Are the majority of classes in state schools as disruptive as the class on Jamie Oliver's Dream School?

[mummynoo]

After watching Jamie Oliver's dream school, I am wondering if all state school classes are as rude and disruptive as the class featured in this programme. Since my daughter is due to start infants school this September?

Can any teachers who might be reading this give me their opinion. Is it impossible to teach because the pupils are constantly talking over you?

'Women are twice as likely than men to live in poverty during their retirement, according to Age Concern, with women receiving an average of £124 per month less than men. The result is that about 1.4 million female pensioners are living in poverty. '

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/reader_guides/article6805408.ece

Many pensioners live in poverty, FC.

Because they have no private pension provision.

it;s a facile argument. You might as well just say, " poor people live in poverty ".

That women are twice as likely than men to live in poverty during their retirement is not 'facile' and not even an argument. It's a fact.

Personally I find it a worry and it suprises me that you don't seem to even if you are well provided for yourself.

There is nothing wrong in pointing out that women may need to look to the future money wise, but it doesn't mean that you are entitled to say all women have a responsibility to find paid employment.

What do you think we should do about it?

It may be a worry, but I expect a lot of those women worked. My mum has worked all her life apart from 15 months off, she still gets a rubbish pension, which we supplement. So saying women should not SAH and should find employment doesn't solve your pension problem.

Where have I said that Quick?

Well, shirley, one thing that I think is really important is to raise awareness of these issues so that people can make more informed choices. I think this stuff should be taught in schools. It's relevant for everyone but particularly important for women.

Perhaps if people were more aware some people would be in a position to save smaller amounts over a longer period of time.

But parents who do choose to stay at home to look after kids should get proper financial advise and ensure they have some sort of pension provision.

Lots of women leave this stuff to their husbands only to discover too late that their husbands haven't made the sort of provision they were expecting.

'Naismith said: ?We have consistently seen groups such as women and the self-employed falling behind when it comes to pensions savings. The impact of the economic downturn is likely to make these groups even more vulnerable when saving for retirement and there needs to be more done to better encourage everyone to save for the future.

?While people may be worried about their current financial situation they need to make sure they continue saving for the future so they can enjoy their retirement. We believe those that are able to save should be saving 12 per cent of their main income, and many people are still falling far short of this figure.? '

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/pensions/article6609635.ece

10.50 tonight you say a SAHP shouldn't abdicate their financial responsibilities.
You have inferred many times that a SAHP should bring money into the home.

Just to let you know FC I am also like Shirly in a good position financially. I also look after all the finances in the home.

That is why we find your statements too sweeping, because many SAHMs are financially savvy, we are not idiots who need to be told we really should get a job in case hubby leaves you.

Also many many women with young DC get a much better financial settlement than their husbands on separation, including pension provision.

I for one am not going to live my life in fear of the unknown/ tomorrow. Anyone sensible deals with their pension. Divorce law pretty adequately covers it too, along with the other provision. Those with the weakest arguments on this thread are resorting to po-faced arguments about the vulnerability of women as well as the greater good to shore up the paucity of their arguments.

Wordfactory: I will tell the eldest daughter it's about merit thanks. She doesn't actually need my advice any more but if she did I'd prefer my judgment to yours. It's only those without sufficient talent who moan about gender; anyone good enough can get where they want.

Xenia: thank you so much for making me smug. We didn't downshift to a beautiful place without a care for schools, selfishly. Haven't budged an inch since before the eldest was born. They go to the nearest state secondary and so far all have got almost flawless strings of A*'s and 3/3 are at Oxford (not even top of the class and not that I care). Idyllic life by the sea, no fighting through the rush hour, no inter-parental warfare at school nor do I feel in the remotest bit subservient/ kept and nor am I setting my girls a bad example, I'm merely demonstating how a modern woman can exercise choice and create a good life - particuarly if she's not hung up on 'money and power'.

Yes, sexism is no more!!!

And rasicism, homophobia, anti semitism...all things of the past.

Hoorah.

FC, you seem to be missing the point. It isn't the comfortably-off, former career-women SAHMs that are at most risk of a poverty stricken retirement. It's the ones that work in low-paid employment, either full or p/t who have also taken on most of the burden of sorting out the home and childcare so they are never able or willing to progress career-wise.

You are also lucky to be able to work. It's a luxury many women simply can't afford. You forget that many women don't work because it isn't financially viable to do so if their husband works long hours and they don't have family to help out with childcare.

You do also seem very unaware that all families can suffer financially if there is divorce or either parent dies. Even yours. Will you still be able to pay the school fees without your dh? And if the answer is "yes" it's down to insurance, so exactly the same as for Shirleywhirley.

I still believe it's about merit, sorry.

