to ask WHY in the name of Gove are teachers striking again?

[loftyclopflop]

DD's school is closing on 1st October because they have chosen to strike. Is it over pay, pensions and conditions? Did they achieve anything by striking a couple of years ago other than massively inconveniencing a lot of parents?

I know Gove is a twat but do they really expect to change anything by taking the day off?

The average life expectancy for a teacher retiring at 65 is 67

This is a complete myth: www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18952037

Rather a teacher bashing article though, isn't it?

Soverylucky.

It's really not relevant what I personally think teachers should be paid. As I said, I support the idea that teachers should be highly paid to attract the best & brightest but at the same time I'd expect high performance.

It seems bone of contention for teachers is that pay will be linked to performance. But as a parent I support that and I'd find it bizarre that anyone would think it is not OK. Because the opposite seems to imply that an underperforming teacher still gets a payrise. Personally I'd rather they got the boot.

Someone said earlier there is support for a teacher's strike. I'm sure there is somewhere. But i'm guessing it's the minority. The rest of us simply see teachers as striking to maintain an unaffordable pension scheme that we can only dream of and to maintain working conditions that do not reflect the modern workplace.

If I'm wrong then the unions certainly haven't made their case clearly enough to me.

OK Redlocks this is more objective I think:

( I don't really have a strong view in this discussion - I just couldn't believe the 18m statistic so tried to check it out)

dera.ioe.ac.uk/9023/4/draft%20final%20report%20rev4.doc

It's a long piece so I'm quoting an extract "Inaccurate and misleading coverage in the press and information presented to teachers by some financial advisers have caused concern to members of the TPS.

An individual’s life expectancy at birth is very different to their total life expectancy on reaching retirement age. Total life expectancy – defined as life expectancy plus current age - increases with age attained because those dying earlier in their lives are excluded from the group. For example, the total life expectancy is 85 for male teachers at age 65, which increases slightly by the time retired teachers reach the age of 70 to 85½. There are many factors that result in increased life expectancy, particular determinants being higher income and educational levels. Life expectancy of teachers is, in general, higher than the life expectancy of the general population. The figures are based on an analysis of data from the TPS, which includes all teachers irrespective of their age at retirement and includes an allowance for future improvements in mortality based on research from the actuarial profession.

I think in a few years, this forum will be full of parents complaining that their child's teacher is well over 60, weary, jaded and physically spent. Or will they have been signed off sick (at the tax payer's expense) years before or sacked after capability proceedings at 63 because they just couldn't keep up the pace?

They should be moaning right now about unqualified teachers teaching their kids, budget cuts meaning teachers being laid off leading to a more restricted curriculum, larger class sizes and less support for the less academic. Good, experienced teachers leaving the profession in droves because they can't stand Michaels Gove and Wilshaw and their hatred of teachers. Schools being forced to become academies, the drive to close down LAs leaving parents completely shafted in the event of the academy failing. Schools being sponsored by completely unsuitable organisations with religious agendas.

Because that is what is happening right now.

They should be moaning right now about unqualified teachers teaching their kids
Add to that the fact Academies don't have to follow the National Curriculum.

Question from pure interest:

If academies don't have to follow the national curriculum, do teachers employed at academies have to complete the same amount of paperwork as teachers at comprehensives?

FWIW I like the South African method of dealing with paperwork. Some years back, the SA Ministry of Education decided to import oodles of planning, deeming it to be a Good Idea as it came from Great Britain.

Unfortunately it didn't work as the teachers en masse simply didn't do as they were told. Eventually the Ministry gave up. I am told that forms, guides and so on sent to schools by the Ministry simply got left in a pile, fed to goats or used as fuel. There are many problems with SA state schools, but I would love to see teachers in England do the same thing.

Academies still come under Ofsted. It's not the national curriculum that's the problem, it's the things that teachers are forced to do because someone else thinks it makes them a better teacher (evidence usually thin on the ground, see the lack of evidence surrounding lesson observations).

