This is an ill informed and inaccurate rant. Utterly disgraceful!
blockquote class="Quote" rel="DamoNorthStand">Mods - apologies if there is already a thread on this. Please feel free to close and make me aware of the other one if so.
I think people know my views on striking in general from the Bob Crow thread, but this one will surely potentially cause all kinds of divides regardless of political views, etc etc.
Frankly, I think that walking out when you are a teacher (never mind over pay related issues) is a flipping disgrace. A few points I would like to make.
1) I, along with many on this board, face being fined if we take our kids out of school a day before school holidays start, to save money. But they can take a days education away from our kids in order to get themselves more money. Can I be rest assured that they will all be fined for this strike day?
2) Workloads is one of the aspects they are unhappy with. Yes, that's right, the profession that gets 13 weeks or so holiday a year. I don't care if they take their work home with them. They bloody should do, they finish at 4pm! I take my work home (if I am not in the office at 11pm) and only get 30 days holiday (which I still appreciate is pretty darn good). So what makes them so special?
Never mind going on strike over pay, when 90% of the parents of the kids at the school would like to be paid more.
I know a few teachers (including family) and I have to say I don't know any that do anywhere near the hours mentioned on this thread.
Not disputing it doesn't happen though
That's the same experience I have. Not saying it doesn't happen, but the teachers I know don't work that.
As one poster said, I am not calling it cushy. And it is a job that gives a lot back to the community when done well (I am massively appreciative of my 5 year old sons teacher, as she does an excellent job imo shaping his early life). And I am not against anyone questioning their pay - for instance some reports I hear of what nurses are paid is disgracefully low. But for me, I can only measure it against what I do:
1) I don't have a 'worthy' job that gives lots back to the country. I am a director of an advertising agency (the advertising thread is there to slate me for that, and I have taken a fair bit of cop so head over their for that job!). I am well aware that I am not saving lives, but I work hard at what I do to support my family and give my kids the best life possible. Work for me is a means to give them the best life possible
2) A normal days work is in the office at c7:30, and a good day would be leaving at 7pm (that's not including a 1 hour commute each way).
3) I actually get very good annual leave at 32 days per year (25 is standard, but I have more due to my level and years of service). But nothing like the level teachers get. And I am massively appreciative of what I do get and realise it is a blessing.
4) Took 1 day off yesterday to spend a belated birthday with my family. Dialled in to 2 conference calls, and spent the last 2 hours of the day answering e-mails. Repeat as desired for any holiday day which is not at least a 1 week break out the country (normally paid for at obscene rates due to not being able to take kids out of school due to risk of fine).
5) In my office, we currently have a high proportion of staff off with stress related illnesses. Ridiculous when you consider what it is we do, but that shows the pressure people are under. Crikey, look at the traders and stock brokers you hear throwing themselves off the top of buildings. Tragic, unnecessary, and a sign of what a high stress environment can do. Is the level of stress in teaching at that level.
So I wanted to respond to anyone who thinks I think teaching is a 'cushy' job. Well it would be a cushy job if you were paid £100k a year to do it, but you are not. As someone said, the pay and conditions is made perfectly clear to those who choose to go in to it.
I was aware of the hours and conditions of my job and career, but I was also aware that I could be paid well and support my family well if I worked hard to succeed. Hence why I will be sitting here late every night.
Hello Damo. I teach at secondary level in inner London. Is it stressful? Depends if you are the type who gets stressed. I guess in most professions the ones who remain calm are typically the most effective? When you also learn about some of the issues your own students face, then stressing about the job can pale into in significance.
Is it hard work? Yes, but i agree so are lots of jobs. I can't tell you if it is harder, as I haven't done those jobs. I did work in an office for a few years and that was easier, but the job was very straight forward.
Are the holidays good? Amazing. They are a perk of the job. They are to us (many of whom have a bachelors and master degree, and some a PhD), the same as the banker's bonus, the ad exec's 6 figure salary etc.
Do I take the full holiday? No, I am in school 2 days next week for instance working with students and will spend another day or two on the computer.
Am I going to strike? No. It is actually a pain in the arse for me not being able to teach important classes!!!. My pension is probably gonna be crap, but teachers have, on average, "bought the farm" within 2 years of retirement anyway. I do however, understand teachers have the right to strike and I respect that.
