FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > The teachers union accepts a 6.5% pay rise.
The teachers union accepts a 6.5% pay rise.
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
| |||
"I was reading the news about it and apparently every major teaching union votes to end strikes, as they accept a 6.5% pay rise. Not just that, it also seems that they want an annual £900 million a year in extra funding for school. I think that it is a good deal and as well with the extra funding for the schools. What do you think of it and is it a good deal for them and will it stop the strikes? "The BIG factor here is that the Pay Rise is funded. Normally what happens is: The government put up teachers' wages, but provide ZERO extra money to schools to cover that... Leaving schools with a large hole in their budgets because of paying the pay increases. Unfortunately though, it doesn't apply to support staff, many of whom are amongst the lowest paid professions... compounded by losing nearly a third of their salary to the school holidays. Cal | |||
"The problem with all the strikes is that as inflation is slowly predicted to fall so will the pay offers, also if you’re on strike you don’t get paid. I have full sympathy for everyone whose wages aren’t matching inflation, I’m not sure what the answer is, we can’t keep printing more money. However whether it’s the train strikes or teachers or nurses most of us have sympathy until it affects us. Using our holidays to cover school strikes to look after the kids, even bigger delays for the nhs, some surgeries are at a 2 year waiting list which is may stop people working and earning and be reliant on welfare support, limited and over packed trains It’s everybody’s right to strike, who is able to, but slowly I think we will find people settling for a lot less than they were asking for I honestly don’t know what the answer is " Asking for the stars and settling for the moon, is the basis of negotiation. You never expect to get what you originally asked for... if you do, you didn't ask for enough  | |||
| |||
| |||
"The problem with all the strikes is that as inflation is slowly predicted to fall so will the pay offers, also if you’re on strike you don’t get paid. I have full sympathy for everyone whose wages aren’t matching inflation, I’m not sure what the answer is, we can’t keep printing more money. However whether it’s the train strikes or teachers or nurses most of us have sympathy until it affects us. Using our holidays to cover school strikes to look after the kids, even bigger delays for the nhs, some surgeries are at a 2 year waiting list which is may stop people working and earning and be reliant on welfare support, limited and over packed trains It’s everybody’s right to strike, who is able to, but slowly I think we will find people settling for a lot less than they were asking for I honestly don’t know what the answer is " Yes, the wages should match the inflation. I also think that everyone should be able to strike, even the armed forces as well  | |||
| |||
"I wonder which pot the extra money is coming from to fund it. I also wonder how long this will keep them happy before they start asking for another pay rise. It's unrealistic to expect wages to keep up with inflation rises." Yes. I also wonder where the money will come from and as you say there until they want another pay rise, it is unrealistic too | |||
"I wonder which pot the extra money is coming from to fund it. I also wonder how long this will keep them happy before they start asking for another pay rise. It's unrealistic to expect wages to keep up with inflation rises." It’s also unrealistic to expect everyone to just accept becoming poorer in real terms. | |||
"I wonder which pot the extra money is coming from to fund it. I also wonder how long this will keep them happy before they start asking for another pay rise. It's unrealistic to expect wages to keep up with inflation rises. It’s also unrealistic to expect everyone to just accept becoming poorer in real terms." It's not everyone though, its the majority though. Income inequality is also increasing. | |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. " Which teachers are getting paid 21k? | |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. Which teachers are getting paid 21k?" The range of salaries is very wide, between £30K and £139K depending on roles | |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. Which teachers are getting paid 21k? The range of salaries is very wide, between £30K and £139K depending on roles " starting salaries are less than £30k aren’t they? | |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. Which teachers are getting paid 21k?" Unqualified ones probably | |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. Which teachers are getting paid 21k? The range of salaries is very wide, between £30K and £139K depending on roles " The starting salary of £30k is meant to be introduced by 2024, outside London teachers start on £28k. Head teachers get £74k so no idea where you've got £139k from? | |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. Which teachers are getting paid 21k? The range of salaries is very wide, between £30K and £139K depending on roles The starting salary of £30k is meant to be introduced by 2024, outside London teachers start on £28k. Head teachers get £74k so no idea where you've got £139k from? " £30k comes into effect Sept 23 outside of London but correct that its currently £28k. Maximum for heads in inner London is £139k. | |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. Which teachers are getting paid 21k? Unqualified ones probably" There shouldn't be such a thing. Besides, if you're unqualified then you can't really expect to be on much more than min wage. | |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. Which teachers are getting paid 21k?" From what I've just looked up those are the figures. If it's above that now or increases '23/24 to £28k great, though it still means starting salaries are below £28k currently and have been historically. Putting heads in the same conversation is a bit nonsense, as the number of teachers far outweigh the number of heads. And any one teacher is a. unlikely to make head and b. want to make head. The same as any one employee likely to make CEO | |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. Which teachers are getting paid 21k? From what I've just looked up those are the figures. If it's above that now or increases '23/24 to £28k great, though it still means starting salaries are below £28k currently and have been historically. Putting heads in the same conversation is a bit nonsense, as the number of teachers far outweigh the number of heads. And any one teacher is a. unlikely to make head and b. want to make head. The same as any one employee likely to make CEO" The starting salary increases to 30k in Sept. It's currently 28k, that's for someone in their first year, fresh out of university. | |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. Which teachers are getting paid 21k? From what I've just looked up those are the figures. If it's above that now or increases '23/24 to £28k great, though it still means starting salaries are below £28k currently and have been historically. Putting heads in the same conversation is a bit nonsense, as the number of teachers far outweigh the number of heads. And any one teacher is a. unlikely to make head and b. want to make head. The same as any one employee likely to make CEO The starting salary increases to 30k in Sept. It's currently 28k, that's for someone in their first year, fresh out of university." No, that's someone who has completed an undergraduate degree (3 or 4yrs) and then has completed an additional postgraduate year of initial teacher training. Some ITT is done on a schools-based route, others do a university-based course with placements but the school-based route is now becoming the most common. | |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. Which teachers are getting paid 21k? From what I've just looked up those are the figures. If it's above that now or increases '23/24 to £28k great, though it still means starting salaries are below £28k currently and have been historically. Putting heads in the same conversation is a bit nonsense, as the number of teachers far outweigh the number of heads. And any one teacher is a. unlikely to make head and b. want to make head. The same as any one employee likely to make CEO The starting salary increases to 30k in Sept. It's currently 28k, that's for someone in their first year, fresh out of university." Tbf when I got my PGCE place four years ago the starting salary was 25/26k outside London and the PGCE place wasn’t eligible for bursary. That it’s gone up 2-3k in those 4 years is still pretty bad not gonna lie. That’s not even considering the current strains of the role that make retention difficult at the moment. | |||
"Big up the teachers. All power to the people and that. "Ta
From someone who works in education, still at work, in what many think are the "summer holidays". I have the same annual leave arrangements as the majority of the population (X days to be taken when it's convenient for the business. It's not convenient for the business right now  ) | |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. Which teachers are getting paid 21k? From what I've just looked up those are the figures. If it's above that now or increases '23/24 to £28k great, though it still means starting salaries are below £28k currently and have been historically. Putting heads in the same conversation is a bit nonsense, as the number of teachers far outweigh the number of heads. And any one teacher is a. unlikely to make head and b. want to make head. The same as any one employee likely to make CEO The starting salary increases to 30k in Sept. It's currently 28k, that's for someone in their first year, fresh out of university." How long has it been 28k? I think there was a pay review 2ish years ago? | |||
| |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. Which teachers are getting paid 21k? From what I've just looked up those are the figures. If it's above that now or increases '23/24 to £28k great, though it still means starting salaries are below £28k currently and have been historically. Putting heads in the same conversation is a bit nonsense, as the number of teachers far outweigh the number of heads. And any one teacher is a. unlikely to make head and b. want to make head. The same as any one employee likely to make CEO The starting salary increases to 30k in Sept. It's currently 28k, that's for someone in their first year, fresh out of university. Tbf when I got my PGCE place four years ago the starting salary was 25/26k outside London and the PGCE place wasn’t eligible for bursary. That it’s gone up 2-3k in those 4 years is still pretty bad not gonna lie. That’s not even considering the current strains of the role that make retention difficult at the moment. " More power to teachers but I after working in a school and remembering my Nan working extremely late most days as a head, I wanted to live my 20s in a different way. And I’d wanted to be a teacher since I was 15/16. | |||
| |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. Which teachers are getting paid 21k? From what I've just looked up those are the figures. If it's above that now or increases '23/24 to £28k great, though it still means starting salaries are below £28k currently and have been historically. Putting heads in the same conversation is a bit nonsense, as the number of teachers far outweigh the number of heads. And any one teacher is a. unlikely to make head and b. want to make head. The same as any one employee likely to make CEO The starting salary increases to 30k in Sept. It's currently 28k, that's for someone in their first year, fresh out of university. No, that's someone who has completed an undergraduate degree (3 or 4yrs) and then has completed an additional postgraduate year of initial teacher training. Some ITT is done on a schools-based route, others do a university-based course with placements but the school-based route is now becoming the most common. " The teacher who is doing their year of ITT isn't a qualified teacher. I mean it's a bit pedantic but I wasn't wrong was I? Shall we say that's for some who has achieved QTS? Whether that be fresh out of university or school based. | |||
"It does amuse me how quickly people forget the 'teachers/school staff aren't paid enough' days of lockdown home-schooling. J" That was SOOOOO 2020/21, Julie. Times have moved on | |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. Which teachers are getting paid 21k? From what I've just looked up those are the figures. If it's above that now or increases '23/24 to £28k great, though it still means starting salaries are below £28k currently and have been historically. Putting heads in the same conversation is a bit nonsense, as the number of teachers far outweigh the number of heads. And any one teacher is a. unlikely to make head and b. want to make head. The same as any one employee likely to make CEO The starting salary increases to 30k in Sept. It's currently 28k, that's for someone in their first year, fresh out of university. No, that's someone who has completed an undergraduate degree (3 or 4yrs) and then has completed an additional postgraduate year of initial teacher training. Some ITT is done on a schools-based route, others do a university-based course with placements but the school-based route is now becoming the most common. The teacher who is doing their year of ITT isn't a qualified teacher. I mean it's a bit pedantic but I wasn't wrong was I? Shall we say that's for some who has achieved QTS? Whether that be fresh out of university or school based. " Are these called NQTs? | |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. Which teachers are getting paid 21k? From what I've just looked up those are the figures. If it's above that now or increases '23/24 to £28k great, though it still means starting salaries are below £28k currently and have been historically. Putting heads in the same conversation is a bit nonsense, as the number of teachers far outweigh the number of heads. And any one teacher is a. unlikely to make head and b. want to make head. The same as any one employee likely to make CEO The starting salary increases to 30k in Sept. It's currently 28k, that's for someone in their first year, fresh out of university. No, that's someone who has completed an undergraduate degree (3 or 4yrs) and then has completed an additional postgraduate year of initial teacher training. Some ITT is done on a schools-based route, others do a university-based course with placements but the school-based route is now becoming the most common. The teacher who is doing their year of ITT isn't a qualified teacher. I mean it's a bit pedantic but I wasn't wrong was I? Shall we say that's for some who has achieved QTS? Whether that be fresh out of university or school based. " They are not necessarily a fresh uni graduate if they've completed ITT. Also many teachers are now coming into the profession as mature people, after previous careers elsewhere. Those people might have done a degree yonks ago, done 20yrs in industry, then done ITT for a year and will then start on the bottom of the pay scale. You cannot generalise about those coming into teaching at the bottom of the scale. | |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. Which teachers are getting paid 21k? From what I've just looked up those are the figures. If it's above that now or increases '23/24 to £28k great, though it still means starting salaries are below £28k currently and have been historically. Putting heads in the same conversation is a bit nonsense, as the number of teachers far outweigh the number of heads. And any one teacher is a. unlikely to make head and b. want to make head. The same as any one employee likely to make CEO The starting salary increases to 30k in Sept. It's currently 28k, that's for someone in their first year, fresh out of university. How long has it been 28k? I think there was a pay review 2ish years ago?" Since '22. Before that it was just under 26k | |||
