Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Hope on April 30, 2016, 10:16:27 PM
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36176846
Not a fan of industrial action in the vocational 'industries', but if I was still teaching, I could be tempted to break my life-long practice over this issue.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36176846
Not a fan of industrial action in the vocational 'industries', but if I was still teaching, I could be tempted to break my life-long practice over this issue.
It's always struck me that walking out on your responsibilities is not the best way to demonstrate your professionalism.
-
It's always struck me that walking out on your responsibilities is not the best way to demonstrate your professionalism.
Which is why it is used very infrequently and only when the profession sees no other way to voice its concerns about the profession.
If you take a view that striking is always off the table it hands governments a much easier ride in driving through changes that might be deeply damaging to the profession. Clearly we are seeing this currently with the massively concerning changes to doctors contracts and also the forced academisation of schools.
-
It's always struck me that walking out on your responsibilities is not the best way to demonstrate your professionalism.
The government - in fact all governments I can remember - shows no sign of respecting their professional opinion.
-
Education has been a political 'football' for as long as anyone can remember. I have a number of friends who are or have been teachers and I have heard all the absurdities and 'horror stories'. Never the less, academy status would appear to have the potential to solve many of the problems. Obviously the local authorities are going to be miffed at losing all that power, but I have difficulty understanding why senior teaching staff are up-in-arms.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36176846
Not a fan of industrial action in the vocational 'industries', but if I was still teaching, I could be tempted to break my life-long practice over this issue.
My husband thinks like you on this topic. He would never have considered industrial action when he was teaching, but he is definitely not a fan of academies, or much else the Government is doing where education is concerned.
-
If you take a view that striking is always off the table it hands governments a much easier ride in driving through changes that might be deeply damaging to the profession. Clearly we are seeing this currently with the massively concerning changes to doctors contracts and also the forced academisation of schools.
For many years I belonged to the Professional Assocition of Teachers, a non-striking union. On a number of occasions, the NUT and NAS/UWT managed to negotiate - through using or threatening the use of strikes - agreements with the Government that were considerably less favourable than PAT had originally proposed. The problem was that the big unions had started off with even larger proposals and as they didn't want PAT at the table, they ended getting away with far less than even the most moderate teachers felt to be acceptable.
-
Education has been a political 'football' for as long as anyone can remember. I have a number of friends who are or have been teachers and I have heard all the absurdities and 'horror stories'. Never the less, academy status would appear to have the potential to solve many of the problems. Obviously the local authorities are going to be miffed at losing all that power, but I have difficulty understanding why senior teaching staff are up-in-arms.
I think one of the reasons - one of many - they are up in arms is that the whole financial package we currently have which is largely national, will become fragmented, and pay scales will become localised - either geographically or organisationally. Unions and collective bargaining will become increasingly obolete - resulting in dramatic fluctuations in pay for people doing the same job. Another reason is that an academy organisation could change curricula and syllabusi even quicker than the Government is able to do.
-
I think one of the reasons - one of many - they are up in arms is that the whole financial package we currently have which is largely national, will become fragmented, and pay scales will become localised - either geographically or organisationally. Unions and collective bargaining will become increasingly obsolete - resulting in dramatic fluctuations in pay for people doing the same job. Another reason is that an academy organisation could change curricula and syllabus even quicker than the Government is able to do.
I'm not convinced that those are good reasons.
The cost of living does vary across the country (largely due to house prices) so it doesn't seem unreasonable to have regional variation in pay. Likewise, (from a parents perspective) it is obvious that there is a tremendous variation in teaching competence: some teachers are brilliant, others (being polite) . . . less so - should they be paid the same?
As for the curricula, I understood that the Heads themselves would have a greater input?
-
The cost of living does vary across the country (largely due to house prices) so it doesn't seem unreasonable to have regional variation in pay. Likewise, (from a parents perspective) it is obvious that there is a tremendous variation in teaching competence: some teachers are brilliant, others (being polite) . . . less so - should they be paid the same?
Not opposed to local variations, as we already do to a degee - eg 'London weighting', but it would be better to have the ability to get rid of poor teachers, rather than simply pay them less.
As for the curricula, I understood that the Heads themselves would have a greater input?
And this was one of the reasons why the National Curriculum was introduced back in the late '80s, as it helped when children had to move schools following a parental change of job or family breakdown.
-
Not opposed to local variations, as we already do to a degee - eg 'London weighting', but it would be better to have the ability to get rid of poor teachers, rather than simply pay them less.
