...do teachers really work that hard?

[User298895613]

I know the general idea on AIBU is that teachers work load is ridiculous, that they work extra hard and that they never never stop to the point that they r all seemingly leaving the profession.

But, AIBU to wonder if they are any different to anyone else? and actually might have it a bit easier? I mean, I also work myself into the ground, am exhausted, never stop etc... But I don't have summer holidays off to look after my kids, and I often work well into the small hours at night.

I'm not saying teachers don't work hard, but sometimes on munsnet I just feel like some teachers kind of spend a lot of time complaining about the workload, when maybe it's just the same as everyone elses, but with a nice long summer holiday?

(Sorry, I appreciate this will really inflame some posters, but it just had been annoying me lately)

Thanks Clav. Not an easy figure to pin down then. Hardly surprising I suppose. Not much point worrying about it.

I'm from a family of teachers. Based on observation it really depends on the teacher. My brother and his wife both teach the same grade. My brother never work at home but my sister in law does. I don't know any teacher that works as hard as media makes it sound like the continuous midnight work hours and no weekends.
We actually had a conversation today with my best friend who is a teacher. She was saying that she doesn't need to utilise all the planning hours that is assigned for her. Whereas her colleagues complain that they can never have time off since the whole summer has to be spend planning the next year. I do think teachers work hard and deserve a be the pay.

(the ASA actually upheld complaints against adverts that suggested high salary levels)
Was that the ‘Great teachers earn £65k!’ advert?!

It turns out that the complaints were not upheld!

A teacher recruitment advert that prompted 140 complaints did not exaggerate teachers' pay, the advertising watchdog has ruled

The Advertising Standards Authority ruled viewers would understand £65,000 to be aspirational but achievable.

The department referred to published statistics showing that in November 2014 there were 12,845 teachers earning £65,000 or more.

Of these 12,360 were at leadership roles, with 485 working as classroom teachers.

The National of Union of Teachers, one of the complainants, said it found the ASA's decision quite surprising.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35758575

My DF was involved in that as he does work for the ASA. Many were astonished that the complaint was not upheld. It was a technicality but the ad was widely held to be misleading. Not enough to infringe advertising codes. But the ads have changed since.

That's all quite interesting Clavinova

And, anyway, it's pretty immaterial, since those expensive ads, misleading or not, did nothing to improve teacher recruitment!

The actual ruling is here;
www.asa.org.uk/rulings/department-for-education-a15-317043.html

Thanks for the link. I'll just paste across the bit you didn't which hopefully OP will also find interesting:

The ASA noted the advert depicted a number of teachers conducting lessons but it did not consider that viewers would infer the salary information represented a pay scale for classroom teachers only. It found the advert did not misrepresent teachers' potential salaries and was therefore unlikely to mislead.
"We considered that viewers were likely to understand that the salary information represented a pay scale, from starting salary to an aspirational but achievable salary for "good" or "great" teachers, including those who had progressed to senior or leadership roles."
'Ridiculous'
The National Union of Teachers, one of the complainants, said it found the ASA's decision "quite surprising".
"The advert was instantly ridiculed by teachers, and they were right to do so," said deputy general secretary Kevin Courtney.
"When only one in a thousand classroom teachers earn £65,000, it is obviously ridiculous for the DfE to give the impression that this is a likely salary.

The real quibble was over what 'great teacher' implied. The full ASA ruling did say that they felt that phrase should be clarified or altered. My DF was astonished that it was not said to be implied that the man in the lab coat was not ateacher earning 65k.

That said, hardly any ads are ever 'banned'. It is extraordinarily rare, as it is with films. Doesn't make it a good ad.

Bold fail but should still make sense.

You will also know then clavinova that the Leading Practitioner role is barely used in school.

It is astounding to me that, unlike so many ads, they didn't have to have properly displayed disclaimers.

You could take my deputy head , stick him in a lab coat and claim he is a great teacher. I reckon he earns around 65k. He is a decent enough chap, but he is not a 'great' teacher and , in fact, he teaches maybe 6/50 lessons a fortnight.

hey ho!