Niceguy - my reasons for stiking given your 3 points

1. Yes, we have moaned about other education ministers - their ideas etc. But (and this is a big but) no other education minister has set about to systematically destroy our system. No other education minister have taken decisions that affect every young person in the country that every specialist has said is the wrong decision. No other education minister has decided to ignore the needs of the vast majority of students and force an old grammar curriculum for all no matter what. No other education minister has said that the way in which we teach is rubbish and we should get back to chalk and talk (which is the absolute opposite of OFSTED's view)
2. we are not saying we work longer, harder and with more pressure than anyone else. But we had agreements in place which meant that we had time in the day to plan, prepare and assess. We had an agreement in place which meant our time, our training, our speciality was not being wasted by making us do photocopying
3. Unions have on several occasions asked for the break down of the teachers pension fund as the government are claiming that there is 'not enough in the pot'. We pay a large amount into that pot and we have still not seen this break down to prove this - other specialists have judged the fund to be in the black.

Basically with regards to our terms and conditions - we took on this role with a clear contract and terms and conditions in place. These have been changed with no regard for consultation or showing us any respect of our basic rights. When I worked in the private sector, these sweeping changes would never have been allowed to be made without consultation and compromise from both sides

In terms of Gove - when a change in specification and assessment is forced through half way through a course (current year 11 English Language), when the majority of students who are not capable of achieving A*-C in academic subjects are thrown on the scrap heap at 14.

I am striking for me, for my future colleagues and every young person in this country

also your point "It seems bone of contention for teachers is that pay will be linked to performance. But as a parent I support that and I'd find it bizarre that anyone would think it is not OK. Because the opposite seems to imply that an underperforming teacher still gets a payrise. Personally I'd rather they got the boot"

as others have said on this and other threads, blogs etc the concern of this is how are we going to be judged? Are we going to be judged by achieving their target? How are these targets produced? My school has targets that are a grade above FFTD and for most really unachievable even if everything else in their lives goes fine for their years in school.

What about those student's whose home life's are chaotic beyond comprehension? Am I to be judged and paid on their results when I only see them for 150 mins a week? What about the students who don't complete homework, don't revise etc - why should my pay be reduced because a 16 year old is being bone idle?

Absolutely spot on, Cricketballs. Couldn't have put it better myself.

I pay 11% to my pension. That's more than my private sector husband does.

There's no easy way to tie pay to results. Who would take the risky jobs in very deprived areas? Those areas who need the very best staff? And let's face it, they are risky as those kids will probably not reach national averages. This means teachers who are dedicated and making a huge difference in the lives of our most needy kids will face pay cuts as a reward for their efforts.

cricketballs

FFTD, fecking hell, that's ridiculous, we have gone back to FFTB because at least we stand a chance of achieving the target.

Bizarrely ArthurPewty we are not allowed to strike for that as it is not part of our T&C.

At least your school uses the data - ours goes 'what % do we need to get self-assigned E&M targets...hmm we're short by about 20%...' and then I swear they just chuck the other names in a hat and pull out the number they need.

It's the only logical reason I can think of for some of the targets given!

Nothing wrong with pay linked to performance if expectations are set reasonably and evaluation is contextualised, and most sensible governing bodies will expect this.

Our Head decides our PM targets-we have little or no say in them. I wouldn't say they were always sensible or reasonable!

Well, in theory you can refuse to sign a PM with targets you don't agree with; then you can't be held up to their targets.

I exceeded FFTD with my Y11s, getting more As and Bs (top set in a small school) than predicted. At a meeting this week the head said there were not enough As. I have no idea why she thinks this. If she set my pay on her perception of my performance I would be getting a pay cut (I'm used to that, though, as all teachers have had real-terms cuts for several years...)

Ok, some people don't get teacher's working hours. The he children I teach arrive at 8am and leave at 4pm. Outside of those hours I plan lessons and mark their work - this easily equates to an extra hour minimum a day. That makes a 9 hour working day. Teacher starting salaries are circa 22k. To be a teacher you need a degree and a PGCE. I also have a masters from arguably the best uk university. Perhaps I am in the wrong job. However, I am a very good teacher, the children enjoy school and make superb progress and the parents respect me. I have immense job satisfaction to equalise the stress I manage. I would appreciate some support from the general public. Teachers do such an important job for your dear children. Please value us.

The OECD has published a paper on PRP in teaching. In a nutshell its conclusion on the evidence gathered is that PRP works where teachers aren't paid well. In addition it notes that efforts to be fair are tangled up by the difficulty of locating exactly where the teacher effect can be located, is it a particular teacher or a group effect?

None of this will stop the government from inferring cause to effect.