"It does amuse me how quickly people forget the 'teachers/school staff aren't paid enough' days of lockdown home-schooling. J" Get the army in, people would support that move | |||
| |||
| |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. Which teachers are getting paid 21k? The range of salaries is very wide, between £30K and £139K depending on roles The starting salary of £30k is meant to be introduced by 2024, outside London teachers start on £28k. Head teachers get £74k so no idea where you've got £139k from? £30k comes into effect Sept 23 outside of London but correct that its currently £28k. Maximum for heads in inner London is £139k." Ok. Surely it's a very small number who earn £139k. | |||
"More millions to teach people absolute bullshit..." Why is that? | |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. Which teachers are getting paid 21k? From what I've just looked up those are the figures. If it's above that now or increases '23/24 to £28k great, though it still means starting salaries are below £28k currently and have been historically. Putting heads in the same conversation is a bit nonsense, as the number of teachers far outweigh the number of heads. And any one teacher is a. unlikely to make head and b. want to make head. The same as any one employee likely to make CEO The starting salary increases to 30k in Sept. It's currently 28k, that's for someone in their first year, fresh out of university. No, that's someone who has completed an undergraduate degree (3 or 4yrs) and then has completed an additional postgraduate year of initial teacher training. Some ITT is done on a schools-based route, others do a university-based course with placements but the school-based route is now becoming the most common. The teacher who is doing their year of ITT isn't a qualified teacher. I mean it's a bit pedantic but I wasn't wrong was I? Shall we say that's for some who has achieved QTS? Whether that be fresh out of university or school based. They are not necessarily a fresh uni graduate if they've completed ITT. Also many teachers are now coming into the profession as mature people, after previous careers elsewhere. Those people might have done a degree yonks ago, done 20yrs in industry, then done ITT for a year and will then start on the bottom of the pay scale. You cannot generalise about those coming into teaching at the bottom of the scale." Did you read what I wrote? I said university or school based. If someone wants to become a teacher after 20yrs in industry then they should start at the bottom of the pay scale, it's their choice, they know the salary. | |||
| |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. Which teachers are getting paid 21k? The range of salaries is very wide, between £30K and £139K depending on roles The starting salary of £30k is meant to be introduced by 2024, outside London teachers start on £28k. Head teachers get £74k so no idea where you've got £139k from? £30k comes into effect Sept 23 outside of London but correct that its currently £28k. Maximum for heads in inner London is £139k. Ok. Surely it's a very small number who earn £139k. " Probably but it was said 'no idea where 139k comes from', I was just providing clarification. | |||
| |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. Which teachers are getting paid 21k? The range of salaries is very wide, between £30K and £139K depending on roles The starting salary of £30k is meant to be introduced by 2024, outside London teachers start on £28k. Head teachers get £74k so no idea where you've got £139k from? £30k comes into effect Sept 23 outside of London but correct that its currently £28k. Maximum for heads in inner London is £139k. Ok. Surely it's a very small number who earn £139k. Probably but it was said 'no idea where 139k comes from', I was just providing clarification." And there’s all those in between from people with additional roles like SEN, heads of years, heads of departments, assistants etc. And super heads can earn way more than 139 for an academy it’s over £200K a year | |||
"The private sector pay rises have increased more than public sector. I think that teachers are now on a reasonable salary after the rise but it doesn’t help the workload or behaviour management issues. The rise isn’t fully funded, they say it is but a percentage has already been paid out of school budgets. Note of caution: whenever they say “schools will get” it is not true. They do not get the figures stated, it is pure trickery. If the see the budgets up close and personal it is very obvious, there is a huge difference between statement and reality. Spare a thought for support staff. They got a 1.75% year before last, it was stated last year they would receive £1925 - they didn’t because they work part-time contracts, term time only, so no way would they get that. Those on benefits got 3% and still get all the food vouchers over the holidays. This year it’s the same thing. Less than 30% of school staff work full time so the figure of £1925 is very misleading. A TA level 2 earns pennies above a cleaner but they are doing interventions, working with SEN children, standing in with a TA3 or HLTA on occasion. School staff on FLW are earning just as much for no qualifications or responsibility, and they wonder why people leave. Worth noting also that the NEU only represents teachers it doesn’t have a seat at the table for negotiations on support staff pay and conditions. " The NEU has support staff but the previous turnout was too low to strike. It is aort of true that provate and public sector pay have been in tandem for 13 years BUT for qualified professionals in the private sector pay has exploded away from equivalently qualified public sector jobs. | |||
"It does amuse me how quickly people forget the 'teachers/school staff aren't paid enough' days of lockdown home-schooling. J That was SOOOOO 2020/21, Julie. Times have moved on "Silly me. I'm bowing out of this thread now but not until after I add a load of people to my 'never gonna shag you' list 
J | |||
"30k isnt a bad starting salary at 23 BUT 12 years later to be on 44k is not exactly the same sort ofnpay progression you would expect. Classroom teachers get better with experience and we need to reward longevity and retain expertise. " Especially considering the pay progression in other jobs and for graduates, the pay progression on most grad schemes. People get into teaching for more than money though but the conditions in which they’re working in and the extra pressures they’re being put under by mostly people that have never taught a day in their lives or worked in a modern day classroom means it’s no wonder why people are going elsewhere to be valued and continue to make a positive difference to the lives of young people | |||
"The Trusts and Acadamy's need to be abolished then there would be more money to spend on the kids" I agree with this. The academies programme is a disaster and has really negatively affected the education sector. | |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. Which teachers are getting paid 21k? The range of salaries is very wide, between £30K and £139K depending on roles The starting salary of £30k is meant to be introduced by 2024, outside London teachers start on £28k. Head teachers get £74k so no idea where you've got £139k from? £30k comes into effect Sept 23 outside of London but correct that its currently £28k. Maximum for heads in inner London is £139k. Ok. Surely it's a very small number who earn £139k. Probably but it was said 'no idea where 139k comes from', I was just providing clarification. And there’s all those in between from people with additional roles like SEN, heads of years, heads of departments, assistants etc. And super heads can earn way more than 139 for an academy it’s over £200K a year " And all of those support staff, teaching assistants etc who look after our children day after day but are not well compensated. | |||
"The problem with all the strikes is that as inflation is slowly predicted to fall so will the pay offers, also if you’re on strike you don’t get paid. I have full sympathy for everyone whose wages aren’t matching inflation, I’m not sure what the answer is, we can’t keep printing more money. However whether it’s the train strikes or teachers or nurses most of us have sympathy until it affects us. Using our holidays to cover school strikes to look after the kids, even bigger delays for the nhs, some surgeries are at a 2 year waiting list which is may stop people working and earning and be reliant on welfare support, limited and over packed trains It’s everybody’s right to strike, who is able to, but slowly I think we will find people settling for a lot less than they were asking for I honestly don’t know what the answer is " The solution in its most simplest form is for large corporations to make less profit, thus prices would lower, wages would not need to increase to keep people out of food/fuel poverty and equilibrium would be achieved. I mean the large corporations and the party in blue will tell you it’s “not that simple” but fundamentally it is, lower profits, lower share dividends less billionaires/millionaires less people in poverty. The gap between rich and poor reduces, life becomes affordable for all. | |||
"The private sector pay rises have increased more than public sector. I think that teachers are now on a reasonable salary after the rise but it doesn’t help the workload or behaviour management issues. The rise isn’t fully funded, they say it is but a percentage has already been paid out of school budgets. Note of caution: whenever they say “schools will get” it is not true. They do not get the figures stated, it is pure trickery. If the see the budgets up close and personal it is very obvious, there is a huge difference between statement and reality. Spare a thought for support staff. They got a 1.75% year before last, it was stated last year they would receive £1925 - they didn’t because they work part-time contracts, term time only, so no way would they get that. Those on benefits got 3% and still get all the food vouchers over the holidays. This year it’s the same thing. Less than 30% of school staff work full time so the figure of £1925 is very misleading. A TA level 2 earns pennies above a cleaner but they are doing interventions, working with SEN children, standing in with a TA3 or HLTA on occasion. School staff on FLW are earning just as much for no qualifications or responsibility, and they wonder why people leave. Worth noting also that the NEU only represents teachers it doesn’t have a seat at the table for negotiations on support staff pay and conditions. " What do you mean? I was chair of gov and we always got the per pupil funding , plus loads extra for SEN kids , which is practically every child nowadays, and we also wrote bids for extra money. We were able to recruit a nurse and a gardener to look after vegetable plots , it’s all down to how schools are managed - bad heads never get fired , you have to sit and wait for them to retire then bring someone good in | |||
"The Trusts and Acadamy's need to be abolished then there would be more money to spend on the kids I agree with this. The academies programme is a disaster and has really negatively affected the education sector. " Marketisation of education. Sometimes I do wish I was teaching this shit. Not worth the late nights and headaches over grades defining people though | |||
"The private sector pay rises have increased more than public sector. I think that teachers are now on a reasonable salary after the rise but it doesn’t help the workload or behaviour management issues. The rise isn’t fully funded, they say it is but a percentage has already been paid out of school budgets. Note of caution: whenever they say “schools will get” it is not true. They do not get the figures stated, it is pure trickery. If the see the budgets up close and personal it is very obvious, there is a huge difference between statement and reality. Spare a thought for support staff. They got a 1.75% year before last, it was stated last year they would receive £1925 - they didn’t because they work part-time contracts, term time only, so no way would they get that. Those on benefits got 3% and still get all the food vouchers over the holidays. This year it’s the same thing. Less than 30% of school staff work full time so the figure of £1925 is very misleading. A TA level 2 earns pennies above a cleaner but they are doing interventions, working with SEN children, standing in with a TA3 or HLTA on occasion. School staff on FLW are earning just as much for no qualifications or responsibility, and they wonder why people leave. Worth noting also that the NEU only represents teachers it doesn’t have a seat at the table for negotiations on support staff pay and conditions. What do you mean? I was chair of gov and we always got the per pupil funding , plus loads extra for SEN kids , which is practically every child nowadays, and we also wrote bids for extra money. We were able to recruit a nurse and a gardener to look after vegetable plots , it’s all down to how schools are managed - bad heads never get fired , you have to sit and wait for them to retire then bring someone good in " Nothing like a casual swipe at kids with SEN | |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. Which teachers are getting paid 21k? From what I've just looked up those are the figures. If it's above that now or increases '23/24 to £28k great, though it still means starting salaries are below £28k currently and have been historically. Putting heads in the same conversation is a bit nonsense, as the number of teachers far outweigh the number of heads. And any one