This is an ill informed and inaccurate rant. Utterly disgraceful!
blockquote class="Quote" rel="DamoNorthStand">Mods - apologies if there is already a thread on this. Please feel free to close and make me aware of the other one if so.
I think people know my views on striking in general from the Bob Crow thread, but this one will surely potentially cause all kinds of divides regardless of political views, etc etc.
Frankly, I think that walking out when you are a teacher (never mind over pay related issues) is a flipping disgrace. A few points I would like to make.
1) I, along with many on this board, face being fined if we take our kids out of school a day before school holidays start, to save money. But they can take a days education away from our kids in order to get themselves more money. Can I be rest assured that they will all be fined for this strike day?
2) Workloads is one of the aspects they are unhappy with. Yes, that's right, the profession that gets 13 weeks or so holiday a year. I don't care if they take their work home with them. They bloody should do, they finish at 4pm! I take my work home (if I am not in the office at 11pm) and only get 30 days holiday (which I still appreciate is pretty darn good). So what makes them so special?
Never mind going on strike over pay, when 90% of the parents of the kids at the school would like to be paid more.
Utterly disgraceful.
Happy to hear you expand. That's the point of a discussion forum.
I know a few teachers (including family) and I have to say I don't know any that do anywhere near the hours mentioned on this thread.
Not disputing it doesn't happen though
That's the same experience I have. Not saying it doesn't happen, but the teachers I know don't work that.
As one poster said, I am not calling it cushy. And it is a job that gives a lot back to the community when done well (I am massively appreciative of my 5 year old sons teacher, as she does an excellent job imo shaping his early life). And I am not against anyone questioning their pay - for instance some reports I hear of what nurses are paid is disgracefully low. But for me, I can only measure it against what I do:
1) I don't have a 'worthy' job that gives lots back to the country. I am a director of an advertising agency (the advertising thread is there to slate me for that, and I have taken a fair bit of cop so head over their for that job!). I am well aware that I am not saving lives, but I work hard at what I do to support my family and give my kids the best life possible. Work for me is a means to give them the best life possible
2) A normal days work is in the office at c7:30, and a good day would be leaving at 7pm (that's not including a 1 hour commute each way).
3) I actually get very good annual leave at 32 days per year (25 is standard, but I have more due to my level and years of service). But nothing like the level teachers get. And I am massively appreciative of what I do get and realise it is a blessing.
4) Took 1 day off yesterday to spend a belated birthday with my family. Dialled in to 2 conference calls, and spent the last 2 hours of the day answering e-mails. Repeat as desired for any holiday day which is not at least a 1 week break out the country (normally paid for at obscene rates due to not being able to take kids out of school due to risk of fine).
5) In my office, we currently have a high proportion of staff off with stress related illnesses. Ridiculous when you consider what it is we do, but that shows the pressure people are under. Crikey, look at the traders and stock brokers you hear throwing themselves off the top of buildings. Tragic, unnecessary, and a sign of what a high stress environment can do. Is the level of stress in teaching at that level.
So I wanted to respond to anyone who thinks I think teaching is a 'cushy' job. Well it would be a cushy job if you were paid £100k a year to do it, but you are not. As someone said, the pay and conditions is made perfectly clear to those who choose to go in to it.
I was aware of the hours and conditions of my job and career, but I was also aware that I could be paid well and support my family well if I worked hard to succeed. Hence why I will be sitting here late every night.
Hello Damo. I teach at secondary level in inner London. Is it stressful? Depends if you are the type who gets stressed. I guess in most professions the ones who remain calm are typically the most effective? When you also learn about some of the issues your own students face, then stressing about the job can pale into in significance.
Is it hard work? Yes, but i agree so are lots of jobs. I can't tell you if it is harder, as I haven't done those jobs. I did work in an office for a few years and that was easier, but the job was very straight forward.
Are the holidays good? Amazing. They are a perk of the job. They are to us (many of whom have a bachelors and master degree, and some a PhD), the same as the banker's bonus, the ad exec's 6 figure salary etc.
Do I take the full holiday? No, I am in school 2 days next week for instance working with students and will spend another day or two on the computer.
