who have your school employes to cover ppa time

[codsicle]

ok for htose of you who dont knwo teachers now have half and ady per week (!) to do planning preparationa and assessment

in that time your kid will be taught by someone else.

a lot of schools have recruited trained teachers for it BUT a lot of schools are doing it ont he cheap and using tas " supervised" byt he head. PSricularly on a friday after noon!!!( when kids are high as kites)

the staff do not have to remain on site at this time so there coudl be one head nad 10 odd tas.

i woudl urge you all to find out what your school has done for this time adn who is planning and supervising.

What was what, Cod?

I'n not sure what you are asking me.

hmb I was taking the mick about no on replying to you

Duuurrrr!

Soz!

If I am being honest I don't think that much of the stuff you learn about in your PGCE is that useful in the classroom and have learned more about teaching while teaching (or watching real classroom teaching) than I ever learned by reading Bruner and Vygotski, and listening to some lecturers who whouldn't last 5 minutues with 11 F on a Friday afternoon.

Totally agree HMB! If government wants TAs to supervise classes then they should at least be paid an instructor's rate for that time. Anyway if a teacher has to spend time running through the lesson plan with TA then surely that's time they could've been using for PPA! It's just a strangled route with the teacher spending even more time planning because it's for someone else!

Hi,
I'm sorry but you are making a very widespread judgement!!

Yes teachers are entitled to 10% directed time non-contact time for PPA ( Do you have any idea of the paperwork involved with teaching? It is not a 9-3 job as many believe and 10% is nothing compared to the paperwork involved)
But

1. It is up to each individual school how the cover is orgainised.
2. Very few ( in fact apart from your statement) I never heard of teachers leaving the school site during PPA time.
3. to be honest from years of experience, I have known many TA's who are much more experienced and able to 'teach' a class( not babysit) than supply teachers, so I do not think that just because a person has the title of TA and not teacher you should dismiss them as being inadequate, inexperienced and unable to keep control!

I say this as a parent of 4, a previous TA and now a teacher, so see it from all angles, and feel if you are really unhappy with your personal position you should be making your opinion known to the school in question, not making such a negative sweeping statement!
Schools have to comply with government requirements, and in a way that is financially viable, schools cannot make money for supply teachers appear from thin air, they are extremely expensive and if the school does employ regular supply's rather than pay the experienced TA's responsibility points to cover ( yes many do get extra pay) then it is the children's school resources, trips etc that have to be cut to make money balance out.

So is it really a bad thing to have children supervised during a creative afternoon in return for well organised, prepared and less stressed teachers for the other 4 1/2 days per week?

Well said Leesax.

Christie-about SEN pupils I am a STA in a SEN schoola nd we do know the kids better ,its amazing the difference a supply makes to a behaviour plan! So I totallyagree ,
we have a select bank of supply teachers at our school(some who have retired from us) so they end up knowing the kids ok anywaay

bee3- I am not a HLTA but the grade below and we get £10 an hour, so not that much less than a starting teacher.(one of my colleagues recently started fulltime teaching and is not a lot better off)

Leesax- Well said!

As an experienced primary school teacher I have enjoyed reading this thread to find out about people's views on teacher release time. We started teacher release time last September and employed three new teachers. This allowed 3 current teachers to go to part time as they requested and become our own teachers to cover release time. Therefore the parents and children knew them very well and they were timetabled in to cover the same class and lesson each week. It has been a real success and we have continued this year. The only change has been that as a job share teacher my colleague and I cover each others release time and our pupils keep the continuity of us, rather than introducing a third or forth teacher into their timetable!

I disagree woith a lot of what oyu have said

1. yes if oyu read the thread iw as a teacher ofr 9 years so i do know
2. the shcool ocncerned is not my kdis school so i dont really care
3. yes the school my kids go to , the satff will leave the premises due to problems wiht finding wuiet work areas
4. yes i do wan tmy kids TAUGHT by teachers 5 days a weekt hank you
5. the teachers i referred to to cover the ppa time are qualified teachers who are doing wither 2 or three days a week

Managed to read through about half of this thread and got the jist of what is being discussed.
Teacher release time - WoW!! No such thing where I worked - never has been. I've been working in independent school for quite a few years and planning, prep, marking etc are all done out of school hours. In fact, I think I spent an average of 2-3 hours a night, including weekends and holiday just planning, resourcing, evaluating and marking....so glad i'm pregnant right now.
Would have been nice though

My understanding is that schools have been given no extra money to cover ppa time. So schools (like my son's) who have the flexibility in their budgets to be able to take on an additional, permanent member of staff to cover ppa are in a fortunate position. Using a TA is the cheap option. This is no reflection on TAs, many of whom are excellent.

I think to ask the question ' but would you rather have a TA who knows the class or a supply teacher who doesn't' is missing the point. I would not be happy with PPA time being resourced either by a supply teacher or a TA. Schools need to be putting proper arrangements in place and many are unable to do this because they don't have the money.