Ainu to think this is discrimination or am I being politically correct gone mad?!

[Skinnywhippet]

This is listed as ESSENTIAL (not just desirable) attribute for a job advert for a teacher.

Must be physically fit to undertake
the duties of the role – lifting,
bending, stooping and carrying.

Surely that is discrimination. I have a disabled friend who is a teacher and it is no problem. Yes, teachers do lifting etc, but you can avoid these if necessary. What do you think?

I guess if they know that in that particular job there will be a lot of lifting it'd be a bit daft to hire someone who couldn't do it?

Depends on the teachng position, is it a phys ed teacher?

Sorry to drip feed but just seen this as well.

The salary will be according to age and experience.

Erm, really salary should be based on experience and age is slightly irrelevant. I am shocked.

It is a ks1 teacher. So 5, 6, or 7 year olds.

is it for a special school?

Not a special school. Independent school where class sizes are of 18ish and have a teaching assistant.

I think payin based on age is discrimination but think it is legal in the UK, liek the separate minumum wages for different age groups. Think that is very wrong

Unless it is for additional needs, then yes it is discriminatory.

Maybe the teaching assistant is disabled? And they need someone in the class to do the heavy lifting, maybe the there will be a disabled child in the class who has to be lifter between the two teachers?

You can't knwo really. It could be discrimination. But they clearly think heavy lifting will be a part of this job.

i agree unless it's for additional needs then it discriminatory and a school should know better

The teaching assistant is not disabled.

There are no disabled children in any of the classes where the teacher would be employed.

The age part is discriminatory. I don't see that the rest of it is if it is required for the job.

The age thing is discrimination, but the lifting, bending, stooping thing isn't. That's just what is needed to be able to do the job.

If you think you never have to bend down to young children when you are teaching them and caring for them, then you may as well give someone with only hairdressing qualifications a job as a pilot.

The physical requirements could be discriminatory. It would depend on whether they could make reasonable adjustments to enable a disabled employee who did not meet those requirements to still do the job.

So you think a wheelchair user just plain can't teach KS1 children, CloudsAndTrees?

they have to make adjustments for a disabled person to do their job if need be, it's what the disability discrimination act is there for

No, I didn't say that. And disability doesn't mean wheelchair user anyway.

But if this is an independent school that wants its KS1 teachers to be able to play on the floor, take children pond dipping, out for walks, teach children how to slide down the firemen pole and use monkey bars on their massive climbing frame, then it's reasonable to want someone who is physically capable of those things to do the job you are offering.

I teach an adventure sport to people with disabilities, I'm well aware of what can be achieved, thanks. I also work in a school with young children, and I know that there are some aspects to the job I do that would be extremely difficult or impossible for a wheelchair user.

But if this is an independent school that wants its KS1 teachers to be able to play on the floor, take children pond dipping, out for walks, teach children how to slide down the firemen pole and use monkey bars on their massive climbing frame, then it's reasonable to want someone who is physically capable of those things to do the job you are offering.

You don't need any of those qualities to be a teacher ergo it's discrimination. They cannot discriminate based on qualities they would prefer if those qualities are not tangible.

Seems very odd to me. DC's infant school headteacher is a wheelchair user and teaches groups of reception and yrs 1 and 2, as well being an exceptionally effective head.

You don't have to, but surely that being reasonably physically able isn't an excessive requirement for a teacher.

There has to be a line somewhere, we can't just call everything discrimination.

If I had became disabled tomorrow, I might not be able to do the job I do with disabled people. But I'd still be qualified. Would it be discrimination if I was no longer able to physically keep other disabled people safe, or would it just be common sense that I shouldn't be doing that job?

but it is discrimination, I can't see why a person with physical disabilities couldn't do a teaching job either and I don't think it makes any difference that it's an independent school. Sliding down a firemans pole doesn't happen everyday does it? unless the school is in pontypandy