teacher is a. unlikely to make head and b. want to make head. The same as any one employee likely to make CEO The starting salary increases to 30k in Sept. It's currently 28k, that's for someone in their first year, fresh out of university. No, that's someone who has completed an undergraduate degree (3 or 4yrs) and then has completed an additional postgraduate year of initial teacher training. Some ITT is done on a schools-based route, others do a university-based course with placements but the school-based route is now becoming the most common. The teacher who is doing their year of ITT isn't a qualified teacher. I mean it's a bit pedantic but I wasn't wrong was I? Shall we say that's for some who has achieved QTS? Whether that be fresh out of university or school based. They are not necessarily a fresh uni graduate if they've completed ITT. Also many teachers are now coming into the profession as mature people, after previous careers elsewhere. Those people might have done a degree yonks ago, done 20yrs in industry, then done ITT for a year and will then start on the bottom of the pay scale. You cannot generalise about those coming into teaching at the bottom of the scale. Did you read what I wrote? I said university or school based. If someone wants to become a teacher after 20yrs in industry then they should start at the bottom of the pay scale, it's their choice, they know the salary. " Where did I say that they shouldn't start at the bottom? I didn't, did I? However, as someone responsible for recruitment of teachers in shortage subjects, I can tell you for nothing that people coming in from industry do NOT want to start at the bottom of the scale and will happily walk away if they feel the salary isn't reflective of their experience and value. Coupled with a total collapse of new recruits to subjects like Physics, we cannot recruit enough specialist teachers. But of course, parents are perfectly happy with PE teachers teaching Biology and Geography teachers teaching Physics, right? Because that's what's happening. Some schools have absolutely no specialist Physics, Chemistry etc teachers and have to cover gaps with other teachers. This might just about work in the lower school but at GCSE and especially A level, it certainly does not. | |||
"The private sector pay rises have increased more than public sector. I think that teachers are now on a reasonable salary after the rise but it doesn’t help the workload or behaviour management issues. The rise isn’t fully funded, they say it is but a percentage has already been paid out of school budgets. Note of caution: whenever they say “schools will get” it is not true. They do not get the figures stated, it is pure trickery. If the see the budgets up close and personal it is very obvious, there is a huge difference between statement and reality. Spare a thought for support staff. They got a 1.75% year before last, it was stated last year they would receive £1925 - they didn’t because they work part-time contracts, term time only, so no way would they get that. Those on benefits got 3% and still get all the food vouchers over the holidays. This year it’s the same thing. Less than 30% of school staff work full time so the figure of £1925 is very misleading. A TA level 2 earns pennies above a cleaner but they are doing interventions, working with SEN children, standing in with a TA3 or HLTA on occasion. School staff on FLW are earning just as much for no qualifications or responsibility, and they wonder why people leave. Worth noting also that the NEU only represents teachers it doesn’t have a seat at the table for negotiations on support staff pay and conditions. What do you mean? I was chair of gov and we always got the per pupil funding , plus loads extra for SEN kids , which is practically every child nowadays, and we also wrote bids for extra money. We were able to recruit a nurse and a gardener to look after vegetable plots , it’s all down to how schools are managed - bad heads never get fired , you have to sit and wait for them to retire then bring someone good in " Sort of true but also quite naive. Each school has its own context. Per pupil and SEN funding is ine thing but not every school can spend that money in the way that they would like. It isn't always even a management issue it is an underfunding issue. A 2010 era "we are scrapping the building schools for the future programme. Etc... | |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. Which teachers are getting paid 21k? From what I've just looked up those are the figures. If it's above that now or increases '23/24 to £28k great, though it still means starting salaries are below £28k currently and have been historically. Putting heads in the same conversation is a bit nonsense, as the number of teachers far outweigh the number of heads. And any one teacher is a. unlikely to make head and b. want to make head. The same as any one employee likely to make CEO The starting salary increases to 30k in Sept. It's currently 28k, that's for someone in their first year, fresh out of university. No, that's someone who has completed an undergraduate degree (3 or 4yrs) and then has completed an additional postgraduate year of initial teacher training. Some ITT is done on a schools-based route, others do a university-based course with placements but the school-based route is now becoming the most common. The teacher who is doing their year of ITT isn't a qualified teacher. I mean it's a bit pedantic but I wasn't wrong was I? Shall we say that's for some who has achieved QTS? Whether that be fresh out of university or school based. They are not necessarily a fresh uni graduate if they've completed ITT. Also many teachers are now coming into the profession as mature people, after previous careers elsewhere. Those people might have done a degree yonks ago, done 20yrs in industry, then done ITT for a year and will then start on the bottom of the pay scale. You cannot generalise about those coming into teaching at the bottom of the scale. Did you read what I wrote? I said university or school based. If someone wants to become a teacher after 20yrs in industry then they should start at the bottom of the pay scale, it's their choice, they know the salary. Where did I say that they shouldn't start at the bottom? I didn't, did I? However, as someone responsible for recruitment of teachers in shortage subjects, I can tell you for nothing that people coming in from industry do NOT want to start at the bottom of the scale and will happily walk away if they feel the salary isn't reflective of their experience and value. Coupled with a total collapse of new recruits to subjects like Physics, we cannot recruit enough specialist teachers. But of course, parents are perfectly happy with PE teachers teaching Biology and Geography teachers teaching Physics, right? Because that's what's happening. Some schools have absolutely no specialist Physics, Chemistry etc teachers and have to cover gaps with other teachers. This might just about work in the lower school but at GCSE and especially A level, it certainly does not. " You brought a 20yr industry vet into the conversation and asked me not to generalise. If you weren't alluding that they shouldn't start at the bottom, then what exactly was the point? | |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. Which teachers are getting paid 21k? From what I've just looked up those are the figures. If it's above that now or increases '23/24 to £28k great, though it still means starting salaries are below £28k currently and have been historically. Putting heads in the same conversation is a bit nonsense, as the number of teachers far outweigh the number of heads. And any one teacher is a. unlikely to make head and b. want to make head. The same as any one employee likely to make CEO The starting salary increases to 30k in Sept. It's currently 28k, that's for someone in their first year, fresh out of university. No, that's someone who has completed an undergraduate degree (3 or 4yrs) and then has completed an additional postgraduate year of initial teacher training. Some ITT is done on a schools-based route, others do a university-based course with placements but the school-based route is now becoming the most common. The teacher who is doing their year of ITT isn't a qualified teacher. I mean it's a bit pedantic but I wasn't wrong was I? Shall we say that's for some who has achieved QTS? Whether that be fresh out of university or school based. They are not necessarily a fresh uni graduate if they've completed ITT. Also many teachers are now coming into the profession as mature people, after previous careers elsewhere. Those people might have done a degree yonks ago, done 20yrs in industry, then done ITT for a year and will then start on the bottom of the pay scale. You cannot generalise about those coming into teaching at the bottom of the scale. Did you read what I wrote? I said university or school based. If someone wants to become a teacher after 20yrs in industry then they should start at the bottom of the pay scale, it's their choice, they know the salary. Where did I say that they shouldn't start at the bottom? I didn't, did I? However, as someone responsible for recruitment of teachers in shortage subjects, I can tell you for nothing that people coming in from industry do NOT want to start at the bottom of the scale and will happily walk away if they feel the salary isn't reflective of their experience and value. Coupled with a total collapse of new recruits to subjects like Physics, we cannot recruit enough specialist teachers. But of course, parents are perfectly happy with PE teachers teaching Biology and Geography teachers teaching Physics, right? Because that's what's happening. Some schools have absolutely no specialist Physics, Chemistry etc teachers and have to cover gaps with other teachers. This might just about work in the lower school but at GCSE and especially A level, it certainly does not. " I have teens studying GCSE's - I support absolutely higher salaries for teachers coming into those areas. Good science and maths teaching at this point surely means more students getting better marks in those subjects and perhaps going into related careers. | |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. Which teachers are getting paid 21k? From what I've just looked up those are the figures. If it's above that now or increases '23/24 to £28k great, though it still means starting salaries are below £28k currently and have been historically. Putting heads in the same conversation is a bit nonsense, as the number of teachers far outweigh the number of heads. And any one teacher is a. unlikely to make head and b. want to make head. The same as any one employee likely to make CEO The starting salary increases to 30k in Sept. It's currently 28k, that's for someone in their first year, fresh out of university. No, that's someone who has completed an undergraduate degree (3 or 4yrs) and then has completed an additional postgraduate year of initial teacher training. Some ITT is done on a schools-based route, others do a university-based course with placements but the school-based route is now becoming the most common. The teacher who is doing their year of ITT isn't a qualified teacher. I mean it's a bit pedantic but I wasn't wrong was I? Shall we say that's for some who has achieved QTS? Whether that be fresh out of university or school based. They are not necessarily a fresh uni graduate if they've completed ITT. Also many teachers are now coming into the profession as mature people, after previous careers elsewhere. Those people might have done a degree yonks ago, done 20yrs in industry, then done ITT for a year and will then start on the bottom of the pay scale. You cannot generalise about those coming into teaching at the bottom of the scale. Did you read what I wrote? I said university or school based. If someone wants to become a teacher after 20yrs in industry then they should start at the bottom of the pay scale, it's their choice, they know the salary. Where did I say that they shouldn't start at the bottom? I didn't, did I? However, as someone responsible for recruitment of teachers in shortage subjects, I can tell you for nothing that people coming in from industry do NOT want to start at the bottom of the scale and will happily walk away if they feel the salary isn't reflective of their experience and value. Coupled with a total collapse of new recruits to subjects like Physics, we cannot recruit enough specialist teachers. But of course, parents are perfectly happy with PE teachers teaching Biology and Geography teachers teaching Physics, right? Because that's what's happening. Some schools have absolutely no specialist Physics, Chemistry etc teachers and have to cover gaps with other teachers. This might just about work in the lower school but at GCSE and especially A level, it certainly does not. " They had me teaching KS3 history when I worked in a school- (not a qualified teacher and only an A level in history). And they had other teachers from other depts covering the subject too Year round. They did the same for textiles and art and got unqualified art and textile technicians to teach it. This is an ofstead outstanding school by the way. (When I was there and last year’s most recent inspection). So can support that this is where we’re at | |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. Which teachers are getting paid 21k? From what I've just looked up those are the figures. If it's above that now or increases '23/24 to £28k great, though it still means starting salaries are below £28k currently and have been historically. Putting heads in the same conversation is a bit nonsense, as the number of teachers far outweigh the number of heads. And any one teacher is a. unlikely to make head and b. want to make head. The same as any one employee likely to make CEO The starting salary increases to 30k in Sept. It's currently 28k, that's for someone in their first year, fresh out of university. No, that's someone who has completed an undergraduate degree (3 or 4yrs) and then has completed an additional postgraduate year of initial teacher training. Some ITT is done on a schools-based route, others do a university-based course with placements but the school-based route is now becoming the most common. The teacher who is doing their year of ITT isn't a qualified teacher. I mean it's a bit pedantic but I wasn't wrong was I? Shall we say that's for some who has achieved QTS? Whether that be fresh out of university or school based. They are not necessarily a fresh uni graduate if they've completed ITT. Also many teachers are now coming into the profession as mature people, after previous careers elsewhere. Those people might have done a degree yonks ago, done 20yrs in industry, then done ITT for a year and will then start on the bottom of the pay scale. You cannot generalise about those coming into teaching at the bottom of the scale. Did