Am I going to strike? No. It is actually a pain in the arse for me not being able to teach important classes!!!. My pension is probably gonna be crap, but teachers have, on average, "bought the farm" within 2 years of retirement anyway. I do however, understand teachers have the right to strike and I respect that.
Very insightful post that. That's the kind of response that give people with opposing views food for thought.
This is an ill informed and inaccurate rant. Utterly disgraceful!
blockquote class="Quote" rel="DamoNorthStand">Mods - apologies if there is already a thread on this. Please feel free to close and make me aware of the other one if so.
I think people know my views on striking in general from the Bob Crow thread, but this one will surely potentially cause all kinds of divides regardless of political views, etc etc.
Frankly, I think that walking out when you are a teacher (never mind over pay related issues) is a flipping disgrace. A few points I would like to make.
1) I, along with many on this board, face being fined if we take our kids out of school a day before school holidays start, to save money. But they can take a days education away from our kids in order to get themselves more money. Can I be rest assured that they will all be fined for this strike day?
2) Workloads is one of the aspects they are unhappy with. Yes, that's right, the profession that gets 13 weeks or so holiday a year. I don't care if they take their work home with them. They bloody should do, they finish at 4pm! I take my work home (if I am not in the office at 11pm) and only get 30 days holiday (which I still appreciate is pretty darn good). So what makes them so special?
Never mind going on strike over pay, when 90% of the parents of the kids at the school would like to be paid more.
Utterly disgraceful.
Happy to hear you expand. That's the point of a discussion forum.
I doubt very much that any reasoned argument would dent your prejudice.
Well the previous poster was very insightful and I found it very interesting. I would be interested to hear your views on:
1) parents get fined for taking a child out of school yet teachers strike.
2) I genuinely would like to know what the strike is over if it is not pay related. If I was wrong then fair enough.
<blockquote Taking pupils out of school without the consent of the Headteacher is illegal. Striking is not. Forget the 'discretion' of the Headteacher. They have none and have been instructed to not allow parents to remove their children for holidays in term time. My view is that both have their place within reason.
The strike is over a number of issues. Pay is in there along with working conditions, workforce reforms, pension and the disgraceful approach that Gove is taking to undermine teachers' which is leading to stress, falling recruitment etc.
I doubt very much that any reasoned argument would dent your prejudice.
Well the previous poster was very insightful and I found it very interesting. I would be interested to hear your views on:
1) parents get fined for taking a child out of school yet teachers strike.
2) I genuinely would like to know what the strike is over if it is not pay related. If I was wrong then fair enough.
<blockquote Taking pupils out of school without the consent of the Headteacher is illegal. Striking is not. Forget the 'discretion' of the Headteacher. They have none and have been instructed to not allow parents to remove their children for holidays in term time. My view is that both have their place within reason.
The strike is over a number of issues. Pay is in there along with working conditions, workforce reforms, pension and the disgraceful approach that Gove is taking to undermine teachers' which is leading to stress, falling recruitment etc.
Do teachers get sacked for being crap at heir job? How straightforward is it to get rid of teachers who are useless?
Yes they do. There is the capability process that sees under performing teachers identified, supported and if no improvement is made they can be dismissed. This can be within six weeks but usually the support programme lasts a little longer.
Also depends on the school. Eg Academies and Free schools operate differently to LA controlled schools.
As for the pensions, my understanding is that for a whole host of reasons there is not enough money being paid into the pension fund to pay out what the teachers get. Thus they need to work longer and/or pay more in and/or have smaller pensions. I know it is not, really, relevant as the teachers thought they were getting more than they will now get, but we are all in that boat and the only way teachers (who already get much better pension provision than most) can keep it is if the tax payer pays for it, which seems rather unfair - especially as the main reason for the shortfall is that teachers, like the rest of us, are all living much, much longer.
The teachers pension scheme started in the 1920's I believe. If all the pension contributions of teachers had always been deposited at the base rate of interest, and the pay outs happened as they have been, there would apparently be enough money sloshing around in the teachers pensions scheme to pay off the national debt. A series of governments, acting like a troop of Robert Maxwells, have used the scheme to pay for any and everything, just as Road tax is used the same way.