I am told that it is quite difficult to get rid of a teacher for something as 'trivial' as - not being very good at teaching - so limiting their salary until they leave or improve is probably the best option. On the other side of the coin, there are excellent teachers who really deserve a pay rise above the norm.
And this was one of the reasons why the National Curriculum was introduced back in the late '80's, as it helped when children had to move schools following a parental change of job or family breakdown.
Is it really reasonable to to limit a whole school's Curriculum on the basis that children who enter the school mid-course might want to take the odd subject that is not available? There shouldn't be any problem with core subjects, and it ought to be possible to make arrangements off-site if a subject is considered very important.
-
I think one of the reasons - one of many - they are up in arms is that the whole financial package we currently have which is largely national, will become fragmented, and pay scales will become localised - either geographically or organisationally. Unions and collective bargaining will become increasingly obolete - resulting in dramatic fluctuations in pay for people doing the same job. Another reason is that an academy organisation could change curricula and syllabusi even quicker than the Government is able to do.
I think that there is something much more insidious than this at the heart of this policy.
On the surface, it looks as though the Tories would like their sacred cow "market forces" to be the determinant influence on education and the costs of education and, in consequence, education would become "more efficient".
I suspect that this is bovine faeces.
The real strategy is for central government to become the sole paymaster for state education and hence its sole controller. Primary and secondary education can then be under total Whitehall direction. And the Tories would be doing their friends in the independent sector a huge favour by driving thousands of fearful parents into spending more than they can afford.
-
I am told that it is quite difficult to get rid of a teacher for something as 'trivial' as - not being very good at teaching - so limiting their salary until they leave or improve is probably the best option. On the other side of the coin, there are excellent teachers who really deserve a pay rise above the norm.
It is far easier to get rid of a teacher for not being a good teacher today than it was even as recently as 10 years ago. I'd agree that it still isn't that easy - but should it be that easy?
Is it really reasonable to to limit a whole school's Curriculum on the basis that children who enter the school mid-course might want to take the odd subject that is not available? There shouldn't be any problem with core subjects, and it ought to be possible to make arrangements off-site if a subject is considered very important.
I hadn't thought about the possibility of 'the odd subject that isn't available'. I was thinking more about a pupil who arrives at a new school in - say the middle of Year 9 - only to find that the whole syllabus is different and they have to re-do work that is important in the lead-up to GCSE courses to suit the syllabus of the new school. Under current conditions, most will have the existing work looked at by the new school and/or the new exam board and equivalised with the new school's work; I'm not sure that that will happen within acadamies. OK,my daughter's experience was a bit different to the norm - we had to leave Nepal unexpectedly half-way through her Year 10, and the school she went to here (and the exam board they used) weren't able to equivalise her first half-year's geography work in part because it was so very different from what exists around S. E Wales. As a result, she had to do a whole year's work in 6 months. Geography wasn't the only subject this occurred with, either.
-
It is far easier to get rid of a teacher for not being a good teacher today than it was even as recently as 10 years ago. I'd agree that it still isn't that easy - but should it be that easy?
If a poor teacher were teaching your child (or grandchild) I don't think you would be asking that question.
I hadn't thought about the possibility of 'the odd subject that isn't available'. I was thinking more about a pupil who arrives at a new school in - say the middle of Year 9 - only to find that the whole syllabus is different and they have to re-do work that is important in the lead-up to GCSE courses to suit the syllabus of the new school. Under current conditions, most will have the existing work looked at by the new school and/or the new exam board and equivalised with the new school's work; I'm not sure that that will happen within acadamies. OK,my daughter's experience was a bit different to the norm - we had to leave Nepal unexpectedly half-way through her Year 10, and the school she went to here (and the exam board they used) weren't able to equivalise her first half-year's geography work in part because it was so very different from what exists around S. E Wales. As a result, she had to do a whole year's work in 6 months. Geography wasn't the only subject this occurred with, either.
There wouldn't seem to be any fundamental reason why the equivalised system need be different for acadamies. I don't think that is the issue that they are threatening to strike over.
-
If a poor teacher were teaching your child (or grandchild) I don't think you would be asking that question.
I'd probably be asking whether all the teacxhers were of the same standard and therefore whether the child ought to be being withdrawn. That said, I've know some pretty poor teachers in their early days, who have become amazing and very classy ones with experience. I've also worked with some who never really get out of first gear. Such teachers will often remove themselves from the system.
-
I'd probably be asking whether all the teachers were of the same standard and therefore whether the child ought to be being withdrawn. That said, I've know some pretty poor teachers in their early days, who have become amazing and very classy ones with experience. I've also worked with some who never really get out of first gear. Such teachers will often remove themselves from the system.
