Extended leave for teachers

[AngelaLans]

A teacher in our independent school went on leave due to mental health issues during the end of the summer term, and had 7 or 8 weeks of leave, then came back and taught for a couple of weeks, when school ended.

This autumn she came back, taught for two weeks, got a doctor's note and is off now until the end of November. There is a lot of gossip and speculation about political problems between she and the head. If that were true, and she was trying to be off on leave as much as possible without resigning, could she carry on like this indefinitely (or as long as she could get a doctor's note)?

If you8 make sure contracts of employment don't pay people when off sick except SSP after day 3 then you soon root out the skivers and distinguish them from those genuinely ill.

I am no longer sure about the independent sector but we, in my Scottish state school, get 6 months in full pay, 6 months on half and then nothing for years and years. If you are off, and then come back, and then off again with the same thing, it can count as if it were continuous, although that is debatable. For example, a colleague was off with cancer, came back, cancer again (different cancer) and that counted (thankfully) as a new illness. Another colleague had a stroke, came back for a couple of weeks but was not managing the side effects of the stroke so went off again and that was considered the same illness.

The Head sounds a problem. Can you take it to the Governors? Although, to be honest, my first full time job was after a few weeks' training and I did just fine - superb results. I think you need very specific examples of clear problems with lessons / homework / teaching / your child's needs not being met, rather than just accusations based on an online profile.

We did go in with specific comments, as well as a general complaint that we had an experienced teacher who was replaced by an unqualified, inexperienced one and that it was asking us to take a big risk. We realise new teachers can be good (in fact, one of those most upset of the parents is an asst head himself at another school who is gutted that this is the sort of replacement they have gotten), but so far, this one shows no signs of being good, although perhaps will be in future with more experience.

Several of us have thought of going to the governors, but we realised that if they started questioning we might be offered the other year 6 teacher, who is atrocious (seriously: spelling words on lists regularly spelled incorrectly, abominable grammar in letters home, comments on homework misspelled, a compulsive shouter who seems to have no classroom strategies other than shouting - and there are 9 in that class!). And this person is the deputy head!

Having just had to enumerate all of this, I am realising I must sound crazy for staying and wondering why we are there and why we don't just run as fast as our legs will carry us. We had planned to get out after year 6, and when we got assigned the good teacher, it all seemed ok. Now we are faced with disrupting year 6 since it is so bad. But probably it is best to leave.

In your situation I would get out, this would be bad enough in a State school, but to be paying for it...

In a good school a member of staff, or numbers of members of staff leaving with "mental health issues" would be investigated and more support put in place. Staff returning from sick leave should have a managed return, so they can cope. But if its caused by political pressures and cutting corners, then this may not happen.

I work in the independent sector we including teaching staff get 6 weeks full pay a year for sickness. I know others working in the independent sector nurses and teacher who don't even get that a friend's wife only gets SSP.
Prep schools in particular unless it's a big name with equally large fees (who usually have specialised subject teachers for yr 6 pupils so less of a problem) would struggle to pay long term sick pay and dedicated qualified temporary cover.
My DH employs people if a person is proven not fit for the job then they should be redeployed into another area if possible and if you can clearly demonstrate you can't (which in most cases you can't) then they can be dismissed.
Employers also now have to let employees return to work doing something called graduated return to work. So for example if you work for a removal firm and hurt your back and your doctor says you're fit to return to work but you can't do any manual work for a few months employers are meant to temporarily find them other work e.g. clerical work, you are allowed to employ someone in their job whilst they are not able to do it.
It is exceedingly difficult from the employers point of view to say someone with mental health problems is not fit to work and thus can be dismissed (as it should be). Employers have to put in significant measures to demonstrate that they've attempted to support the person and can only dismiss them if having put these measures in place they were still completely unable to work.
Failure to do any this can result in an employers worst nightmare; an unfair dismissal hearing.
I believe you do have to give some sort of indication to your employer as to how long your going to be off sick for so that appropriate cover can be provided. I work PT in the NHS as well and we are expected too, the NHS has many staffing issues but it does currently not abuse it's staff to that level follow legal employment rights.
The employee has lots of rights when it cones to health related problems and work (as he should) but parents don't, you can of course talk to the governors but as I said above many small prep schools (in my now extensive experience as a parent and employee) are on tight budgets so have very limited options and are also, rather surprisingly perhaps, often incredibly short sighted when it comes to pissing parents off, they seem to forget that it's very small world and it takes a long time to get rid of a bad reputation justified or not. This leaves parents with often only one option if they're unhappy: voting with their feet.

I wonder if Academies are free to pay teachers just SSP (as many private sector companies do which helps solve the problem of long term sickness absence as the person isn't getting paid when off sick. The first 3 days are totally unpaid under the statutory sick pay scheme and after that it is at a low Government rate £87 for 28 weeks, not your salary and I believe the state pays the employer for it).

There is no legal obligation in an employment contract to offer more than SSP and in a time when there are many people looking for jobs no commercial need either.

had this when I was a governor.

Teacher with depression kept returning to "reset the clock". After two years the attempt was made to sack her but boy, is it difficult. The county council were supportive, but hopeless.

I think it is very wrong that employers are not allowed to see an applicant's sick record before taking them on.

Does paying only SSP solve the problem of staff getting cancer? Or just the problem of having to continue paying staff with cancer? What a world to live in.
OP move your dc to local state school where you are guarantees a qualified teacher.