And, anyway, it's pretty immaterial, since those expensive ads, misleading or not, did nothing to improve teacher recruitment!

A DfE spokesman said: “We are pleased the ASA has dismissed the complaint that our efforts to recruit more excellent teachers were misleading...

Rather than repeatedly talking down the profession and complaining about initiatives to bring in more top graduates, the NUT should instead be working with us to promote the hugely rewarding career of teaching

Well, that's just the DfE doing its union bashing. In fact, the DfE has worked recently quite closely with unions and other teacher representatives to produce documetation on recruitment and retention.

That's just the DfE sounding like some posters on ehre by stating that complaining is not a valid activity and that they shoudl just 'try being positive'.

All in all, the unions are pretty toothless and the DfE is just having a nasty old right wing swipe at them.

Perhaps all those DfE types who are so worried about recruitment into teaching should take up the whiteboard pens themselves and get stuck in!

🙄

The full ASA ruling did say that they felt that phrase should be clarified or altered

I don't think it does...

We understood the complainants’ concerns that the figure of “£65k” related to the maximum salary allowed by the established pay scale for Leading Practitioners (the highest of the three pay scales for classroom teachers) working in Inner London. However, we considered that most viewers would understand that the achievement of top range salaries would depend on a number of factors, such as location, responsibilities and competence. We noted from the Department for Education’s School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document 2015 that it was possible for teachers to earn £65k through means other than being a Leading Practitioner in Inner London, such as being promoted to a leadership role (which may still involve a degree of classroom teaching) or receiving allowances or other payments outside of the established scales. We also noted that the figures published in the ‘School Workforce in England: November 2014’ report demonstrated that over 12,000 teachers earned £65k or more. For those reasons, we considered that the ad did not misrepresent the potential salary of teachers and was therefore unlikely to mislead.

That's the published ruling.

Of courrse the DfE put up a robust defence with all their facts and figures. They are masters of spin!

They have a history of this you know, and the previous time, the ASA agreed the image of the teacher was misleading:

www.theguardian.com/media/2008/jul/30/advertising.asa

That's the published ruling

Exactly.

Your link is from 2008 - that's a Labour government .

Well aware of that. DfE have been numpties for a long time.

My apologies (I had just got home from a parents evening) I didn't check my facts re ASA ruling before I posted I just remembered by union being very vocal about the advert. But as PP have pointed out it is very, very misleading

They don't work any harder than anyone else, they just like to talk about it

I've seen threads on Staffroom about workload, but never on AIBU. On AIBU, teachers react to some fuckwit/troll/journalist who provokes the discussion. I'm pretty sure that no teacher ever would lament the absence of MN threads, or anywhere else for that matter, that say teachers have the life of Reilly/Riley.

A few years ago Nicky Morgan criticised striking teachers, saying the strike was primarily over pay (it wasn’t) and that the average teacher was earning £37 500 per year (thereby implying that reachers were actually quite well paid). At that point I was earning about that as a classroom teacher, but it was right at the top of the upper pay scale and I had been teaching 25 years. To move up the scale I had to jump through many hoops, constantly evidencing excellent practice and results as well as demonstrating professionalism in every area including as a role model.
Of course Morgan was using the mean average, distorted as it was by the high pay of senior leaders, some earning in excess of six figures. A more representative average would have been the median, at that time about £28 000, actually quite near to the national median for all employment. I still use this in lessons as an example of a disingenuous and misleading claim by a politician, deliberately choosing to use a particular average in order to mislead.

The DfE are constantly banging on about how there are more teachers than ever. They fail to add that there are more pupils than ever and still nowhere near enough teachers. Then they published that thing saying that the UK spent loads on education compared to other countries but included money spent on private education which is not government funding.

They’ve been pulled up a lot by the UK Statistics Authority.
schoolsweek.co.uk/watchdog-chief-writes-to-hinds-with-significant-concerns-about-dfes-use-of-statistics/