And much more likely to remove themselves if their pay was frozen.
-
And much more likely to remove themselves if their pay was frozen.
I'm not sure that is the case. People are such that, when 'threatened', they can become far more stubborn.
-
I'm not sure that is the case. People are such that, when 'threatened', they can become far more stubborn.
In many, possibly the majority of other types of employment, staff have their annual review and pay rises may be conditional on performance. I don't see any reason why the teaching profession should be any different.
-
In many, possibly the majority of other types of employment, staff have their annual review and pay rises may be conditional on performance. I don't see any reason why the teaching profession should be any different.
LA, teachers have a salary scale that they move up depending on the results of their annual reviews. Teachers are paid according to three pay spines - the Main Pay, Upper Pay and Leadership Spines. If a teacher is deemed to be failing, they will not move up the appropriate spine - but their pay won't be frozen. Whilst the detail is different in different forms of employment, this same principle applies to most forms of employment. If a given job doesn't have as many 'spine' levels as teaching does, a person may seem to have their pay frozen, as it will only increase by - say - the rate of inflation (or as has happened for many since 2008, less than that rate), but they will still get the minimal rise available. Teachers' pay scales have changed since I last worked in a school, but I think that there are 6 levels within the Main Spine and 3 in the Upper Spine (those are for ordinary classroom teachers). You then get into the Leadership Spine - in which there are 43 levels (and these are for posts of responsibility up to and including headteacher roles). In other words, ordinary teachers don't automatically move up their spines simply because of 'time served'.
-
LA, teachers have a salary scale that they move up depending on the results of their annual reviews. Teachers are paid according to three pay spines - the Main Pay, Upper Pay and Leadership Spines. If a teacher is deemed to be failing, they will not move up the appropriate spine - but their pay won't be frozen. Whilst the detail is different in different forms of employment, this same principle applies to most forms of employment. If a given job doesn't have as many 'spine' levels as teaching does, a person may seem to have their pay frozen, as it will only increase by - say - the rate of inflation (or as has happened for many since 2008, less than that rate), but they will still get the minimal rise available. Teachers' pay scales have changed since I last worked in a school, but I think that there are 6 levels within the Main Spine and 3 in the Upper Spine (those are for ordinary classroom teachers). You then get into the Leadership Spine - in which there are 43 levels (and these are for posts of responsibility up to and including headteacher roles). In other words, ordinary teachers don't automatically move up their spines simply because of 'time served'.
If that system already exists, I fail to see what all the fuss is about?
-
If that system already exists, I fail to see what all the fuss is about?
That is a national system. If academies come in, in the way I've understood the Government to say, national agreements like this will be under threat.
-
In many, possibly the majority of other types of employment, staff have their annual review and pay rises may be conditional on performance. I don't see any reason why the teaching profession should be any different.
The question is though what are we measuring. In the history of teachers performance management has been by inappropriate criteria.
Secondly, once immature pupils know and immature parents know that the teaching industry is about teaching and teachers the game is I'm afraid up since responsibility for the home pushing pupils and the responsibility for success is shifted from the pupil.
Fuelling all of this are middle class types encouraging this tipsy turkey picture of education while pushing their own kids and putting the responsibility on the offspring....rather like the same people that perpetuated the myth that class sizes didn't matter while sending their kids to schools with small class sizes.
-
The question is though what are we measuring. In the history of teachers performance management has been by inappropriate criteria.
Secondly, once immature pupils know and immature parents know that the teaching industry is about teaching and teachers the game is I'm afraid up since responsibility for the home pushing pupils and the responsibility for success is shifted from the pupil.
Fuelling all of this are middle class types encouraging this tipsy turkey picture of education while pushing their own kids and putting the responsibility on the offspring....rather like the same people that perpetuated the myth that class sizes didn't matter while sending their kids to schools with small class sizes.
Parents are well able to make a judgement as to which teachers are good and which are a waste of space. You can get a pretty good idea by how your kids are doing in a subject, whether they enjoy the subject and the kinds of responses you get on parents evenings.
Yes, class size is one important factor, but the quality of the individual teacher is the most vital.
-
It's always struck me that walking out on your responsibilities is not the best way to demonstrate your professionalism.
If you have a society subscribing to the myth that what's wrong with public service education is schools and teachers and that is ultimately realised in an increase of abuse by slummocky, pony tailed and pyjamad slob parents the option of saying alright try education without us always a possibility.
We are an unthinking and ungrateful country at our peril.
-
Parents are well able to make a judgement as to which teachers are good and which are a waste of space. You can get a pretty good idea by how your kids are doing in a subject, whether they enjoy the subject and the kinds of responses you get on parents evenings.
