... to think it slightly odd that so many of my school mum friends are hung up about secondary schools already, when their kids are only 5!

[sandyballs]

It seems to be the sole topic of conversation lately - how good/bad the local comp is, how extra tuition will be needed for the local grammar etc etc.

The kids are 5/6 years old! Let them be kids!

I'm sure our parents never had all this school angst!

TM - if productivity was increased and fewer teaching hours were needed per pupil, then technically you could pay fewer teachers higher wages with the same budget.

I am fortunate my dd is at a wonderful state school which although I sometimes find a bit hippyish (very touchy feely, I'm sure the head mistress was into flower power and free love in the 60's!) and has many mothers trying to outdo the others with their homemade cakes etc, it is much nicer than the one she previously went to in the middle of the council estate we lived on where she was physically attacked numerous times, and the parents would swear in the playground and happily drag their children from their class by their hair.
I also must admit that the school she goes to being in the middle of a private housing estate does seem to have made a difference, and if I found I could educate her at one of the best schools around for 3k a year then i might do it.
But I also think there are a lot more important lessons in life than just the ones they teach you at school and education is not the be all and end all of it and I would much rather my daughter went into a profession in which she did some good eg teaching (my own goal)or nursing and was happy than spent all the hours god sends at some highly paid job in 'The City' and was unhappy.

Impart the same amount of knowledge in half the time?

Not sure about that...

Re board v HR I spent new year's eve with a man who does HR at an accountancy firm. He may be on above the average salary but be won't earn the £1 - £2m drawings the partners at his firm earn. He is ancillary as virtually all HR people are in that sense, bit like the office cleaners if you see what I mean. They're not core service provision and get paid less than the directors etc.

Anyway that's by the by to the question of whether we want to give our children the chances to make these choices of Tesco board or enter the convent or do yoga all day or even God forbid become a housewife. What's the down side in educating them well and giving them those chances?

TM - any teacher will tell you that a well-disciplined class can be taught many times more quickly than an ill-disciplined one

I think to L's point most of us want our children to lead happy or at least morally good lives (if we cannot ensure their happiness) but you can be very happy earning a few million a year and very unhappy packing shelves at Sainbury's. YOu can also do immense good in the City, really huge gain. I just don't get this - nurse as angel because of low pay and City philanthropist as evil. Surely the more we earn as women the more good we can do. Most richer people give a lot away and do lots of good, much more than if they picked low paid jobs.

surely the same can be said of any back office staff Xenia

IT, HR, Finance etc

I am a teacher Anna. And I will tell you that a well-disiplined class can be taught many times better than an ill-disciplined one. Speed is a red herring IMO.

I mean in-house as opposed to consultancy

Xenia - the HR position in professional services firms and large quoted companies is on the up as recruitment and, crucially, retainment of key fee earners becomes ever more important.

I think you are a little out-of-date...

HR is not like window-cleaning - in the knowledge economy, your people and their brains are your business.

Xenia, I wasnt saying city workers cannot do good, I was comparing a job in a profession which helps people despite the low wage, not as well as.
Obviously if she wants to be a doctor and help and get a better wage than that too is her prerogative.

Well, I'm a teacher too (not secondary school) and when students pay attention and aren't distracted they learn many times more quickly than when they are.

There are plenty of countries where class sizes are much larger than in the UK (40 or 50 pupils) where results are excellent. Just because the pupils behave and listen.

I think this whole intelligent + well educated = rich rich rich is just incredibly simplistic. what about research scientist. very clever clergymen. university fellows. human rights lawyers.
we don't all choose our careers based on how lucrative they are. ditto choosing a life partner. because errrrrr life isn't all about money and getting as much of it as possible.
newsflash

youre only a teacher, you should be a high falutin big wig

LV - do you think it is reasonable not to make any contribution to a debate but nevertheless take pot shots at those who do take the time and trouble to do so?

Could you perhaps give us an original insight?

thought i had, sorry

but honestly, seriously, do you really think that everyone has the opprotunity to be a doctor OR Something in the City Doing Good and pmsl or a nurse and that these are all free choices?

harpsichord are you referring to my post??

in answer to the original question, YABU. IMHO. Not everyone has a good local state school to send their child to (particularly in central london) and therefore there is huge competition for the good local private schools. So much so, that in order for my unborn child to even be interviewed at age 2, I have to register him/ her on the day of their birth.
The option is often not good/ less good, but excellent/ bloody awful.
I don't think class comes into it at all TBH, we all want what is best for our children.

I think the implication was that Anna was in HE, which is a different kettle of fish really.

I think it depends on what you see as the outcome of a school education. I think your ideas might work if the desired outcome was acquiring a body of information. But then again, that sort of is the purpose of the national curriculum and exam syllabuses() and I can assure you that the time that is available now is barely adequate. And as for the idea that you are able to take longer with a difficult class - well that just isn't the case. You just don't 'do' that bit properly.

I actually have this discussion quite a bit with my DH - business models as applied to teaching and learning. I remain unconvinced.

TM - I agree that it is technically possible to be more productive in schools, but that it is highly dependent on the ambiant culture which is pretty impossible to change quickly.

I have friends here in France who have qualified as secondary school teachers later in life ie after another career and they have to spend 10 years teaching in ZEP (designated tough areas) before being allowed to teach in a normal school. They all breathe a sigh of relief once those ten years are up (or they wrangle some kind of deal and get out of them) because they say that they are so much more productive and get through the NC more quickly.

Ah, but you see I wouldn't choose to measure productivity in terms of speed at getting through the NC.

And I prefer challenging children TBH. Much more demanding of me as a teacher. More fun

But that's how your paymaster would measure productivity . To get back to the original point of how teachers could get paid more.

I know, I know, I hate NC based teaching and don't think that education = facts