you read what I wrote? I said university or school based. If someone wants to become a teacher after 20yrs in industry then they should start at the bottom of the pay scale, it's their choice, they know the salary. Where did I say that they shouldn't start at the bottom? I didn't, did I? However, as someone responsible for recruitment of teachers in shortage subjects, I can tell you for nothing that people coming in from industry do NOT want to start at the bottom of the scale and will happily walk away if they feel the salary isn't reflective of their experience and value. Coupled with a total collapse of new recruits to subjects like Physics, we cannot recruit enough specialist teachers. But of course, parents are perfectly happy with PE teachers teaching Biology and Geography teachers teaching Physics, right? Because that's what's happening. Some schools have absolutely no specialist Physics, Chemistry etc teachers and have to cover gaps with other teachers. This might just about work in the lower school but at GCSE and especially A level, it certainly does not. I have teens studying GCSE's - I support absolutely higher salaries for teachers coming into those areas. Good science and maths teaching at this point surely means more students getting better marks in those subjects and perhaps going into related careers." tbf they offer good bursaries to do PGCEs in the subjects mentioned. The terrible is also retention. In all subjects. Great you get lots of English teachers that leave after 6/7 years. You’re perpetually not getting to the experience level of old in your depts. | |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. Which teachers are getting paid 21k? From what I've just looked up those are the figures. If it's above that now or increases '23/24 to £28k great, though it still means starting salaries are below £28k currently and have been historically. Putting heads in the same conversation is a bit nonsense, as the number of teachers far outweigh the number of heads. And any one teacher is a. unlikely to make head and b. want to make head. The same as any one employee likely to make CEO The starting salary increases to 30k in Sept. It's currently 28k, that's for someone in their first year, fresh out of university. No, that's someone who has completed an undergraduate degree (3 or 4yrs) and then has completed an additional postgraduate year of initial teacher training. Some ITT is done on a schools-based route, others do a university-based course with placements but the school-based route is now becoming the most common. The teacher who is doing their year of ITT isn't a qualified teacher. I mean it's a bit pedantic but I wasn't wrong was I? Shall we say that's for some who has achieved QTS? Whether that be fresh out of university or school based. They are not necessarily a fresh uni graduate if they've completed ITT. Also many teachers are now coming into the profession as mature people, after previous careers elsewhere. Those people might have done a degree yonks ago, done 20yrs in industry, then done ITT for a year and will then start on the bottom of the pay scale. You cannot generalise about those coming into teaching at the bottom of the scale. Did you read what I wrote? I said university or school based. If someone wants to become a teacher after 20yrs in industry then they should start at the bottom of the pay scale, it's their choice, they know the salary. Where did I say that they shouldn't start at the bottom? I didn't, did I? However, as someone responsible for recruitment of teachers in shortage subjects, I can tell you for nothing that people coming in from industry do NOT want to start at the bottom of the scale and will happily walk away if they feel the salary isn't reflective of their experience and value. Coupled with a total collapse of new recruits to subjects like Physics, we cannot recruit enough specialist teachers. But of course, parents are perfectly happy with PE teachers teaching Biology and Geography teachers teaching Physics, right? Because that's what's happening. Some schools have absolutely no specialist Physics, Chemistry etc teachers and have to cover gaps with other teachers. This might just about work in the lower school but at GCSE and especially A level, it certainly does not. You brought a 20yr industry vet into the conversation and asked me not to generalise. If you weren't alluding that they shouldn't start at the bottom, then what exactly was the point?" 20yr industry vet is an example. There's everyone from the NQT with no industrial experience, right through to people in their 50s or older, coming into the profession. But the scale is the scale for all of those people and it doesn't recognise things like prior (relevant) industrial experience etc. The scales are problematic for recruitment of teachers, especially in the STEM subjects where salaries in industry, plus opportunities for career progression, are so much better that we cannot compete. Too many people leave teaching within the first 3yrs and too many people with really valuable non-teaching experience are put off by the prospect of a £30k salary at the age of 43 or whatever. How do we fill our vacancies? | |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. Which teachers are getting paid 21k? From what I've just looked up those are the figures. If it's above that now or increases '23/24 to £28k great, though it still means starting salaries are below £28k currently and have been historically. Putting heads in the same conversation is a bit nonsense, as the number of teachers far outweigh the number of heads. And any one teacher is a. unlikely to make head and b. want to make head. The same as any one employee likely to make CEO The starting salary increases to 30k in Sept. It's currently 28k, that's for someone in their first year, fresh out of university. No, that's someone who has completed an undergraduate degree (3 or 4yrs) and then has completed an additional postgraduate year of initial teacher training. Some ITT is done on a schools-based route, others do a university-based course with placements but the school-based route is now becoming the most common. The teacher who is doing their year of ITT isn't a qualified teacher. I mean it's a bit pedantic but I wasn't wrong was I? Shall we say that's for some who has achieved QTS? Whether that be fresh out of university or school based. They are not necessarily a fresh uni graduate if they've completed ITT. Also many teachers are now coming into the profession as mature people, after previous careers elsewhere. Those people might have done a degree yonks ago, done 20yrs in industry, then done ITT for a year and will then start on the bottom of the pay scale. You cannot generalise about those coming into teaching at the bottom of the scale. Did you read what I wrote? I said university or school based. If someone wants to become a teacher after 20yrs in industry then they should start at the bottom of the pay scale, it's their choice, they know the salary. Where did I say that they shouldn't start at the bottom? I didn't, did I? However, as someone responsible for recruitment of teachers in shortage subjects, I can tell you for nothing that people coming in from industry do NOT want to start at the bottom of the scale and will happily walk away if they feel the salary isn't reflective of their experience and value. Coupled with a total collapse of new recruits to subjects like Physics, we cannot recruit enough specialist teachers. But of course, parents are perfectly happy with PE teachers teaching Biology and Geography teachers teaching Physics, right? Because that's what's happening. Some schools have absolutely no specialist Physics, Chemistry etc teachers and have to cover gaps with other teachers. This might just about work in the lower school but at GCSE and especially A level, it certainly does not. I have teens studying GCSE's - I support absolutely higher salaries for teachers coming into those areas. Good science and maths teaching at this point surely means more students getting better marks in those subjects and perhaps going into related careers." Many GCSE classes in the STEM subjects are being taught by non specialists, e.g. psychology grads teaching physics etc. It's a massive problem across all sectors in education. | |||
| |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. Which teachers are getting paid 21k? From what I've just looked up those are the figures. If it's above that now or increases '23/24 to £28k great, though it still means starting salaries are below £28k currently and have been historically. Putting heads in the same conversation is a bit nonsense, as the number of teachers far outweigh the number of heads. And any one teacher is a. unlikely to make head and b. want to make head. The same as any one employee likely to make CEO The starting salary increases to 30k in Sept. It's currently 28k, that's for someone in their first year, fresh out of university. No, that's someone who has completed an undergraduate degree (3 or 4yrs) and then has completed an additional postgraduate year of initial teacher training. Some ITT is done on a schools-based route, others do a university-based course with placements but the school-based route is now becoming the most common. The teacher who is doing their year of ITT isn't a qualified teacher. I mean it's a bit pedantic but I wasn't wrong was I? Shall we say that's for some who has achieved QTS? Whether that be fresh out of university or school based. They are not necessarily a fresh uni graduate if they've completed ITT. Also many teachers are now coming into the profession as mature people, after previous careers elsewhere. Those people might have done a degree yonks ago, done 20yrs in industry, then done ITT for a year and will then start on the bottom of the pay scale. You cannot generalise about those coming into teaching at the bottom of the scale. Did you read what I wrote? I said university or school based. If someone wants to become a teacher after 20yrs in industry then they should start at the bottom of the pay scale, it's their choice, they know the salary. Where did I say that they shouldn't start at the bottom? I didn't, did I? However, as someone responsible for recruitment of teachers in shortage subjects, I can tell you for nothing that people coming in from industry do NOT want to start at the bottom of the scale and will happily walk away if they feel the salary isn't reflective of their experience and value. Coupled with a total collapse of new recruits to subjects like Physics, we cannot recruit enough specialist teachers. But of course, parents are perfectly happy with PE teachers teaching Biology and Geography teachers teaching Physics, right? Because that's what's happening. Some schools have absolutely no specialist Physics, Chemistry etc teachers and have to cover gaps with other teachers. This might just about work in the lower school but at GCSE and especially A level, it certainly does not. You brought a 20yr industry vet into the conversation and asked me not to generalise. If you weren't alluding that they shouldn't start at the bottom, then what exactly was the point? 20yr industry vet is an example. There's everyone from the NQT with no industrial experience, right through to people in their 50s or older, coming into the profession. But the scale is the scale for all of those people and it doesn't recognise things like prior (relevant) industrial experience etc. The scales are problematic for recruitment of teachers, especially in the STEM subjects where salaries in industry, plus opportunities for career progression, are so much better that we cannot compete. Too many people leave teaching within the first 3yrs and too many people with really valuable non-teaching experience are put off by the prospect of a £30k salary at the age of 43 or whatever. How do we fill our vacancies?" A school can't use market forces to recruit - if you pay a geography teacher and a chemistry teacher more than the drama teacher then that is incredibly unfaor and borderline illegal. It will also put colleagues doing the same workload on different salaries with perhaps a more experienced teacher of art on 10k a year less than an nqt physics teacher. Schools do value all subjects equally in theory - that's what we tell the kids when they choose their options. The pay scales help here and yes academies can put people on a higher starting grade to account for industry experience but it is very hard to say that any experience in your field in industry has any relevance at all to teaching. If you want to be a teacher and train in your 40s and 50s then great- you may progress swiftly and be an outstanding practitioner because you have raised your own kods and understand young people with a professional distance a 23 year old would struggle with BUT you have to prove this once in post and not just be put on a higher salary because that's what you're used to. Training incentives of 20k bursaries are used to help those people train. | |||