I know that was then, and this is now, but the truth is that teachers pensions have been used to pay for stuff that would otherwise have been paid for by the tax payer. It has always been a revenue stream. The teachers pension scheme is not a private pension set up like Scottish Widows where a huge pot of dosh has been built up along the way, it has been a free pot of money for the taxpayers, in the guise of governments, to spend.
Are you sure that this calculation is just the teachers contributions? I think you'll find that many of the contributions were 'employer contributions' which is funded by the tax payer.
The point remains, however, that the fact that pensioners are living longer makes the current system unaffordable.
Small (relatively) changes now will prevent massive cuts in the future. Irrespective as to how important the various claims are if we, as a nation, keep borrowing money the pain when we, actually, pay it back will be worse.
They're all running scared of Gove as he is hellbent on improving educational outcomes for kids after the liberal intelligentsia have in 40 years introduced trendy teaching methods which have seen us tumble down the international educational league table.
Let me put my cards on the table - raised by working class family but had a great state education in the 60s which opened up opportunities thereafter.
They're all running scared of Gove as he is hellbent on improving educational outcomes for kids after the liberal intelligentsia have in 40 years introduced trendy teaching methods which have seen us tumble down the international educational league table.
Let me put my cards on the table - raised by working class family but had a great state education in the 60s which opened up opportunities thereafter.
They're all running scared of Gove as he is hellbent on improving educational outcomes for kids after the liberal intelligentsia have in 40 years introduced trendy teaching methods which have seen us tumble down the international educational league table.
Let me put my cards on the table - raised by working class family but had a great state education in the 60s which opened up opportunities thereafter.
That's rubbish in all honesty. It's not about 'running scared'. There is a dislike and mistrust of all things Gove because he believes that the education he received is a the way forward now. He has no expertise in education or experience. Yet he dismisses the views and opinions of those in the industry as trying to halt progress or wanting an say life.
What are the 'trendy' teaching methods you mention? In my opinion the teaching our children receive nowadays is head and shoulders above that of ten, twenty, thirty years ago.
We have fallen down the international league tables due to a number of reasons. But they are to do with issues far beyond schools and teaching.
Really? From what I've seen of Gove's reforms, they'll do nothing but teach a bunch of young children a load of facts, as opposed to teaching them how to actually solve problems. The vast majority of poorly educated children in this country come from schools that are under-resourced, with teachers who are underpaid and overworked attempting to drum times tables, Spot Goes To The Farm and cursive handwriting to 5-7 year olds who get precious little support from their parents because they either don't have time to do it, or don't give a shit about them.
What this country's public school systems needs is smaller class sizes, good teachers who are allowed to be creative in lesson planning and activities that stimulate childrens' minds. Contrary to what Gove et. al are telling the public, the last twenty years of schooling have fiercely concentrated on children learning by rote. This is why we no longer produce inventors, thinkers or innovators here - and instead churn out thousands of identikit clones who go to University and read social sciences because they're conditioned from an early age to take the 'easy' way out and get a degree that's a piece of piss to pass.
All Gove wants to do is create a generation of non-thinkers who blindly do what their employer wants them to, accepting the status quo without questioning it.
As for the pensions, my understanding is that for a whole host of reasons there is not enough money being paid into the pension fund to pay out what the teachers get. Thus they need to work longer and/or pay more in and/or have smaller pensions. I know it is not, really, relevant as the teachers thought they were getting more than they will now get, but we are all in that boat and the only way teachers (who already get much better pension provision than most) can keep it is if the tax payer pays for it, which seems rather unfair - especially as the main reason for the shortfall is that teachers, like the rest of us, are all living much, much longer.
The teachers pension scheme started in the 1920's I believe. If all the pension contributions of teachers had always been deposited at the base rate of interest, and the pay outs happened as they have been, there would apparently be enough money sloshing around in the teachers pensions scheme to pay off the national debt. A series of governments, acting like a troop of Robert Maxwells, have used the scheme to pay for any and everything, just as Road tax is used the same way.
I know that was then, and this is now, but the truth is that teachers pensions have been used to pay for stuff that would otherwise have been paid for by the tax payer. It has always been a revenue stream. The teachers pension scheme is not a private pension set up like Scottish Widows where a huge pot of dosh has been built up along the way, it has been a free pot of money for the taxpayers, in the guise of governments, to spend.
OK, I'll have a go at this.