Loads of women are useless financially and it' s usually the woman who shoots her career to pieces and ends up in poverty usually supported by those of us who are tax payers. So I suppose the financially naive housewives (and there are plenty who aren't of course) have a safety net - working mothers who will bail them out when they fall back on benefits. Perhaps that's reason enough not to worry fluffy little heads about finances as a man or tax payers will always support them.

However not all are like that and plenty perhaps could have taken a better financial decision to seek and marry a rich man rather than pursuing a career earning very little which leaves their children in relarive poverty. Anyway most women in the UK now and in the past and indeed on the planet work and always have done for a huge raft of reasons. It's the marry up and primacy of male careers though which impeded women and sexist decisions about childcare. That's the political issue and the moral wrong.

'10.50 tonight you say a SAHP shouldn't abdicate their financial responsibilities.'

I really can't see how anyone can object to this. Parents have a responsibility to support their families as far as possible. Where it is not possible i.e. because of disability or reduncancy then the state steps in.

Making sure that you and your partner are responsible parents does not necessarily mean that both parents have to work. I have never said that.

'You have inferred many times that a SAHP should bring money into the home.'

You are trying to set me up with an agenda that I haven't got. You might want to ask yourself why you're doing that.

When I have been asked what changes I think there should be I have said that there needs to be more awareness of financial issues from school age. I have said that couples where one parent is at home should make sure that they have proper financial advice e.g. about pension planning and pension provision. I really can't see how any one can object to that.

Loads of men are useless financially, it's hardly a female preserve - I should know.

Your posts (the bits which are intelligible) seem extraordinarily black and white, completely blind to the infinite variations of other peoples' lives and so intolerant.

You don't seem that happy or relaxed, for all the protestations.

My kids are certainly growing up with no spare money. I wouldn't say that those of their friends whose parents are loaded are necessarily happier or more successful or more anything really. There really is more to life than the next foreign holiday.

You seem a bit bitter?

'Just to let you know FC I am also like Shirly in a good position financially. I also look after all the finances in the home. '

I do wonder why some people are being so defensive. I'm very happy that you're financially secure. Unfortunately the majority of women do not have an adequate pension provision and there are 1.4 million female pensioners living in poverty. Perhaps you could spare a thought for them?

My post is to Xenia. FC got in a couple of seconds ahead.

'Anyone sensible deals with their pension.'

So, are you suggesting that the 63% of women who don't have adequate pension provision are just not sensible?

And you think I'm making sweeping generalisations.

Look, nowhere on this thread have I said that all SAHP are financially insecure or financially ignorant so I don't see why some of you are getting so hoity toity about your own personal circumstances. However, it is a FACT that women are signifiacnlty less likely to be financially secure now and in the future than men. This should be a matter of concern for all of us no?

Why would anyone want to put any spare cash into a pension when there are still nice shoes to be bought? Seems daft to me. Won't need smart shoes when I'm old.

'we are not idiots who need to be told we really should get a job in case hubby leaves you. '

That's an incredibly crass misinterpretation of what I've been arguing.

I don't know why you find it so difficult to hear somebody saying that while many SAHP of both genders are in a great financial position, there is plenty of evidence, that there are many SAHP and particularly women who have not fully considered the financial and other implications of their decision and end up suffering later as a result of this.

What is wrong with saying there should be greater awareness of these issues so that women and men are able to make more informed choices?

MrsMipp, I don't think any of those are points that I have missed actually.

Yes, but talking to independent financial advisors is SOOOOOOO dull

Nowadays it is not quote so bad pension-wise if you are a SAHM. Divorces have to take into account pensions. In the ones I have been involved in the men have been left penniless but with a big pension. Some have been transferred to their spouse's. The new flat rate pension should also help the position of women. Many women previously completely lost out through being SAHM when they got divorced prior to the new rules coming in with regard to pensions. It is still a fact that women are not paying in as much to pensions as men because generally many women choose part-time or low responsibility jobs when they have children or choose not to work at all. It is interesting that many do not have their own life assurance and it is the working parent who comes unstuck then and I have been involved in one such case where the man was then having to find money for childcare on top of everything else so that is a factor. Hopefully with flexible working and the ability to work from home, the need to choose low paid jobs to fit around the school day will diminish. Many professionals and higher earners can manage to juggle their working day around school hours so it no longer becomes issue to stop work. The Deputy Head at my kids school has got flexible working around school hours and he is male as he would rather do this than his wife.

The problem comes when people assume that women are more geared for child rearing than men. Biologically we have them but many men given the chance do a better jobs than their partners. As long as we persist with this stereotype women will not get equality of pay.

For me it is something to consider when choosing private schools. Do you spend all your money on your kids and pay private education as some people do and not save anything for your own future? I think it is important to get a balance. If school fees mean you end up bankrupt in retirement then are the kids going to help you? (Probably not as they will be busy with their own families.)