"The Trusts and Acadamy's need to be abolished then there would be more money to spend on the kids I agree with this. The academies programme is a disaster and has really negatively affected the education sector. " And the CEO's are paying themselves fortunes | |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. Which teachers are getting paid 21k? From what I've just looked up those are the figures. If it's above that now or increases '23/24 to £28k great, though it still means starting salaries are below £28k currently and have been historically. Putting heads in the same conversation is a bit nonsense, as the number of teachers far outweigh the number of heads. And any one teacher is a. unlikely to make head and b. want to make head. The same as any one employee likely to make CEO The starting salary increases to 30k in Sept. It's currently 28k, that's for someone in their first year, fresh out of university. No, that's someone who has completed an undergraduate degree (3 or 4yrs) and then has completed an additional postgraduate year of initial teacher training. Some ITT is done on a schools-based route, others do a university-based course with placements but the school-based route is now becoming the most common. The teacher who is doing their year of ITT isn't a qualified teacher. I mean it's a bit pedantic but I wasn't wrong was I? Shall we say that's for some who has achieved QTS? Whether that be fresh out of university or school based. They are not necessarily a fresh uni graduate if they've completed ITT. Also many teachers are now coming into the profession as mature people, after previous careers elsewhere. Those people might have done a degree yonks ago, done 20yrs in industry, then done ITT for a year and will then start on the bottom of the pay scale. You cannot generalise about those coming into teaching at the bottom of the scale. Did you read what I wrote? I said university or school based. If someone wants to become a teacher after 20yrs in industry then they should start at the bottom of the pay scale, it's their choice, they know the salary. Where did I say that they shouldn't start at the bottom? I didn't, did I? However, as someone responsible for recruitment of teachers in shortage subjects, I can tell you for nothing that people coming in from industry do NOT want to start at the bottom of the scale and will happily walk away if they feel the salary isn't reflective of their experience and value. Coupled with a total collapse of new recruits to subjects like Physics, we cannot recruit enough specialist teachers. But of course, parents are perfectly happy with PE teachers teaching Biology and Geography teachers teaching Physics, right? Because that's what's happening. Some schools have absolutely no specialist Physics, Chemistry etc teachers and have to cover gaps with other teachers. This might just about work in the lower school but at GCSE and especially A level, it certainly does not. You brought a 20yr industry vet into the conversation and asked me not to generalise. If you weren't alluding that they shouldn't start at the bottom, then what exactly was the point? 20yr industry vet is an example. There's everyone from the NQT with no industrial experience, right through to people in their 50s or older, coming into the profession. But the scale is the scale for all of those people and it doesn't recognise things like prior (relevant) industrial experience etc. The scales are problematic for recruitment of teachers, especially in the STEM subjects where salaries in industry, plus opportunities for career progression, are so much better that we cannot compete. Too many people leave teaching within the first 3yrs and too many people with really valuable non-teaching experience are put off by the prospect of a £30k salary at the age of 43 or whatever. How do we fill our vacancies? A school can't use market forces to recruit - if you pay a geography teacher and a chemistry teacher more than the drama teacher then that is incredibly unfaor and borderline illegal. It will also put colleagues doing the same workload on different salaries with perhaps a more experienced teacher of art on 10k a year less than an nqt physics teacher. Schools do value all subjects equally in theory - that's what we tell the kids when they choose their options. The pay scales help here and yes academies can put people on a higher starting grade to account for industry experience but it is very hard to say that any experience in your field in industry has any relevance at all to teaching. If you want to be a teacher and train in your 40s and 50s then great- you may progress swiftly and be an outstanding practitioner because you have raised your own kods and understand young people with a professional distance a 23 year old would struggle with BUT you have to prove this once in post and not just be put on a higher salary because that's what you're used to. Training incentives of 20k bursaries are used to help those people train." All perfectly valid points, but not helping us recruit because people simply don't come into the profession from industry, if they are offered the bottom of the pay scale. That's the bottom line. They walk away. NQTs persist for a year or two then many also walk away, attracted by better pay, conditions and progression in other industries. That leaves everyone's kids without the right teachers in the right place. You have to apply market forces to teaching and pay more for shortage subjects. | |||
| |||
"I just researched kent county council February 2023 budget.. As a county council they claim we have to cut services. Something wrong very wrong. Every year it is the same, cut services put up tax.. Especially on the new added social services tax. Our services do not need cutting. The dictation from westminster means cuts. Where are we really as a county the biggest county too? Education cut Special Grants cuts Transport cut Their wages never cut... Our medical grants cut Dentist shortage... Teachers pay.. Its not enough Social worker like me.. £1 more but not up with bills or inflation. That is why I applied for more money doing same job. I need to survive and be in control. So do teachers. " I don't know the geography of Kent very well, but have a look at Thurrock council and their investment behaviour to understand why things are stretched. Thurrock is basically bankrupt. | |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. Which teachers are getting paid 21k? From what I've just looked up those are the figures. If it's above that now or increases '23/24 to £28k great, though it still means starting salaries are below £28k currently and have been historically. Putting heads in the same conversation is a bit nonsense, as the number of teachers far outweigh the number of heads. And any one teacher is a. unlikely to make head and b. want to make head. The same as any one employee likely to make CEO The starting salary increases to 30k in Sept. It's currently 28k, that's for someone in their first year, fresh out of university. Tbf when I got my PGCE place four years ago the starting salary was 25/26k outside London and the PGCE place wasn’t eligible for bursary. That it’s gone up 2-3k in those 4 years is still pretty bad not gonna lie. That’s not even considering the current strains of the role that make retention difficult at the moment. " And for the last twenty years.teachers are well beyond being fed up of the shambles in that sector. | |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. " The value of the wage is relativel and depends on the career path. Over 60 percent of those who take an SES degree do not end up in a career in SES. The average is around 23k with Sports psych a pathway that takes 7-8 years to complete about 18k. (Although I noticed a lot more NGOs offering around 22k}. Teaching is therefor seen as good money. Where as if one was to do biology degree. Teaching for the amount of work would be seen as crap money. | |||
"Unless people want their kids to work menial jobs, the effect of not adequately funding education isn't just an immediate 'I have to take a day off work', it's 10 yrs down the line, lacking skills to compete in the workplace. Receiving £21 - 35k a yr isn't much. It has to be attractive to enter into and properly funded. The value of the wage is relativel and depends on the career path. Over 60 percent of those who take an SES degree do not end up in a career in SES. The average is around 23k with Sports psych a pathway that takes 7-8 years to complete about 18k. (Although I noticed a lot more NGOs offering around 22k}. Teaching is therefor seen as good money. Where as if one was to do biology degree. Teaching for the amount of work would be seen as crap money. " Sports and Exercise Science is, like many degrees, a gateway into various specialisms. Realistically, graduates who want to work in elite sport will find it incredibly hard to break into - as do fine arts graduates hoping to sell their art! Jobs in local councils, in research, for sports nutrition companies, etc... are scalable sectors where you will grow and upskill all the time if you appky yourself. Teaching requires a training year on top of your under grad at post graduate level. That's why the wage is higher than many graduate jobs - because it is a post-grad profession. Do a year after an SES degree in post grad studies and become a nutritionist or physical therapist etc... and the pay is much better | |||
"The private sector pay rises have increased more than public sector. I think that teachers are now on a reasonable salary after the rise but it doesn’t help the workload or behaviour management issues. The rise isn’t fully funded, they say it is but a percentage has already been paid out of school budgets. Note of caution: whenever they say “schools will get” it is not true. They do not get the figures stated, it is pure trickery. If the see the budgets up close and personal it is very obvious, there is a huge difference between statement and reality. Spare a thought for support staff. They got a 1.75% year before last, it was stated last year they would receive £1925 - they didn’t because they work part-time contracts, term time only, so no way would they get that. Those on benefits got 3% and still get all the food vouchers over the holidays. This year it’s the same thing. Less than 30% of school staff work full time so the figure of £1925 is very misleading. A TA level 2 earns pennies above a cleaner but they are doing interventions, working with SEN children, standing in with a TA3 or HLTA on occasion. School staff on FLW are earning just as much for no qualifications or responsibility, and they wonder why people leave. Worth noting also that the NEU only represents teachers it doesn’t have a seat at the table for negotiations on support staff pay and conditions. The NEU has support staff but the previous turnout was too low to strike. It is aort of true that provate and public sector pay have been in tandem for 13 years BUT for qualified professionals in the private sector pay has exploded away from equivalently qualified public sector jobs." Yes, the Union does have support staff, I’m in it but they do not negotiate pay and conditions for support staff. I disagree with your second comment as well. Public sector pay rises have barely moved. How can they justify 1.75%? If they felt benefits needed to be increased by 3% then that should have had least been the benchmark. | |||
"The private sector pay rises have increased more than public sector. I think that teachers are now on a reasonable salary after the rise but it doesn’t help the workload or behaviour management issues. The rise isn’t fully funded, they say it is but a percentage has already been paid out of school budgets. Note of caution: whenever they say “schools will get” it is not true. They do not get the figures stated, it is pure trickery. If the see the budgets up close and personal it is very obvious, there is a huge difference between statement and reality. Spare a thought for support staff. They got a 1.75% year before last, it was stated last year they would receive £1925 - they didn’t because they work part-time contracts, term time only, so no way would they get that. Those on benefits got 3% and still get all the food vouchers over the holidays. This year it’s the same thing. Less than 30% of school staff work full time so the figure of £1925 is very misleading. A TA level 2 earns pennies above a cleaner but they are doing interventions, working with SEN children, standing in with a TA3 or HLTA on occasion. School staff on FLW are earning just as much for no qualifications or responsibility, and they wonder why people leave. Worth noting also that the NEU only represents teachers it doesn’t have a seat at the table for negotiations on support staff pay and conditions. What do you mean? I was chair of gov and we always got the per pupil funding , plus loads extra for SEN kids , which is practically every child nowadays, and we also wrote bids for extra money. We were able to recruit a nurse and a gardener to look after vegetable plots , it’s all down to how schools are managed - bad heads never get fired , you have to sit and wait for them to retire then bring someone good in " I’ve been everything from Chair, to vice chair, to parent, to co-opted for 30 years. I’m not talking about the funding per pupil, or the SEN funding, I’m referring to times when they quote millions of additional funding which is simply not the case in reality. Take the school-led tutoring for instance, millions available for children to catch up with their education - what it is in reality is friends of MPs lining their pockets. You buy an online tutor at a ridiculous cost in order to get the full funding, However, the funding only covers a fraction and school have to demonstrate that they have matched elements of the funding if they want to receive it. Or another example … a deputy head volunteers to do catch up sessions with some children but is volunteering their time to hold the sessions. You cannot claim to the funding for that because it hasn’t come at a cost to the school - I have that in writing from the DfE if anyone cares My point is it is only a fraction of stayed funding. They tie you up in none fab knots with it all.
As for bid writing - yeah sure, you can get access to some pots of money on occasion but it’s few and far between and not vast sums of money.
As for SEN, schools are only funded for the first few thousand which doesn’t cover the actual cost to the school and it has been that way for many years.
School are not being badly managed at school level, they are being screwed higher up. | |||
"I just researched kent county council February 2023 budget.. As a county council they claim we have to cut services. Something wrong very wrong. Every year it is the same, cut services put up tax.. Especially on the new added social services tax. Our services do not need cutting. The dictation from westminster means cuts. Where are we really as a county the biggest county too? Education cut Special Grants cuts Transport cut Their wages never cut... Our medical grants cut Dentist shortage... Teachers pay.. Its not enough Social worker like me.. £1 more but not up with bills or inflation. That is why I applied for more money doing same job. I need to survive and be in control. So do teachers. I don't know the geography of Kent very well, but have a look at Thurrock council and their investment behaviour to understand why things are stretched. Thurrock is basically bankrupt. " Thurrock is an outlier in their approach to bankruptcy (extremely poot investment choices), but a lot of district/unitary councils face issues... Funding has been cut from central government and left with them (which is ironic as those feet on the ground who are get them elected) to cover in other ways. I'm not saying there isn't money to be cut in local government, but most savvy council's are in control of that already. Expect to see a lot more go under. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"If you adjust their salaries for the 16 weeks leave they have, they earn very well. Please don’t suggest that the work late in the evenings and weekends marking… we all work beyond 9-5…. And their day ends at 3:30 and the kids have 1 hour of breaks during the day that they enjoy too." Have a go. Work at a school for a week and see how you will get on. They will tear you apart and spit you out. The first mention of teachers in any forum and the bashing begins from people whose only experience was the years they spent at school,or not as the case may be. | |||
"If you adjust their salaries for the 16 weeks leave they have, they earn very well. Please don’t suggest that the work late in the evenings and weekends marking… we all work beyond 9-5…. And their day ends at 3:30 and the kids have 1 hour of breaks during the day that they enjoy too."