I did some rough calculations based on a 25 year old with a starting salary of £21,804 from this link , which rises by 2% year on year (I know it doesn't always increase), therefore retiring at 65 with final salary of £47200
I used pension contributions based on the new contributions rates , and assumed a constant interest rate of 3% per annum, compounded each year. I'm sure higher interest rates would be available with higher risk.
Based on this, the final pension pot on 65th birthday would be just under £200k. So, using this link to work out annual pension value, the pension pot would last for just over 6 years, running out before the person is 71. The teacher could take a lump sum out on 65th birthday, which would reduce the overall pot further (to 5.5 years)
Life expectancy for a 25 year old male is 79, for a female it's 83. Taxpayer has to cover pension payments for the average 8-12 further years the teacher can hope to live, ie more than the teacher has contributed throughout their career
I'm sorry, but I think it's unlikely that teachers were net contributors in the past, considering they likely contributed less and retired earlier.
Rough calculations, I'm not a pensions expert, but I do think pensions will be a major political topic in about 15-20 years' time.
Maybe I've picked the wrong figures, I just used the first results on a search
That said, they are up against Michael Gove...
By the way, I'm very concerned with the way the director of an ad agency seems to believe that stress levels within his company are bad but outside his control. Surely the work practices/deadlines/conditions/targets have a considerable impact?
As for the pensions, my understanding is that for a whole host of reasons there is not enough money being paid into the pension fund to pay out what the teachers get. Thus they need to work longer and/or pay more in and/or have smaller pensions. I know it is not, really, relevant as the teachers thought they were getting more than they will now get, but we are all in that boat and the only way teachers (who already get much better pension provision than most) can keep it is if the tax payer pays for it, which seems rather unfair - especially as the main reason for the shortfall is that teachers, like the rest of us, are all living much, much longer.
The teachers pension scheme started in the 1920's I believe. If all the pension contributions of teachers had always been deposited at the base rate of interest, and the pay outs happened as they have been, there would apparently be enough money sloshing around in the teachers pensions scheme to pay off the national debt. A series of governments, acting like a troop of Robert Maxwells, have used the scheme to pay for any and everything, just as Road tax is used the same way.
I know that was then, and this is now, but the truth is that teachers pensions have been used to pay for stuff that would otherwise have been paid for by the tax payer. It has always been a revenue stream. The teachers pension scheme is not a private pension set up like Scottish Widows where a huge pot of dosh has been built up along the way, it has been a free pot of money for the taxpayers, in the guise of governments, to spend.
Are you sure that this calculation is just the teachers contributions? I think you'll find that many of the contributions were 'employer contributions' which is funded by the tax payer.
at the school you teach in, do you allow your pupils to talk with slang
I have real issue with the way some youngsters speak, when at training tonight I sent 4 of my players off to run around the pitch
for using
"dat" "innit"
etc , it really annoys me listening to kids speack like that , and I hear school kids doing it all the time, how can these children pass oral English speaking like this
As for the pensions, my understanding is that for a whole host of reasons there is not enough money being paid into the pension fund to pay out what the teachers get. Thus they need to work longer and/or pay more in and/or have smaller pensions. I know it is not, really, relevant as the teachers thought they were getting more than they will now get, but we are all in that boat and the only way teachers (who already get much better pension provision than most) can keep it is if the tax payer pays for it, which seems rather unfair - especially as the main reason for the shortfall is that teachers, like the rest of us, are all living much, much longer.
The teachers pension scheme started in the 1920's I believe. If all the pension contributions of teachers had always been deposited at the base rate of interest, and the pay outs happened as they have been, there would apparently be enough money sloshing around in the teachers pensions scheme to pay off the national debt. A series of governments, acting like a troop of Robert Maxwells, have used the scheme to pay for any and everything, just as Road tax is used the same way.
I know that was then, and this is now, but the truth is that teachers pensions have been used to pay for stuff that would otherwise have been paid for by the tax payer. It has always been a revenue stream. The teachers pension scheme is not a private pension set up like Scottish Widows where a huge pot of dosh has been built up along the way, it has been a free pot of money for the taxpayers, in the guise of governments, to spend.
OK, I'll have a go at this.