Yes, class size is one important factor, but the quality of the individual teacher is the most vital.
Not all parents are able to.
If you subscribed to a consumerist approach to schooling, namely, the customer is always right, then you are or have been ,part of the problem...........
-
Yes, class size is one important factor, but the quality of the individual teacher is the most vital.
To which the reply is, of course, what teachers? Apparently our societal witch hunt against teachers, the public lust for giving "Old chalky" six of the best has led to a dearth of suckers lining up to be abused....................Sorry, trainee teachers.
-
If you have a society subscribing to the myth that what's wrong with public service education is schools and teachers and that is ultimately realised in an increase of abuse by slummocky, pony tailed and pyjamad slob parents the option of saying alright try education without us always a possibility.
We are an unthinking and ungrateful country at our peril.
I don't think alienating parents is going to improve education in any way and I don't think striking helps improve the perceived professionalism of teachers.
-
To which the reply is, of course, what teachers? Apparently our societal witch hunt against teachers, the public lust for giving "Old chalky" six of the best has led to a dearth of suckers lining up to be abused....................Sorry, trainee teachers.
You have obviously got quite a chip on your shoulder Jonique, possibly you are in the wrong job?
-
I don't think alienating parents is going to improve education in any way and I don't think striking helps improve the perceived professionalism of teachers.
Unfortunately if you abuse your wife and husband they will make a stand to stop the abuse before leaving you altogether.
That is unfortunately the analogy of the publics relationship with its public services.
-
You have obviously got quite a chip on your shoulder Jonique, possibly you are in the wrong job?
I don't think I said what job I'm in.
I could have said exactly the same thing about the NHS, social care and possibly the police service as well.
-
I don't think I said what job I'm in.
I could have said exactly the same thing about the NHS, social care and possibly the police service as well.
I think someone with your attitude is in the wrong job . . . whatever it is.
-
I don't think alienating parents is going to improve education in any way and I don't think striking helps improve the perceived professionalism of teachers.
I don't think you can necessarily conclude that parents are being alienated by the suggested action, nor that the perceived professionalism will be undermined. There will be many, many parents who fully support the teachers and their actions.
To use an analogy I don't think junior doctors have alienated patients nor has their professionalism been undermined by their recent actions - quite the reverse, they are seen as standing up for patients and the NHS against the government.
-
I don't think you can necessarily conclude that parents are being alienated by the suggested action, nor that the perceived professionalism will be undermined. There will be many, many parents who fully support the teachers and their actions.
I am genuinely puzzled by attitude of the head teachers. I am aware of many of the problem that face teaching today but as far as I can see academy status would give heads more power to deal with them.
To use an analogy I don't think junior doctors have alienated patients nor has their professionalism been undermined by their recent actions - quite the reverse, they are seen as standing up for patients and the NHS against the government.
Apparently a very different situation (unless you take the view that industrial action generally is being whipped up by the far left)
Junior doctors have enjoyed public support so far, thought I suspect that 'good will' is wearing a bit thin for those who have had operations postponed.
According to the BBC (not generally considered a far right organisation) - the only area of disagreement between the two sides is payments for Saturday working. So when the doctors complain that the new contract would force them to work excessive hours either they are lying or they would be quite happy to work excessive hours if they had a bit more cash.
They are NOT striking to protect patient safety, they are striking for money.
Once the public realise this simple fact, they will start to become very isolated.
-
I am genuinely puzzled by attitude of the head teachers. I am aware of many of the problem that face teaching today but as far as I can see academy status would give heads more power to deal with them.
Unlikely. The heads wll still be under the control of either a local controlling body or, in the case of a chain of academies, an overarching body which is neither local nor responsive to local contexts. At least LEAs were in a better position to react to local contexts.
Apparently a very different situation (unless you take the view that industrial action generally is being whipped up by the far left)
Junior doctors have enjoyed public support so far, thought I suspect that 'good will' is wearing a bit thin for those who have had operations postponed.
According to the BBC (not generally considered a far right organisation) - the only area of disagreement between the two sides is payments for Saturday working. So when the doctors complain that the new contract would force them to work excessive hours either they are lying or they would be quite happy to work excessive hours if they had a bit more cash.
They are NOT striking to protect patient safety, they are striking for money.
Once the public realise this simple fact, they will start to become very isolated.
Couldn't agree more, LA. The junior doctors' issue is a completely different animal.
-
Unlikely. The heads wll still be under the control of either a local controlling body or, in the case of a chain of academies, an overarching body which is neither local nor responsive to local contexts. At least LEAs were in a better position to react to local contexts.