Come and give it a go | |||
"It's actually a real terms pay cut when you take inflation into account. Besides, the government won't fund it and it all and it will be left to schools to provide the money. Not going to have teachers soon as some are leaving to work in the public sector for more money and work life balance." The only reason that teachers have accepted the offer, is that it comes with £900m additional funding to cover those pay rises Cal | |||
"If you adjust their salaries for the 16 weeks leave they have, they earn very well. Please don’t suggest that the work late in the evenings and weekends marking… we all work beyond 9-5…. And their day ends at 3:30 and the kids have 1 hour of breaks during the day that they enjoy too." Absolute ignorance. Fyi - the 13 weeks we get off still leave about 300 hours unpaid overtime compared to someone whonhas 5 weeks off and works a 40hr work week. And no...not everyone works over their 9-5 and if they do, they get paid overtime. If they dont get overtime, their salary will be over that of the average classroom teacher | |||
"It's actually a real terms pay cut when you take inflation into account. Besides, the government won't fund it and it all and it will be left to schools to provide the money. Not going to have teachers soon as some are leaving to work in the public sector for more money and work life balance. The only reason that teachers have accepted the offer, is that it comes with £900m additional funding to cover those pay rises Cal" Which the unions admitted doesnt cover the pay increase for 2 years. Using future budget that would be spent on school stuff on staff instead means schools will be poorer | |||
"It's actually a real terms pay cut when you take inflation into account. Besides, the government won't fund it and it all and it will be left to schools to provide the money. Not going to have teachers soon as some are leaving to work in the public sector for more money and work life balance. The only reason that teachers have accepted the offer, is that it comes with £900m additional funding to cover those pay rises Cal ---- Which the unions admitted doesnt cover the pay increase for 2 years. Using future budget that would be spent on school stuff on staff instead means schools will be poorer " I haven't seen the details, but I'm not sure why the unions would support the "deal" if it isn't properly funded. Cal | |||
"If you adjust their salaries for the 16 weeks leave they have, they earn very well. Please don’t suggest that the work late in the evenings and weekends marking… we all work beyond 9-5…. And their day ends at 3:30 and the kids have 1 hour of breaks during the day that they enjoy too. Absolute ignorance. Fyi - the 13 weeks we get off still leave about 300 hours unpaid overtime compared to someone whonhas 5 weeks off and works a 40hr work week. And no...not everyone works over their 9-5 and if they do, they get paid overtime. If they dont get overtime, their salary will be over that of the average classroom teacher" Some of us don't get anywhere near the 13 weeks either. FE - 30 days to be taken when students are on holiday. And FE doesn't have anywhere near a 6.5% rise either unfortunately. | |||
| |||
"40 hrs a week, 48 weeks a year is 1920hrs 55hrs (avg teacher week) x 39 weeks is 2145 That's without running after school clubs (add another 39) or parents eves (add another 10) 200hrs at time and a half is equivalent to 300hrs @ 23.7 quid an hour So you owe me 7100 quid even after my extra 8 weeks holiday Bank transfer ok? " According to the latest surveys that I can see, the avg teacher works 49hrs per week. That would bring it in line with the 1920hrs @ 40hrs per week. The 55hrs quoted seems to be from 2016, unless you have more up to date data. | |||
"If you adjust their salaries for the 16 weeks leave they have, they earn very well. Please don’t suggest that the work late in the evenings and weekends marking… we all work beyond 9-5…. And their day ends at 3:30 and the kids have 1 hour of breaks during the day that they enjoy too." 14 weeks not in school (officially), 5 weeks annual leave like most people are entitled to will take that figure down to 9. Now add on marking 30 books from 6 different lessons a day several times a week, a lunch time or break time duty, a faculty meeting, an SLT meeting, a club. Then add on all the parental stuff which is after work, and trust me some parents are very needy. Some things are part of the 1265 directed hours, like parents evenings for instance, but then let’s not forget the behavioural issues to be dealt with. It’s a busy old place a school. Then there is the evening and weekend marking and planning and preparing resources. It really isn’t at 8.30 - 3.30 with lots of time off. And … school staff can’t buggar off on cheap holidays during term time! | |||
"40 hrs a week, 48 weeks a year is 1920hrs 55hrs (avg teacher week) x 39 weeks is 2145 That's without running after school clubs (add another 39) or parents eves (add another 10) 200hrs at time and a half is equivalent to 300hrs @ 23.7 quid an hour So you owe me 7100 quid even after my extra 8 weeks holiday Bank transfer ok? According to the latest surveys that I can see, the avg teacher works 49hrs per week. That would bring it in line with the 1920hrs @ 40hrs per week. The 55hrs quoted seems to be from 2016, unless you have more up to date data." The gov refused to publish the 2022 study. You are prob referring to the 2019 study which was flawed imo. The 2016 survey chimes with my experience. Some independent studies suggest around 50 but the leaks from the gov 2022 study said 22% of teachers reported 60+ hours a week. | |||
| |||
| |||
"40 hrs a week, 48 weeks a year is 1920hrs 55hrs (avg teacher week) x 39 weeks is 2145 That's without running after school clubs (add another 39) or parents eves (add another 10) 200hrs at time and a half is equivalent to 300hrs @ 23.7 quid an hour So you owe me 7100 quid even after my extra 8 weeks holiday Bank transfer ok? According to the latest surveys that I can see, the avg teacher works 49hrs per week. That would bring it in line with the 1920hrs @ 40hrs per week. The 55hrs quoted seems to be from 2016, unless you have more up to date data. The gov refused to publish the 2022 study. You are prob referring to the 2019 study which was flawed imo. The 2016 survey chimes with my experience. Some independent studies suggest around 50 but the leaks from the gov 2022 study said 22% of teachers reported 60+ hours a week." I know that most of the Teachers at My school are working at least 2-3hrs every night after school, and will work much of 1 day of the weekend. They are ALL on-site by 8am and Nobody leaves before 4pm... several are still there at 6pm. There are routinely emails being exchanged close to midnight. In the school holidays, the work rate does reduce, but there is still a lot of activity. Most will do "some" work on half of the days during every one of those school holidays. Being the IT guy, I can see the documents being produced on my systems that support these claims. Also within schools, there is the whole stress issue. If you work for a massive company, there are support mechanisms in place to help staff who are struggling. Within a school, there is only the schools leadership team... who are the source of the stress in the first place. Cal | |||
"40 hrs a week, 48 weeks a year is 1920hrs 55hrs (avg teacher week) x 39 weeks is 2145 That's without running after school clubs (add another 39) or parents eves (add another 10) 200hrs at time and a half is equivalent to 300hrs @ 23.7 quid an hour So you owe me 7100 quid even after my extra 8 weeks holiday Bank transfer ok? According to the latest surveys that I can see, the avg teacher works 49hrs per week. That would bring it in line with the 1920hrs @ 40hrs per week. The 55hrs quoted seems to be from 2016, unless you have more up to date data. The gov refused to publish the 2022 study. You are prob referring to the 2019 study which was flawed imo. The 2016 survey chimes with my experience. Some independent studies suggest around 50 but the leaks from the gov 2022 study said 22% of teachers reported 60+ hours a week." I was referring to the 2019 study as it was the latest I could find. And as you say, some independent studies suggest around 50hrs. My own anecdotal evidence is my SIL, she will arrive before 8 and rarely leave before 4 (40hrs) (I know this because their dog is with us during the day). She will then attend some meeting after hours and obviously there's parents evenings, school trips etc. She will often answer emails at evenings and weekends too. She rarely if ever does marking. I'd hazard a guess that she works 50-55hrs/week. A geography SLT member. | |||
"40 hrs a week, 48 weeks a year is 1920hrs 55hrs (avg teacher week) x 39 weeks is 2145 That's without running after school clubs (add another 39) or parents eves (add another 10) 200hrs at time and a half is equivalent to 300hrs @ 23.7 quid an hour So you owe me 7100 quid even after my extra 8 weeks holiday Bank transfer ok? According to the latest surveys that I can see, the avg teacher works 49hrs per week. That would bring it in line with the 1920hrs @ 40hrs per week. The 55hrs quoted seems to be from 2016, unless you have more up to date data. The gov refused to publish the 2022 study. You are prob referring to the 2019 study which was flawed imo. The 2016 survey chimes with my experience. Some independent studies suggest around 50 but the leaks from the gov 2022 study said 22% of teachers reported 60+ hours a week. I was referring to the 2019 study as it was the latest I could find. And as you say, some independent studies suggest around 50hrs. My own anecdotal evidence is my SIL, she will arrive before 8 and rarely leave before 4 (40hrs) (I know this because their dog is with us during the day). She will then attend some meeting after hours and obviously there's parents evenings, school trips etc. She will often answer emails at evenings and weekends too. She rarely if ever does marking. I'd hazard a guess that she works 50-55hrs/week. A geography SLT member." She's definitely not getting paid to work 50-55hrs a week and you might well find she does her marking at school, during PPA time. Presumably easier to use that time for what it's intended for, rather than lugging books home. | |||
"40 hrs a week, 48 weeks a year is 1920hrs 55hrs (avg teacher week) x 39 weeks is 2145 That's without running after school clubs (add another 39) or parents eves (add another 10) 200hrs at time and a half is equivalent to 300hrs @ 23.7 quid an hour So you owe me 7100 quid even after my extra 8 weeks holiday Bank transfer ok? According to the latest surveys that I can see, the avg teacher works 49hrs per week. That would bring it in line with the 1920hrs @ 40hrs per week. The 55hrs quoted seems to be from 2016, unless you have more up to date data. The gov refused to publish the 2022 study. You are prob referring to the 2019 study which was flawed imo. The 2016 survey chimes with my experience. Some independent studies suggest around 50 but the leaks from the gov 2022 study said 22% of teachers reported 60+ hours a week. I was referring to the 2019 study as it was the latest I could find. And as you say, some independent studies suggest around 50hrs. My own anecdotal evidence is my SIL, she will arrive before 8 and rarely leave before 4 (40hrs) (I know this because their dog is with us during the day). She will then attend some meeting after hours and obviously there's parents evenings, school trips etc. She will often answer emails at evenings and weekends too. She rarely if ever does marking. I'd hazard a guess that she works 50-55hrs/week. A geography SLT member. She's definitely not getting paid to work 50-55hrs a week and you might well find she does her marking at school, during PPA time. Presumably easier to use that time for what it's intended for, rather than lugging books home." She's getting paid a salary. A salary which she accepts. I'd assume she does her marking at school as she doesn't do it at home. You'll note I offered 40hrs (8-4) with no breaks for calculation. I assume she does take some breaks though. | |||
"40 hrs a week, 48 weeks a year is 1920hrs 55hrs (avg teacher week) x 39 weeks is 2145 That's without running after school clubs (add another 39) or parents eves (add another 10) 200hrs at time and a half is equivalent to 300hrs @ 23.7 quid an hour So you owe me 7100 quid even after my extra 8 weeks holiday Bank transfer ok? According to the latest surveys that I can see, the avg teacher works 49hrs per week. That would bring it in line with the 1920hrs @ 40hrs per week. The 55hrs quoted seems to be from 2016, unless you have more up to date data. The gov refused to publish the 2022 study. You are prob referring to the 2019 study which was flawed imo. The 2016 survey chimes with my experience. Some independent studies suggest around 50 but the leaks from the gov 2022 study said 22% of teachers reported 60+ hours a week. I was referring to the 2019 study as it was the latest I could find. And as you say, some independent studies suggest around 50hrs. My own anecdotal evidence is my SIL, she will arrive before 8 and rarely leave before 4 (40hrs) (I know this because their dog is with us during the day). She will then attend some meeting after hours and obviously there's parents evenings, school trips etc. She will often answer emails at evenings and weekends too. She rarely if ever does marking. I'd hazard a guess that she works 50-55hrs/week. A geography SLT member. She's definitely not getting paid to work 50-55hrs a week and you might well find she does her marking at school, during PPA time. Presumably easier to use that time for what it's intended for, rather than lugging books home. She's getting paid a salary. A salary which she accepts. I'd assume she does her marking at school as she doesn't do it at home. You'll note I offered 40hrs (8-4) with no breaks for calculation. I assume she does take some breaks though." For most teachers, taking books home IS the reality. Any teacher teaching a FULL timetable could have 2 PPAs (free period for planning) per week. We have a 20min Break & 40min Lunch each day, but each member of staff will be required to do "duty" for two days per week, meaning half of lunch an no break. Plus 1 day per week detention duty until 5pm, there is also a weekly department meeting, pastoral meetings, parents evenings, open evenings, etc... all of which are 'Directed Time" (mandatory). The only teachers who are realistically working 40hrs per week are the part time ones. Cal | |||