I did some rough calculations based on a 25 year old with a starting salary of £21,804 from this link , which rises by 2% year on year (I know it doesn't always increase), therefore retiring at 65 with final salary of £47200
I used pension contributions based on the new contributions rates , and assumed a constant interest rate of 3% per annum, compounded each year. I'm sure higher interest rates would be available with higher risk.
Based on this, the final pension pot on 65th birthday would be just under £200k. So, using this link to work out annual pension value, the pension pot would last for just over 6 years, running out before the person is 71. The teacher could take a lump sum out on 65th birthday, which would reduce the overall pot further (to 5.5 years)
Life expectancy for a 25 year old male is 79, for a female it's 83. Taxpayer has to cover pension payments for the average 8-12 further years the teacher can hope to live, ie more than the teacher has contributed throughout their career
I'm sorry, but I think it's unlikely that teachers were net contributors in the past, considering they likely contributed less and retired earlier.
Rough calculations, I'm not a pensions expert, but I do think pensions will be a major political topic in about 15-20 years' time.
Maybe I've picked the wrong figures, I just used the first results on a search
That said, they are up against Michael Gove...
By the way, I'm very concerned with the way the director of an ad agency seems to believe that stress levels within his company are bad but outside his control. Surely the work practices/deadlines/conditions/targets have a considerable impact?
You make a good point, and the mathematics you quote for today add up, but over the lifetime of the scheme, teachers have not been riding a pensions gravy train. Pensions are a major political topic, and it is no surprise that retirement age is going up to try to deal with the pension thing.
We don't have a hard and fast rule on it but we don't allow it in lessons or in conversations between teachers and pupils. Can't really stop it when they speak with each other. A school near us has a list of banned slang words but it is hard to change.
We basically say that we are preparing them for the world of work and therefore have strong rules on uniform, punctuality, behaviour etc.
We shake their hands as they come into school and at the end of the day. Luckily the whole fist bump thing has disappeared.
We realise that many of our pupils come from backgrounds where integrity, manners and respect are not necessarily taught or demonstrated. Therefore we have to teach them these things alongside the curriculum.
But it's a part if my job I see as vital and I like seeing kids develop into really pleasant, positive and charming young adults. Believe me the vast majority of them do this.
As for the pensions, my understanding is that for a whole host of reasons there is not enough money being paid into the pension fund to pay out what the teachers get. Thus they need to work longer and/or pay more in and/or have smaller pensions. I know it is not, really, relevant as the teachers thought they were getting more than they will now get, but we are all in that boat and the only way teachers (who already get much better pension provision than most) can keep it is if the tax payer pays for it, which seems rather unfair - especially as the main reason for the shortfall is that teachers, like the rest of us, are all living much, much longer.
The teachers pension scheme started in the 1920's I believe. If all the pension contributions of teachers had always been deposited at the base rate of interest, and the pay outs happened as they have been, there would apparently be enough money sloshing around in the teachers pensions scheme to pay off the national debt. A series of governments, acting like a troop of Robert Maxwells, have used the scheme to pay for any and everything, just as Road tax is used the same way.
I know that was then, and this is now, but the truth is that teachers pensions have been used to pay for stuff that would otherwise have been paid for by the tax payer. It has always been a revenue stream. The teachers pension scheme is not a private pension set up like Scottish Widows where a huge pot of dosh has been built up along the way, it has been a free pot of money for the taxpayers, in the guise of governments, to spend.
OK, I'll have a go at this.
I did some rough calculations based on a 25 year old with a starting salary of £21,804 from this link , which rises by 2% year on year (I know it doesn't always increase), therefore retiring at 65 with final salary of £47200
I used pension contributions based on the new contributions rates , and assumed a constant interest rate of 3% per annum, compounded each year. I'm sure higher interest rates would be available with higher risk.
Based on this, the final pension pot on 65th birthday would be just under £200k. So, using this link to work out annual pension value, the pension pot would last for just over 6 years, running out before the person is 71. The teacher could take a lump sum out on 65th birthday, which would reduce the overall pot further (to 5.5 years)
Life expectancy for a 25 year old male is 79, for a female it's 83. Taxpayer has to cover pension payments for the average 8-12 further years the teacher can hope to live, ie more than the teacher has contributed throughout their career
I'm sorry, but I think it's unlikely that teachers were net contributors in the past, considering they likely contributed less and retired earlier.
