Teachers - are you voting yes for strike action

[sandgrounder]

Went to NUT meeting at school yesterday re pension reform. Cannot see myself teaching until 68 and who wants their kids taught by oldies not wanting to be there.

Feenie, i hope that your face wasn't at me.

Sorry, teacherwith2kids - no, it wasn't directed at Mme Blueberry's usual twaddle.

was

I could handle consistent twaddle - it's the random changes of tack that get me...

I agree that being a mum is very useful.

I am a science teacher who never really studied biology. I am old enough to have dropped it early on. Being a mum means that I have enough experience to be passionate about what I am teaching (health, reproduction, nutrition, etc) and to have learned enough to teach it accurately (I only teach up to year 8).

DSS, Yes, obviously if my vocation had been towards secondary teaching then my degree / PhD and updating that specialist knowledge would have been vital.

Well, in that case since teachers here dont want anyone going off tack , I will state for the record, I am not going on strike.

Ondeed any strike envisaged seems to be planned for after the end of term for me, so no point anyway.

I didn't say that T2K. I very carefully put teachers into 2 groups - those who went into teaching straight from uni, and those who entered after a different professional career. This was particularly in response to monetary value compared to other graduates.

Anyone who has a PhD can surely see that their own experience is purely anecdotal. It is quite wring to get a trembling bottom lip when other people are talking clearly in generalities.

The vast majority of us have very personal reasons for ending up in teaching.

Sorry jabed, that wasn't intended to mean 'no changes of subject matter'.

I was feeling a little frustrated by a previous poster's attack from two completely contradictory angles in two successive posts.

MBB,

Apologies, I was using the truism that
'You only need one black swan to prove that they are not all white'

to refute the argument that teachers have third rate degrees (you did not differeniate at that point between mature and 'normal age' entrants to the profession, you made that point later).

So using myself as an example of a 'black swan' in that context seemed valid. I actually found you implying that I must have made someone cross to have done a PhD then gone into teaching rather more personal as there was no possible other reason for you to mention it.

I don't think I was first to brag about mention a PhD. This qualification is really irrelevant to teaching. It may show passion about your subject, or it may show indecision. It doesn't help you teach. My PGCE tutor, who was quite socialist, said that schools liked to have one PhD to put it on their staff list, but any more, they preferred them to be Mr or Mrs.

I have come across all too many people who use teaching as a fall back. They think it is an easy option and they get a surprise. There is a lot of truth in "if you can't do, teach". In my 17 years as a teacher, I have seen the good, the bad and the ugly. I have probably been all three in my time, but hopefully more in the 'good' camp nowadays, but I still have my off days.

Ah, if you really want evidence of indecision, career to date:

• Degree
• PhD
• 6 years in industry as first a management trainee then a manager.
• Extended career break for 2 children (got involved in running playgroups, pre-school and in school)
• PGCE
• Primary teacher

I'd describe myself as a 'serial career monogamist' as in I have been wholly committed to each stage...

I would also say that yes, my PhD is an irrelevance to my current role directly. Of course it is. But it was you who claimed that all teachers have third grade degrees.

I will put my hands up and admit that I went into teaching thinking it would be easy and I got a surprise.

I still think it is a vocation, I always wanted to teach but did not think the job paid enough, it didn't for the lifestyle I aspired to. That does not mean the wages were too low, I was simply too materialistic.

Tell me whereni said 'all'.

Of course that would be nonsense because I, myself, have a meaningful degree from a Russell Group Uni.

DSS, I am also guilty.

I wanted to downsize from my corporate life, but, being the first in my family to get a degree, could not walk out on my education.

I turned to teaching ( there were ads in the broadsheets).

I found the mechanics of the PGCE very easy after 10 years in industry. I however, did not enjoy my first job and was probably not very good at it.

Several jobs later, I am now in my comfort zone and loving my job.

Based on my experience, nothing will convince me that teachers are on par with the people they graduated with who went on into industry. I could be earning over £100k had I stayed in my old job, but there is no way I am doing a £100k job today. I am paid maybe one promotion up from entry level in my old job, and that seems about right.