"40 hrs a week, 48 weeks a year is 1920hrs 55hrs (avg teacher week) x 39 weeks is 2145 That's without running after school clubs (add another 39) or parents eves (add another 10) 200hrs at time and a half is equivalent to 300hrs @ 23.7 quid an hour So you owe me 7100 quid even after my extra 8 weeks holiday Bank transfer ok? According to the latest surveys that I can see, the avg teacher works 49hrs per week. That would bring it in line with the 1920hrs @ 40hrs per week. The 55hrs quoted seems to be from 2016, unless you have more up to date data. The gov refused to publish the 2022 study. You are prob referring to the 2019 study which was flawed imo. The 2016 survey chimes with my experience. Some independent studies suggest around 50 but the leaks from the gov 2022 study said 22% of teachers reported 60+ hours a week. I was referring to the 2019 study as it was the latest I could find. And as you say, some independent studies suggest around 50hrs. My own anecdotal evidence is my SIL, she will arrive before 8 and rarely leave before 4 (40hrs) (I know this because their dog is with us during the day). She will then attend some meeting after hours and obviously there's parents evenings, school trips etc. She will often answer emails at evenings and weekends too. She rarely if ever does marking. I'd hazard a guess that she works 50-55hrs/week. A geography SLT member." Many teachers choose to do the hours in the week so they can have long holidays. Contracts are similar to other jobs, average 35-40 hours over the year they just get 12 weeks off so need to make up the hours in the week | |||
"40 hrs a week, 48 weeks a year is 1920hrs 55hrs (avg teacher week) x 39 weeks is 2145 That's without running after school clubs (add another 39) or parents eves (add another 10) 200hrs at time and a half is equivalent to 300hrs @ 23.7 quid an hour So you owe me 7100 quid even after my extra 8 weeks holiday Bank transfer ok? According to the latest surveys that I can see, the avg teacher works 49hrs per week. That would bring it in line with the 1920hrs @ 40hrs per week. The 55hrs quoted seems to be from 2016, unless you have more up to date data. The gov refused to publish the 2022 study. You are prob referring to the 2019 study which was flawed imo. The 2016 survey chimes with my experience. Some independent studies suggest around 50 but the leaks from the gov 2022 study said 22% of teachers reported 60+ hours a week. I was referring to the 2019 study as it was the latest I could find. And as you say, some independent studies suggest around 50hrs. My own anecdotal evidence is my SIL, she will arrive before 8 and rarely leave before 4 (40hrs) (I know this because their dog is with us during the day). She will then attend some meeting after hours and obviously there's parents evenings, school trips etc. She will often answer emails at evenings and weekends too. She rarely if ever does marking. I'd hazard a guess that she works 50-55hrs/week. A geography SLT member. She's definitely not getting paid to work 50-55hrs a week and you might well find she does her marking at school, during PPA time. Presumably easier to use that time for what it's intended for, rather than lugging books home. She's getting paid a salary. A salary which she accepts. I'd assume she does her marking at school as she doesn't do it at home. You'll note I offered 40hrs (8-4) with no breaks for calculation. I assume she does take some breaks though. For most teachers, taking books home IS the reality. Any teacher teaching a FULL timetable could have 2 PPAs (free period for planning) per week. We have a 20min Break & 40min Lunch each day, but each member of staff will be required to do "duty" for two days per week, meaning half of lunch an no break. Plus 1 day per week detention duty until 5pm, there is also a weekly department meeting, pastoral meetings, parents evenings, open evenings, etc... all of which are 'Directed Time" (mandatory). The only teachers who are realistically working 40hrs per week are the part time ones. Cal" I've already said she doesn't work 40hrs. I offered 40hrs during 'school hours', then mentioned the extras. | |||
" Many teachers choose to do the hours in the week so they can have long holidays. Contracts are similar to other jobs, average 35-40 hours over the year they just get 12 weeks off so need to make up the hours in the week " This simply isn't true. The work that teachers are doing evenings and weekends is stuff that needs doing "now". A teacher who teaches afull timetable can easily have 20+ classes, each with 30+ kids. That's 600+ books to mark... which can't exactly wait for the summer holidays. Then there is the ongoing planning for the next day/week's lessons, which again needs doing in time for those lessons. Despite what people think, you can't just keep recycling the same lessons. Lessons need to be tuned for the individual classes, and differentiated for the different abilities within a class... and needs to incorporate the latest teaching techniques that we are required to incorporate at the drop of a hat. Cal | |||
" Many teachers choose to do the hours in the week so they can have long holidays. Contracts are similar to other jobs, average 35-40 hours over the year they just get 12 weeks off so need to make up the hours in the week This simply isn't true. The work that teachers are doing evenings and weekends is stuff that needs doing "now". A teacher who teaches afull timetable can easily have 20+ classes, each with 30+ kids. That's 600+ books to mark... which can't exactly wait for the summer holidays. Then there is the ongoing planning for the next day/week's lessons, which again needs doing in time for those lessons. Despite what people think, you can't just keep recycling the same lessons. Lessons need to be tuned for the individual classes, and differentiated for the different abilities within a class... and needs to incorporate the latest teaching techniques that we are required to incorporate at the drop of a hat. Cal" I have several friends who are teachers. This fits with what they've all told me. | |||
"40 hrs a week, 48 weeks a year is 1920hrs 55hrs (avg teacher week) x 39 weeks is 2145 That's without running after school clubs (add another 39) or parents eves (add another 10) 200hrs at time and a half is equivalent to 300hrs @ 23.7 quid an hour So you owe me 7100 quid even after my extra 8 weeks holiday Bank transfer ok? According to the latest surveys that I can see, the avg teacher works 49hrs per week. That would bring it in line with the 1920hrs @ 40hrs per week. The 55hrs quoted seems to be from 2016, unless you have more up to date data. The gov refused to publish the 2022 study. You are prob referring to the 2019 study which was flawed imo. The 2016 survey chimes with my experience. Some independent studies suggest around 50 but the leaks from the gov 2022 study said 22% of teachers reported 60+ hours a week. I was referring to the 2019 study as it was the latest I could find. And as you say, some independent studies suggest around 50hrs. My own anecdotal evidence is my SIL, she will arrive before 8 and rarely leave before 4 (40hrs) (I know this because their dog is with us during the day). She will then attend some meeting after hours and obviously there's parents evenings, school trips etc. She will often answer emails at evenings and weekends too. She rarely if ever does marking. I'd hazard a guess that she works 50-55hrs/week. A geography SLT member. She's definitely not getting paid to work 50-55hrs a week and you might well find she does her marking at school, during PPA time. Presumably easier to use that time for what it's intended for, rather than lugging books home. She's getting paid a salary. A salary which she accepts. I'd assume she does her marking at school as she doesn't do it at home. You'll note I offered 40hrs (8-4) with no breaks for calculation. I assume she does take some breaks though." I wouldn't assume teachers get many or any breaks. My doctor told me UTIs are common in teachers because they hold their bladders due to lack of opportunity to visit the loo. Lots of teachers are expected to supervise lunch time clubs, offer catch up classes, supervise break times in corridors etc and so actually often do get much or any time. I've just eaten my lunch at 14:15 whilst typing with one hand and sending this on my phone before I recommence. I've had no other break today since arriving at 09:00, save one brief trip to the loo. Thus endeth my 15min lunch "break". | |||
| |||
| |||
"Think you can argue until the cows come home that teachers do loads of extra hours. But as with all careers there will be some who do and there ones that don't. And this is my general experience of teachers I know. Had this conversation about pay hours etc with a teacher friend the other day. They said yep it's crap but her sister is a care worker. And she said she wouldn't want her job, without sick pay, pension etc. I think sometimes we can be a bit blinkered in the way we view careers. Do wages etc need to sorted definitely, but I think we should work from the bottom up. And help those most in need, not necessarily the ones with the biggest unions. " Unions get results because of their members. If you are working for a shit employer and you and your colleagues are unionized then they can improve their pay snd conditions by negotiation. Care work is massively under paid imo and i have no idea why the sector isnt more proactive. Fees for care homes generate huge profits that should be more equitably redistributed. Care workers should easily start on 30k and there should be a professional training and accreditation to ensure robust quality of those entering and to make it a true vocation. Nurses should start on 40k - as should teachers imo. Wages are so far below relative to cost of living compared to 30 years ago. All the while the money filters to the top and the wealtu gap grows exponentially from generation to generation. | |||
"Think you can argue until the cows come home that teachers do loads of extra hours. But as with all careers there will be some who do and there ones that don't. And this is my general experience of teachers I know. Had this conversation about pay hours etc with a teacher friend the other day. They said yep it's crap but her sister is a care worker. And she said she wouldn't want her job, without sick pay, pension etc. I think sometimes we can be a bit blinkered in the way we view careers. Do wages etc need to sorted definitely, but I think we should work from the bottom up. And help those most in need, not necessarily the ones with the biggest unions. " We should support greater unionisation of workers across the board. | |||
"40 hrs a week, 48 weeks a year is 1920hrs 55hrs (avg teacher week) x 39 weeks is 2145 That's without running after school clubs (add another 39) or parents eves (add another 10) 200hrs at time and a half is equivalent to 300hrs @ 23.7 quid an hour So you owe me 7100 quid even after my extra 8 weeks holiday Bank transfer ok? According to the latest surveys that I can see, the avg teacher works 49hrs per week. That would bring it in line with the 1920hrs @ 40hrs per week. The 55hrs quoted seems to be from 2016, unless you have more up to date data. The gov refused to publish the 2022 study. You are prob referring to the 2019 study which was flawed imo. The 2016 survey chimes with my experience. Some independent studies suggest around 50 but the leaks from the gov 2022 study said 22% of teachers reported 60+ hours a week. I was referring to the 2019 study as it was the latest I could find. And as you say, some independent studies suggest around 50hrs. My own anecdotal evidence is my SIL, she will arrive before 8 and rarely leave before 4 (40hrs) (I know this because their dog is with us during the day). She will then attend some meeting after hours and obviously there's parents evenings, school trips etc. She will often answer emails at evenings and weekends too. She rarely if ever does marking. I'd hazard a guess that she works 50-55hrs/week. A geography SLT member. She's definitely not getting paid to work 50-55hrs a week and you might well find she does her marking at school, during PPA time. Presumably easier to use that time for what it's intended for, rather than lugging books home. She's getting paid a salary. A salary which she accepts. I'd assume she does her marking at school as she doesn't do it at home. You'll note I offered 40hrs (8-4) with no breaks for calculation. I assume she does take some breaks though. I wouldn't assume teachers get many or any breaks. My doctor told me UTIs are common in teachers because they hold their bladders due to lack of opportunity to visit the loo. Lots of teachers are expected to supervise lunch time clubs, offer catch up classes, supervise break times in corridors etc and so actually often do get much or any time. I've just eaten my lunch at 14:15 whilst typing with one hand and sending this on my phone before I recommence. I've had no other break today since arriving at 09:00, save one brief trip to the loo. Thus endeth my 15min lunch "break". " Forgive me for not understanding what you're moaning about with your "15 min break". You've been posting on here all day, as you do every day  | |||
" Forgive me for not understanding what you're moaning about with your "15 min break". You've been posting on here all day, as you do every day "I/we've not, but never mind. Just got home, btw. Your relative/friend who teaches can let you know how often s/he gets proper breaks. And to address Frida's point about other sectors - absolutely. Poor pay and conditions need to be addressed across all sectors, including social care etc. To those people who say "if you don't like the pay/conditions, then get a job elsewhere," how do you suggest we staff these sectors? Social care has a massive shortage of staff. Education has a massive shortage of staff. The whole "go somewhere else" is exactly what large numbers of people are doing. If you can earn more as a checkout assistant at Aldi and have fixed, regular hours, why would someone work for minimum wage, random shifts, no allowance for travel between clients as a care worker etc? The only answer is vocation but vocation doesn't pay the bills, unfortunately. Vocation is why I went into education but I'm now starting to look elsewhere too, mainly regarding conditions but also partly pay. My pay rise this year was 4.5%, which my union did not negotiate. At the time the pay review went through, inflation was around 11%. We've had rises of between nothing and 3% in preceding years for 10yrs. And on that note, I'm out of this conversation. I have better things to spend my brain cells on. | |||
" Forgive me for not understanding what you're moaning about with your "15 min break". You've been posting on here all day, as you do every day
I/we've not, but never mind. Just got home, btw.
Your relative/friend who teaches can let you know how often s/he gets proper breaks.