Rough calculations, I'm not a pensions expert, but I do think pensions will be a major political topic in about 15-20 years' time.
Maybe I've picked the wrong figures, I just used the first results on a search
That said, they are up against Michael Gove...
By the way, I'm very concerned with the way the director of an ad agency seems to believe that stress levels within his company are bad but outside his control. Surely the work practices/deadlines/conditions/targets have a considerable impact?
You make a good point, and the mathematics you quote for today add up, but over the lifetime of the scheme, teachers have not been riding a pensions gravy train. Pensions are a major political topic, and it is no surprise that retirement age is going up to try to deal with the pension thing.
To be honest, I think it's likely a teacher retiring 10, 20+ years ago would have contributed a lower proportion of his/her pension than one starting out today. From my workings that was a £250k hole for each teacher. Add that up for every teacher since the 60s even...
I don't think retirement age is rising fast enough. The time bomb will hit a while before I get there (if I do). C'est la vie
Seth is correct in pointing out that the teachers pension scheme, along with other public sector pensions has been subject to periods where the employer has not only taken payment holidays but used the existing fund for other purposes. Robert Maxwell is not an inappropriate comparison.
Moving away from teachers, the NHS takes in more than it pays out every year and the Local Government scheme (a funded scheme) also runs at a surplus of several £b between them. Both were sustainable in the long term.
People love to bring the term 'the taxpayer' into these arguments but really isn't it more appropriate to just think of them in terms of being an 'employer' just like every other business?
Most people recognise and aren't bothered that we all contribute to others pensions every time we shop in a supermarket, fill our car up with diesel or use a bank. For some reason though many of us find it almost unacceptable to contribute to the pay and pension package of those charged with educating our children or looking after our elderly or vulnerable.
Why do teachers argue their day doesn't end at five? Neither do a lot if people's jobs. I too spend a lot of time planning preparing reviewing work. Only I do it on tube and at home or at weekends. I don't get six weeks to plan my job over summer.
Comments
Call the fucking waaahmbulance.
Everybody's job is shit. Don't like it, do another job.
Leroy hath spoken. Thus endeth the lesson. Go in peace.
blockquote class="Quote" rel="DamoNorthStand">Mods - apologies if there is already a thread on this. Please feel free to close and make me aware of the other one if so.
I think people know my views on striking in general from the Bob Crow thread, but this one will surely potentially cause all kinds of divides regardless of political views, etc etc.
Frankly, I think that walking out when you are a teacher (never mind over pay related issues) is a flipping disgrace. A few points I would like to make.
1) I, along with many on this board, face being fined if we take our kids out of school a day before school holidays start, to save money. But they can take a days education away from our kids in order to get themselves more money. Can I be rest assured that they will all be fined for this strike day?
2) Workloads is one of the aspects they are unhappy with. Yes, that's right, the profession that gets 13 weeks or so holiday a year. I don't care if they take their work home with them. They bloody should do, they finish at 4pm! I take my work home (if I am not in the office at 11pm) and only get 30 days holiday (which I still appreciate is pretty darn good). So what makes them so special?
Never mind going on strike over pay, when 90% of the parents of the kids at the school would like to be paid more.
Utterly disgraceful.
Is it hard work? Yes, but i agree so are lots of jobs. I can't tell you if it is harder, as I haven't done those jobs. I did work in an office for a few years and that was easier, but the job was very straight forward.
Are the holidays good? Amazing. They are a perk of the job. They are to us (many of whom have a bachelors and master degree, and some a PhD), the same as the banker's bonus, the ad exec's 6 figure salary etc.
Do I take the full holiday? No, I am in school 2 days next week for instance working with students and will spend another day or two on the computer.
Am I going to strike? No. It is actually a pain in the arse for me not being able to teach important classes!!!. My pension is probably gonna be crap, but teachers have, on average, "bought the farm" within 2 years of retirement anyway. I do however, understand teachers have the right to strike and I respect that.
Happy to hear you expand. That's the point of a discussion forum.
Happy to hear you expand. That's the point of a discussion forum.
How straightforward is it to get rid of teachers who are useless?
Also depends on the school. Eg Academies and Free schools operate differently to LA controlled schools.
