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?

It could be seen as discriminatory, I know someone who successfully had "full driving licence required" removed from a job advertisement, for a job that required travel around the country, as it was discriminatory towards those with visual impairment.

My sister was a wheelchair user, a qualified physiotherapist and worked in a special school. She had an assistant to help with the stuff she was physically incapable of doing. I'm sure that you can teach from a wheelchair, even in the most outdoory type of school.

Do you mean what bits of the job I do with children?

Well, off the top of my head, the things I already listed. But if I had to use a wheelchair I would probably find it very difficult to use the wooded area that my school has, I wouldn't be able to fit in the toilet cubicle to help children, like when they need help to wipe their bum, or change after an accident. I wouldn't be able to demonstrate some of the things we do in PE, or excercises that we use to help their physical development, or lift and carry the regularly changed boxes of toys or the bikes and scooters in and out of the cupboard.

I could go on, and I too can see that most of those things are environmental, and that there would be ways round all of them. They would just cost half the schools annual budget to implement!

We have teachers with disabilities in school - one in a wheelchair, one blind and two who use crutches, lots with mental health problems. Not an issue at all. It is discrimination.

Interestingly, with the raising of the retirement age it is likely that there will be a lot more teachers who find the more physical aspects of their jobs difficult. Not sure I'll feel up to a quarter of a mile uphill walk between lessons with no travelling time built into the day when I'm approaching 70.

I've never slid down our children's firemens pole either MrsDeVere! at the thought!

But I have lifted children down from the top, and supported their weight while they learned, and done the same from the monkey bars, and climbed to the top to comfort an upset child, and lifted children who have fallen off the floor and carried them into the first aid room. Stuff like that happens all the time!

Good thing not all employers think like CloudsandTrees eh?!

Yes, it definitely sounds discriminatory. The OP has already countered the things I had thought of as being a reason as to why they had worded the advert the way they had.

I suspect the physically fit part would be easier to defend if they were challenged on this (not that I think it's defensible, but that excuses could be made for this), but I can't think of why the age point would be acceptable at all.

They are on shaky ground IMO.

It's funny you know because people with disabilities are often very adaptable. Many, many wheelchair users manage parenting with all the lifting it entails.

Please don't start this thing of making out I'm some disabilist nasty bitch, Im just discussing the issue.

It irritates me on a regular basis that people with disabilities are so often misjudged as being incapable of things they can do very very well, especially when the support needed would be minimal and very easy. I too know disabled teachers, although both of them work in secondary.

I never called you those names and I would not, nor has it crossed my mind to call you disablist. I disagree with you though and think you are not thinking outside the box.

No, I know you don't call me those things, but so often on MN people do get called disablist when they are really not, it's happened to me before so I guess I'm too defensive. Sorry (said in the nicest possible way)

A lot of what I do in my other job with people who have disabilities involves thinking way outside the box, and like I said, I can see ways round all of the issues I listed. But for those things to be put into practice in my school, the majority of the building would need to be redesigned. A child who was a wheelchair user could be accommodated relatively easily, but a member of KS1 or early years staff, not so easily.

Got away with what?

Of course it's not anyone's fault that the place is badly designed, but we are in a building that was put up over 100 years ago. Believe me, I'd love it to be completely redesigned, but the money would have to come from somewhere. And as I work in a state school, it would come out of the education budget. So what's more important? Paying for more land and to redesign and rebuild the school, or paying to educate our children?

Yes, we have an accessible toilet. We are actually rated outstanding on the bit of the OFSTED report that talks about SEN. Like I said, a child could be accommodated fairly easily, but it would be more difficult (not impossible) for a member of staff.

It sounds to me like a previous member of staff has gone off sick with back issues and tried to sue - or indeed has invoked the DD or something like that and they're trying to stop that happening again. Doesn't mean it's not discriminatory though. And salary according to age is definitely off.

Life for a person with a disability is 'more difficult' so I'm sure the school could cope with doing something 'more difficult'. My own school goes back to the Elizabethan period, as do some of the buildings, and we have made the building accessible. Of course, the will has to be there.

I agree that the advert is discriminatory about age.

So where is the line drawn with regards to discrimination? (Genuine question)

If the outcomes that both an able bodied person and a disabled person can provide are identical, but the disabled person is not considered for the job, then obviously that is discriminatory.

But if a person cannot achieve the same outcome despite reasonable adjustments because of their disability, is it still discrimination?

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

well Im not fit enough for that job I have spina bifida I cant bend or carry heavy things so I dont see how it is discrimination, it is just showing what the job entails

although i work with preschoolers and I dont lift any of the children or anything heavy, so I suppose

I am not sure why I mentioned the disability I have

But if a person cannot achieve the same outcome despite reasonable adjustments because of their disability, is it still discrimination?

No it isn't imo you can positive discrimate against people ,

We've had disabled students that couldn't access areas of the school, so we swapped classrooms around in advance so they had access to all the areas they needed to throughout their years in school.
On first sight, the ad is discriminatory, worth challenging anyway.
I think doing the job would be very tough with a significant physical disability, but if the will was there on both sides it would be possible. As has been said, if teachers are going to be expected to teach til 67 or 70, the schools had better get used to adapting themselves for elderly staff.