Your comments on 'third rate degrees' are truly astounding. Teaching is incredibly competitive right now and certainly in my department alone one colleague has a 1st from Oxford and others 2:1s or 1sts from various other Russell group universities. We've had quite a few trainees and NQTs this year and they've been of exceptional quality.

BUT, you can't have it both ways. On the one hand you think the pay is acceptable and it's fine to take pensions away and get teachers working until they're 68 and on the other you wonder why young people might choose to go into law or pharmacy (which require the same years of training but pay more).

Seriously, although I'm not motivated by money, given that my own kids will have to pay £27,000 just to acquire a 3 year degree I might advise them not to choose teaching but to go for something better paid. I've never felt like that before because I've always felt that the rewards outweigh the disadvantages but when you've got that much debt before you've even started your working life I don't know that you can afford to be so altruistic.

'nothing will convince me that teachers are on par with the people they graduated with who went on into industry'

I think that's a very odd way of lookign at things. Teachers don't have to be on a par with people who went into industry, they have to be good at TEACHING.

And I have met some truly gifted teachers who probably would have excelled in anything they'd done. I don't want to out myself by talking about individuals but for example I know someone who began her career in teaching and went on to be highly successful in a business that grew from her teaching career. I've also met some incredibly gifted headteachers who began as teachers and became Heads at a very young age. At the same time as being Headteachers some were/are highly influential in public life as policy advisors, consultants, governors etc

I don't know what sort of school you're in Blue, but honestly I'm astounded by the talent I see every day. And it's not just in my place of work, I have done a lot of work that's involved going in to all sorts of schools.

I also worked in industry before teaching and my opinion for what it's worth is that my finished product now is far more valuable than anything produced in my past life.
MmeB you seem to be judging people on income not worth.

I don't think anyone is saying standard teachers should be paid 100K.

For what it is worth when I was paid in excess of 100K I was certainly overpaid.

perhaps we are paid too much

5c, commenting on your 9.07 post...

Your workplace may indeed have impressive degrees, but line up all the degrees and pick out the great teachers.

You'll soon find that no one is particularly impressed by the 1st from Oxford, or the PhD in insect studies.

There might be people with fantastic degrees in teaching, but they are not necessary. Those of us with good degrees in hard subjects are probably not in teaching for the money, tbh.

Everyone in a particular school are all in teaching for different reasons.

on a different note, I recently attended TPS training and the bloke stated in passing that TPS was an unfunded pension scheme - same as armed forces, civil service and nhs pensions but unlike the local govt pension scheme. I'm not entirely sure how unfunded pensions can be self sustaining long term if there are no assets to back them up. Is this because the current contributions by teachers are enough to pay off the retired teachers and are expected to remain so for a long time?

second of all, I have always thought that union agreements on strike action was that it could only be based on disputes with the employer and could include changes to T&Cs but was not to be politically motivated.

May I ask what happens if there's a school trip abroad planned for that week? does it get cancelled, do teachers come back a day earlier or does everyone carry on as normal? I need to plan for that one in particular.

finefatmama basically what you pay each month pays the pension of those who have already retired so when you retire you are relying on the contributions of working teachers (and the predictions are that this is viable given the agreement to pay 50% more contributions)

The proposed strike action arises from a dispute with the employer (DfE) over changes to T&C (pensions)

If the strike goes ahead it is still up to individuals whether they actually strike or whether they decide to work as normal.

The NAS is not planning a strike which means many schools will be able to remain open.

MmeBlue, I do find your arguments hard to follow. On the one hand you seem to be criticising teachers for having substandard degrees and on the other you say the quality of their education doesn't matter anyway.

On the one hand you seem to be saying it's ok to pay teachers less and on the other you seem to be saying teaching doesn't attract the best calibre of graduates.

I do agree that if you go into teaching you are unlikely to be driven by the idea of making loads of money but it is quite possible that you're looking for a job that pays well enough and has a pension scheme and working conditions that offset the difficulties (one of which is that you're never going to make your millions and you may struggle to get promoted much beyond a mainscale salary at all).

Whichever way you look at it many graduates will be put off if the proposed changes come into effect. Especially given that they will be starting their first job with a minimum of £27,000 of debt. And this is going to have a detrimental effect for the whole of society.