The point remains, however, that the fact that pensioners are living longer makes the current system unaffordable.
Small (relatively) changes now will prevent massive cuts in the future. Irrespective as to how important the various claims are if we, as a nation, keep borrowing money the pain when we, actually, pay it back will be worse.
Let me put my cards on the table - raised by working class family but had a great state education in the 60s which opened up opportunities thereafter.
What are the 'trendy' teaching methods you mention? In my opinion the teaching our children receive nowadays is head and shoulders above that of ten, twenty, thirty years ago.
We have fallen down the international league tables due to a number of reasons. But they are to do with issues far beyond schools and teaching.
What this country's public school systems needs is smaller class sizes, good teachers who are allowed to be creative in lesson planning and activities that stimulate childrens' minds. Contrary to what Gove et. al are telling the public, the last twenty years of schooling have fiercely concentrated on children learning by rote. This is why we no longer produce inventors, thinkers or innovators here - and instead churn out thousands of identikit clones who go to University and read social sciences because they're conditioned from an early age to take the 'easy' way out and get a degree that's a piece of piss to pass.
All Gove wants to do is create a generation of non-thinkers who blindly do what their employer wants them to, accepting the status quo without questioning it.
I did some rough calculations based on a 25 year old with a starting salary of £21,804 from this link , which rises by 2% year on year (I know it doesn't always increase), therefore retiring at 65 with final salary of £47200
I used pension contributions based on the new contributions rates , and assumed a constant interest rate of 3% per annum, compounded each year. I'm sure higher interest rates would be available with higher risk.
Based on this, the final pension pot on 65th birthday would be just under £200k. So, using this link to work out annual pension value, the pension pot would last for just over 6 years, running out before the person is 71. The teacher could take a lump sum out on 65th birthday, which would reduce the overall pot further (to 5.5 years)
Life expectancy for a 25 year old male is 79, for a female it's 83. Taxpayer has to cover pension payments for the average 8-12 further years the teacher can hope to live, ie more than the teacher has contributed throughout their career
I'm sorry, but I think it's unlikely that teachers were net contributors in the past, considering they likely contributed less and retired earlier.
Rough calculations, I'm not a pensions expert, but I do think pensions will be a major political topic in about 15-20 years' time.
Maybe I've picked the wrong figures, I just used the first results on a search
That said, they are up against Michael Gove...
By the way, I'm very concerned with the way the director of an ad agency seems to believe that stress levels within his company are bad but outside his control. Surely the work practices/deadlines/conditions/targets have a considerable impact?
at the school you teach in, do you allow your pupils to talk with slang
I have real issue with the way some youngsters speak, when at training tonight I sent 4 of my players off to run around the pitch
for using
"dat"
"innit"
etc , it really annoys me listening to kids speack like that , and I hear school kids doing it all the time, how can these children pass oral English speaking like this
We don't have a hard and fast rule on it but we don't allow it in lessons or in conversations between teachers and pupils. Can't really stop it when they speak with each other. A school near us has a list of banned slang words but it is hard to change.
We basically say that we are preparing them for the world of work and therefore have strong rules on uniform, punctuality, behaviour etc.
We shake their hands as they come into school and at the end of the day. Luckily the whole fist bump thing has disappeared.
We realise that many of our pupils come from backgrounds where integrity, manners and respect are not necessarily taught or demonstrated. Therefore we have to teach them these things alongside the curriculum.
But it's a part if my job I see as vital and I like seeing kids develop into really pleasant, positive and charming young adults. Believe me the vast majority of them do this.
I don't think retirement age is rising fast enough. The time bomb will hit a while before I get there (if I do). C'est la vie
Moving away from teachers, the NHS takes in more than it pays out every year and the Local Government scheme (a funded scheme) also runs at a surplus of several £b between them. Both were sustainable in the long term.
People love to bring the term 'the taxpayer' into these arguments but really isn't it more appropriate to just think of them in terms of being an 'employer' just like every other business?
Most people recognise and aren't bothered that we all contribute to others pensions every time we shop in a supermarket, fill our car up with diesel or use a bank. For some reason though many of us find it almost unacceptable to contribute to the pay and pension package of those charged with educating our children or looking after our elderly or vulnerable.
Don't think it will ever change sadly.
For the public sector, I have to pay more regardless.