobs the op is failing to get, are filled by women, very probably mothers. That's why I find it even more bizarre that she's claiming sex discrimination. If she were losing out on every job to a male, it would make more sense, the reality is- she will be competing against women who made the choice to not give up work- which is an equally valid choice.

Agree with almost everyone else.
It's unfortunate for you that you want to re-enter the profession at a time when there are more applicants than jobs, and it's an employer's market, but it's not sexual discrimination.
It's a risk you take when you decide to take time out of work - be that as a SAHP, a carer for elderly relatives, accompanying a spouse who goes to work abroad, or taking time "for yourself" in some way. It's a possibility you factor in.

I also find it interesting as well that there is little understanding about indirect discrimination darlene.

I'm one who didn't, darlene. My understanding of sex discrimination was as I posted it.

I've googled indirect discrimination now and learned something.

"Indirect discrimination

Indirect sex discrimination occurs when an employer applies a provision, criterion or practice equally to both women and men that puts one sex at an unfair disadvantage."

You can also have indirect age discrimination etc etc

WRT the indirect discrimination quoted, I suppose in this instance you would then have to consider whether the stipulation of recent experience was arbitrary or not.

I'm going to keep saying this until it gets through:

This is illegal indirect sex discrimination. It is the same rule which prohibits discrimination against pt workers.

Op- on a personal note can you not use a reference from your tutoring/examining?

Yes, Darlene, in your opinion it is, but it doesn't mean everyone has to agree with you ya know?

Darleneconnor - sue? Really? So it would be possible to show that a man who'd been out of the workplace for 5 years would be treated differently?
Auntiestablishment - I think that's a good idea. There certainly are schools who will consider applicants who might fall through the net of a more 'standardised' approach, and who'll appreciate individual qualities. Give it a go, OP.

I really don't agree that it is. Nor would an employment tribunal.

Actually, the onus would be on the employer to show they wouldn't treat a man differently. (Slaps forehead)
I don't think they'd have much trouble doing that, though.

I don't think that's what it is, plump.

Forgive me, for I only learned about indirect discrimination 5 minutes ago so this is very much me processing what I've just read. But it's really interesting.

Indirect discrimination is treating two people in the same way, but by doing so, by choosing a particular criteria for all, you can actually discriminate against one group.

One example I've just read (illustrative and not meant to be an ACTUAL example) is to set a criteria that all applicants must be over 6ft tall. It is applied to everyone, but by its very nature it prohibits most women from applying and is therefore sex discrimination. Even though it is not treating either gender differently.

This is a new thing for me to learn about

So the argument - if I am understanding correctly - is that not wanting to employ someone who has been a SAHP, on the grounds that their skills are not uptodate, is discriminating against women because most SAHP are women.

I must say, it's something I had not really understood.