Couldn't agree more, LA. The junior doctors' issue is a completely different animal.
I am in agreement with Hope, here. The academisation of schools will make schools less responsive to local needs. It will reduce significantly the influence of parents and other local stakeholders. Academisation is a very strange response to calls for decentralisation of government services. To me, it seems part of a bizarre philosophy which believes that "the market" is the most effective manager.
Incidentally, I heard an academic saying that the government's rationale for restructuring the contracts of junior doctors - to remove the increased likelihood of patient death at weekends - is a fallacy. But when did any government allow fact to get in the way of political dogma?
-
They are NOT striking to protect patient safety, they are striking for money.
Once the public realise this simple fact, they will start to become very isolated.
The two are of course related - impose a contract with poorer conditions and pay and expect that limited pool of doctors to maintain levels of provision over a 7 day period that are currently only provided over 5 days (with of course 7 day emergency and critical care provision) and you will see junior doctors off to other places where pay and conditions are better, making the situation worse. The government has not address where this additional medical professional resource is going to come from for the 7 day approach - you cannot just magic doctors out of thin air. And all of this affects patient safety.
And on the public, well this dispute has been going on for months with huge amounts of publicity over the issues. Doesn't seem as if the majority of public agree with your assessment of the dispute, nor is there any sign (e.g. from polling) of loss of support for the doctors.
-
... on the public, well this dispute has been going on for months with huge amounts of publicity over the issues. Doesn't seem as if the majority of public agree with your assessment of the dispute, nor is there any sign (e.g. from polling) of loss of support for the doctors.
http://goo.gl/eWRGmh
https://goo.gl/hN9Sas
-
Incidentally, I heard an academic saying that the government's rationale for restructuring the contracts of junior doctors - to remove the increased likelihood of patient death at weekends - is a fallacy. But when did any government allow fact to get in the way of political dogma?
There was an interesting 'More or Less' on the subject some time ago, and I agree that the statistics are not as clear-cut as the government would have us believe. For example, hospitals generally try to send fit patients home for the weekend leaving the sickest (who are most likely to die).
Never the less, there are good reasons for 7 day working. For example better utilization of resources, and (if we are to believe the BBC) the only thing that is stopping the junior doctors agreeing to the new deal is cash for Saturday working.
-
There was an interesting 'More or Less' on the subject some time ago, and I agree that the statistics are not as clear-cut as the government would have us believe. For example, hospitals generally try to send fit patients home for the weekend leaving the sickest (who are most likely to die).
Never the less, there are good reasons for 7 day working. For example better utilization of resources, and (if we are to believe the BBC) the only thing that is stopping the junior doctors agreeing to the new deal is cash for Saturday working.
Of course there are good reasons for 7 day working, but that can only be realised with substantial increase in resource - you cannot have a fully operational 7 day service with the same resources (most critically professional staff) that are required for a full 5 day service and a partial weekend service.
Most of what I have seen from the doctors has been on the concerns about stretching a limited resource (doctors) across a full 7 day service. That the doctors are being expected to substantial increase their workload (which is dangerous both to the doctors and critically to patients) while suffering reduced pay and other conditions is putting salt on the wound.
-
Most of what I have seen from the doctors has been on the concerns about stretching a limited resource (doctors) across a full 7 day service. That the doctors are being expected to substantial increase their workload (which is dangerous both to the doctors and critically to patients) while suffering reduced pay and other conditions is putting salt on the wound.
Again, I have to say, if we are to believe the BBC, that isn't the sticking point in the negotiations.
And they aren't getting reduced pay, they are getting a smaller increase than they would like for the increased proportion of unsocial hours.
-
Of course there are good reasons for 7 day working, but that can only be realised with substantial increase in resource - you cannot have a fully operational 7 day service with the same resources (most critically professional staff) that are required for a full 5 day service and a partial weekend service.
Most of what I have seen from the doctors has been on the concerns about stretching a limited resource (doctors) across a full 7 day service. That the doctors are being expected to substantial increase their workload (which is dangerous both to the doctors and critically to patients) while suffering reduced pay and other conditions is putting salt on the wound.
If this is the case, the junior doctors don't seem to putting their case very well. Whenever I've heard any of their spokesfolk speak, it has ultimately come down to pay. They will sometimes even accept that the workload argument is a smoke screen.
I fully agree that there will be need to increase workloads in the early days - that happened in teaching when the idea of Teachers' Aide and Learning Support Assistants was first suggested - such folk had to be trained to fulfil those roles and in the meantime many teachers ended up working more than they had to justify the changes.