And to address Frida's point about other sectors - absolutely. Poor pay and conditions need to be addressed across all sectors, including social care etc. To those people who say "if you don't like the pay/conditions, then get a job elsewhere," how do you suggest we staff these sectors? Social care has a massive shortage of staff. Education has a massive shortage of staff. The whole "go somewhere else" is exactly what large numbers of people are doing. If you can earn more as a checkout assistant at Aldi and have fixed, regular hours, why would someone work for minimum wage, random shifts, no allowance for travel between clients as a care worker etc? The only answer is vocation but vocation doesn't pay the bills, unfortunately.
Vocation is why I went into education but I'm now starting to look elsewhere too, mainly regarding conditions but also partly pay. My pay rise this year was 4.5%, which my union did not negotiate. At the time the pay review went through, inflation was around 11%. We've had rises of between nothing and 3% in preceding years for 10yrs.
And on that note, I'm out of this conversation. I have better things to spend my brain cells on. "You're out of the conversation because you've posted multiple times on nearly 20 different topics today?? I'm not sure why you'd need to lie about that to try to prove a point? You didn't even need to say you were working  | |||
" Forgive me for not understanding what you're moaning about with your "15 min break". You've been posting on here all day, as you do every day
I/we've not, but never mind. Just got home, btw.
Your relative/friend who teaches can let you know how often s/he gets proper breaks.
And to address Frida's point about other sectors - absolutely. Poor pay and conditions need to be addressed across all sectors, including social care etc. To those people who say "if you don't like the pay/conditions, then get a job elsewhere," how do you suggest we staff these sectors? Social care has a massive shortage of staff. Education has a massive shortage of staff. The whole "go somewhere else" is exactly what large numbers of people are doing. If you can earn more as a checkout assistant at Aldi and have fixed, regular hours, why would someone work for minimum wage, random shifts, no allowance for travel between clients as a care worker etc? The only answer is vocation but vocation doesn't pay the bills, unfortunately.
Vocation is why I went into education but I'm now starting to look elsewhere too, mainly regarding conditions but also partly pay. My pay rise this year was 4.5%, which my union did not negotiate. At the time the pay review went through, inflation was around 11%. We've had rises of between nothing and 3% in preceding years for 10yrs.
And on that note, I'm out of this conversation. I have better things to spend my brain cells on.
You're out of the conversation because you've posted multiple times on nearly 20 different topics today??
I'm not sure why you'd need to lie about that to try to prove a point? You didn't even need to say you were working "Love, I've been at work all goddamn day and will be continuing after my daughter goes to bed. If you'd like to video call and view my Google Maps location data, knock yourself out. While you're at it, you can see who I work for too. The whole day is there. You can also look at my Outlook calendar if you like. PM if you'd like to take up the offer because I've not told a single lie and how dare you suggest as much. | |||
" Forgive me for not understanding what you're moaning about with your "15 min break". You've been posting on here all day, as you do every day
I/we've not, but never mind. Just got home, btw.
Your relative/friend who teaches can let you know how often s/he gets proper breaks.
And to address Frida's point about other sectors - absolutely. Poor pay and conditions need to be addressed across all sectors, including social care etc. To those people who say "if you don't like the pay/conditions, then get a job elsewhere," how do you suggest we staff these sectors? Social care has a massive shortage of staff. Education has a massive shortage of staff. The whole "go somewhere else" is exactly what large numbers of people are doing. If you can earn more as a checkout assistant at Aldi and have fixed, regular hours, why would someone work for minimum wage, random shifts, no allowance for travel between clients as a care worker etc? The only answer is vocation but vocation doesn't pay the bills, unfortunately.
Vocation is why I went into education but I'm now starting to look elsewhere too, mainly regarding conditions but also partly pay. My pay rise this year was 4.5%, which my union did not negotiate. At the time the pay review went through, inflation was around 11%. We've had rises of between nothing and 3% in preceding years for 10yrs.
And on that note, I'm out of this conversation. I have better things to spend my brain cells on.
You're out of the conversation because you've posted multiple times on nearly 20 different topics today??
I'm not sure why you'd need to lie about that to try to prove a point? You didn't even need to say you were working
Love, I've been at work all goddamn day and will be continuing after my daughter goes to bed. If you'd like to video call and view my Google Maps location data, knock yourself out. While you're at it, you can see who I work for too. The whole day is there. You can also look at my Outlook calendar if you like.
PM if you'd like to take up the offer because I've not told a single lie and how dare you suggest as much."A video call? Nah, you're alright. You have posted on nearly 20 topics today, the green arrow doesnt lie. Where as, if you're sticking with 'I've not', that's you lying. | |||
" Forgive me for not understanding what you're moaning about with your "15 min break". You've been posting on here all day, as you do every day
I/we've not, but never mind. Just got home, btw.
Your relative/friend who teaches can let you know how often s/he gets proper breaks.
And to address Frida's point about other sectors - absolutely. Poor pay and conditions need to be addressed across all sectors, including social care etc. To those people who say "if you don't like the pay/conditions, then get a job elsewhere," how do you suggest we staff these sectors? Social care has a massive shortage of staff. Education has a massive shortage of staff. The whole "go somewhere else" is exactly what large numbers of people are doing. If you can earn more as a checkout assistant at Aldi and have fixed, regular hours, why would someone work for minimum wage, random shifts, no allowance for travel between clients as a care worker etc? The only answer is vocation but vocation doesn't pay the bills, unfortunately.
Vocation is why I went into education but I'm now starting to look elsewhere too, mainly regarding conditions but also partly pay. My pay rise this year was 4.5%, which my union did not negotiate. At the time the pay review went through, inflation was around 11%. We've had rises of between nothing and 3% in preceding years for 10yrs.
And on that note, I'm out of this conversation. I have better things to spend my brain cells on.
You're out of the conversation because you've posted multiple times on nearly 20 different topics today??
I'm not sure why you'd need to lie about that to try to prove a point? You didn't even need to say you were working
Love, I've been at work all goddamn day and will be continuing after my daughter goes to bed. If you'd like to video call and view my Google Maps location data, knock yourself out. While you're at it, you can see who I work for too. The whole day is there. You can also look at my Outlook calendar if you like.
PM if you'd like to take up the offer because I've not told a single lie and how dare you suggest as much.
A video call? Nah, you're alright.
You have posted on nearly 20 topics today, the green arrow doesnt lie. Where as, if you're sticking with 'I've not', that's you lying.
"Today started at 00:01. I was awake until maybe 01:30 because of muscle spasms so yes, I posted in the early hours a lot. Then I posted on maybe two threads whilst sat in the disabled toilet on the 3rd floor (total time maybe 5mins) then posted again in my lunch break at 14:15. I WhatsApp'd Nero earlier at work then there's radio silence till 14:15, then again till about 5min ago. I'm sure he'll confirm if you'd like but the offer is there to video call and show you my day. I have absolutely nothing to hide. | |||
" Forgive me for not understanding what you're moaning about with your "15 min break". You've been posting on here all day, as you do every day
I/we've not, but never mind. Just got home, btw.
Your relative/friend who teaches can let you know how often s/he gets proper breaks.
And to address Frida's point about other sectors - absolutely. Poor pay and conditions need to be addressed across all sectors, including social care etc. To those people who say "if you don't like the pay/conditions, then get a job elsewhere," how do you suggest we staff these sectors? Social care has a massive shortage of staff. Education has a massive shortage of staff. The whole "go somewhere else" is exactly what large numbers of people are doing. If you can earn more as a checkout assistant at Aldi and have fixed, regular hours, why would someone work for minimum wage, random shifts, no allowance for travel between clients as a care worker etc? The only answer is vocation but vocation doesn't pay the bills, unfortunately.
Vocation is why I went into education but I'm now starting to look elsewhere too, mainly regarding conditions but also partly pay. My pay rise this year was 4.5%, which my union did not negotiate. At the time the pay review went through, inflation was around 11%. We've had rises of between nothing and 3% in preceding years for 10yrs.
And on that note, I'm out of this conversation. I have better things to spend my brain cells on.
You're out of the conversation because you've posted multiple times on nearly 20 different topics today??
I'm not sure why you'd need to lie about that to try to prove a point? You didn't even need to say you were working
Love, I've been at work all goddamn day and will be continuing after my daughter goes to bed. If you'd like to video call and view my Google Maps location data, knock yourself out. While you're at it, you can see who I work for too. The whole day is there. You can also look at my Outlook calendar if you like.
PM if you'd like to take up the offer because I've not told a single lie and how dare you suggest as much.
A video call? Nah, you're alright.
You have posted on nearly 20 topics today, the green arrow doesnt lie. Where as, if you're sticking with 'I've not', that's you lying.
Today started at 00:01. I was awake until maybe 01:30 because of muscle spasms so yes, I posted in the early hours a lot. Then I posted on maybe two threads whilst sat in the disabled toilet on the 3rd floor (total time maybe 5mins) then posted again in my lunch break at 14:15. I WhatsApp'd Nero earlier at work then there's radio silence till 14:15, then again till about 5min ago. I'm sure he'll confirm if you'd like but the offer is there to video call and show you my day. I have absolutely nothing to hide. "8hrs ago, 7hrs ago, 6hrs ago, 4hrs ago, 2hrs ago. On that note I'll leave you to it | |||
" Forgive me for not understanding what you're moaning about with your "15 min break". You've been posting on here all day, as you do every day
I/we've not, but never mind. Just got home, btw.
Your relative/friend who teaches can let you know how often s/he gets proper breaks.
And to address Frida's point about other sectors - absolutely. Poor pay and conditions need to be addressed across all sectors, including social care etc. To those people who say "if you don't like the pay/conditions, then get a job elsewhere," how do you suggest we staff these sectors? Social care has a massive shortage of staff. Education has a massive shortage of staff. The whole "go somewhere else" is exactly what large numbers of people are doing. If you can earn more as a checkout assistant at Aldi and have fixed, regular hours, why would someone work for minimum wage, random shifts, no allowance for travel between clients as a care worker etc? The only answer is vocation but vocation doesn't pay the bills, unfortunately.
Vocation is why I went into education but I'm now starting to look elsewhere too, mainly regarding conditions but also partly pay. My pay rise this year was 4.5%, which my union did not negotiate. At the time the pay review went through, inflation was around 11%. We've had rises of between nothing and 3% in preceding years for 10yrs.
And on that note, I'm out of this conversation. I have better things to spend my brain cells on.
You're out of the conversation because you've posted multiple times on nearly 20 different topics today??
I'm not sure why you'd need to lie about that to try to prove a point? You didn't even need to say you were working
Love, I've been at work all goddamn day and will be continuing after my daughter goes to bed. If you'd like to video call and view my Google Maps location data, knock yourself out. While you're at it, you can see who I work for too. The whole day is there. You can also look at my Outlook calendar if you like.
PM if you'd like to take up the offer because I've not told a single lie and how dare you suggest as much.
A video call? Nah, you're alright.
You have posted on nearly 20 topics today, the green arrow doesnt lie. Where as, if you're sticking with 'I've not', that's you lying.
Today started at 00:01. I was awake until maybe 01:30 because of muscle spasms so yes, I posted in the early hours a lot. Then I posted on maybe two threads whilst sat in the disabled toilet on the 3rd floor (total time maybe 5mins) then posted again in my lunch break at 14:15. I WhatsApp'd Nero earlier at work then there's radio silence till 14:15, then again till about 5min ago. I'm sure he'll confirm if you'd like but the offer is there to video call and show you my day. I have absolutely nothing to hide.
8hrs ago, 7hrs ago, 6hrs ago, 4hrs ago, 2hrs ago.
On that note I'll leave you to it "I've sent you screenshots as proof. Personal details redacted. I await your apology. Next you can call one of my colleagues, if you wish? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"PUBLIC APOLOGY I stated that Kinky_couple2020 has been posting on the forum all day whilst being at work. This is wrong. I read it all wrong and should take better care when making accusations. I retract my statements. " Thank you, I appreciate your good grace in posting this. Mrs KC. | |||
