Industrial action threat over academies

[Hope]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36176846

Not a fan of industrial action in the vocational 'industries', but if I was still teaching, I could be tempted to break my life-long practice over this issue.

[L.A.]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36176846

Not a fan of industrial action in the vocational 'industries', but if I was still teaching, I could be tempted to break my life-long practice over this issue.

It's always struck me that walking out on your responsibilities is not the best way to demonstrate your professionalism.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's always struck me that walking out on your responsibilities is not the best way to demonstrate your professionalism.

Which is why it is used very infrequently and only when the profession sees no other way to voice its concerns about the profession.

If you take a view that striking is always off the table it hands governments a much easier ride in driving through changes that might be deeply damaging to the profession. Clearly we are seeing this currently with the massively concerning changes to doctors contracts and also the forced academisation of schools.

[jeremyp]

It's always struck me that walking out on your responsibilities is not the best way to demonstrate your professionalism.

The government - in fact all governments I can remember - shows no sign of respecting their professional opinion.

[L.A.]

Education has been a political 'football' for as long as anyone can remember. I have a number of friends who are or have been teachers and I have heard all the absurdities and  'horror stories'. Never the less, academy status would appear to have the potential to solve many of the problems. Obviously the local authorities are going to be miffed at losing all that power, but I have difficulty understanding why senior teaching staff are up-in-arms.

[floo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36176846

Not a fan of industrial action in the vocational 'industries', but if I was still teaching, I could be tempted to break my life-long practice over this issue.

My husband thinks like you on this topic. He would never have considered industrial action when he was teaching, but he is definitely not a fan of academies, or much else the Government is doing where education is concerned.

[Hope]

If you take a view that striking is always off the table it hands governments a much easier ride in driving through changes that might be deeply damaging to the profession. Clearly we are seeing this currently with the massively concerning changes to doctors contracts and also the forced academisation of schools.

For many years I belonged to the Professional Assocition of Teachers, a non-striking union.  On a number of occasions, the NUT and NAS/UWT managed to negotiate - through using or threatening the use of strikes - agreements with the Government that were considerably less favourable than PAT had originally proposed.  The problem was that the big unions had started off with even larger proposals and as they didn't want PAT at the table, they ended getting away with far less than even the most moderate teachers felt to be acceptable.

[Hope]

Education has been a political 'football' for as long as anyone can remember. I have a number of friends who are or have been teachers and I have heard all the absurdities and  'horror stories'. Never the less, academy status would appear to have the potential to solve many of the problems. Obviously the local authorities are going to be miffed at losing all that power, but I have difficulty understanding why senior teaching staff are up-in-arms.

I think one of the reasons - one of many - they are up in arms is that the whole financial package we currently have which is largely national, will become fragmented, and pay scales will become localised - either geographically or organisationally.  Unions and collective bargaining will become increasingly obolete - resulting in dramatic fluctuations in pay for people doing the same job.  Another reason is that an academy organisation could change curricula and syllabusi even quicker than the Government is able to do.

[L.A.]

I think one of the reasons - one of many - they are up in arms is that the whole financial package we currently have which is largely national, will become fragmented, and pay scales will become localised - either geographically or organisationally.  Unions and collective bargaining will become increasingly obsolete - resulting in dramatic fluctuations in pay for people doing the same job.  Another reason is that an academy organisation could change curricula and syllabus even quicker than the Government is able to do.

I'm not convinced that those are good reasons.

The cost of living does vary across the country (largely due to house prices) so it doesn't seem unreasonable to have regional variation in pay. Likewise, (from a parents perspective) it is obvious that there is a tremendous variation in teaching competence: some teachers are brilliant, others (being polite) . . . less so - should they be paid the same?

As for the curricula, I understood that the Heads themselves would have a greater input?

[Hope]

The cost of living does vary across the country (largely due to house prices) so it doesn't seem unreasonable to have regional variation in pay. Likewise, (from a parents perspective) it is obvious that there is a tremendous variation in teaching competence: some teachers are brilliant, others (being polite) . . . less so - should they be paid the same?

Not opposed to local variations, as we already do to a degee - eg 'London weighting', but it would be better to have the ability to get rid of poor teachers, rather than simply pay them less.

As for the curricula, I understood that the Heads themselves would have a greater input?

And this was one of the reasons why the National Curriculum was introduced back in the late '80s, as it helped when children had to move schools following a parental change of job or family breakdown.

[L.A.]

Not opposed to local variations, as we already do to a degee - eg 'London weighting', but it would be better to have the ability to get rid of poor teachers, rather than simply pay them less.

I am told that it is quite difficult to get rid of a teacher for something as 'trivial' as  - not being very good at teaching - so limiting their salary until they leave or improve is probably the best option. On the other side of the coin, there are excellent teachers who really deserve a pay rise above the norm.

And this was one of the reasons why the National Curriculum was introduced back in the late '80's, as it helped when children had to move schools following a parental change of job or family breakdown.

Is it really reasonable to to limit a whole school's Curriculum on the basis that children who enter the school mid-course  might want to take the odd subject that is not available? There shouldn't be any problem with core subjects, and it ought to be possible to make arrangements off-site if a subject is considered very important.

[Harrowby Hall]

I think one of the reasons - one of many - they are up in arms is that the whole financial package we currently have which is largely national, will become fragmented, and pay scales will become localised - either geographically or organisationally.  Unions and collective bargaining will become increasingly obolete - resulting in dramatic fluctuations in pay for people doing the same job.  Another reason is that an academy organisation could change curricula and syllabusi even quicker than the Government is able to do.

I think that there is something much more insidious than this at the heart of this policy.

On the surface, it looks as though the Tories would like their sacred cow "market forces" to be the determinant influence on education and the costs of education and, in consequence, education would become "more efficient".

I suspect that this is bovine faeces.

The real strategy is for central government to become the sole paymaster for state education and hence its sole controller. Primary and secondary education can then be under total Whitehall direction. And the Tories would be doing their friends in the independent sector a huge favour by driving thousands of fearful parents into spending more than they can afford.

[Hope]

I am told that it is quite difficult to get rid of a teacher for something as 'trivial' as  - not being very good at teaching - so limiting their salary until they leave or improve is probably the best option. On the other side of the coin, there are excellent teachers who really deserve a pay rise above the norm.

It is far easier to get rid of a teacher for not being a good teacher today than it was even as recently as 10 years ago.  I'd agree that it still isn't that easy - but should it be that easy? 

Is it really reasonable to to limit a whole school's Curriculum on the basis that children who enter the school mid-course  might want to take the odd subject that is not available? There shouldn't be any problem with core subjects, and it ought to be possible to make arrangements off-site if a subject is considered very important.

I hadn't thought about the possibility of 'the odd subject that isn't available'.  I was thinking more about a pupil who arrives at a new school in - say the middle of Year 9 - only to find that the whole syllabus is different and they have to re-do work that is important in the lead-up to GCSE courses to suit the syllabus of the new school.  Under current conditions, most will have the existing work looked at by the new school and/or the new exam board and equivalised with the new school's work; I'm not sure that that will happen within acadamies.  OK,my daughter's experience was a bit different to the norm - we had to leave Nepal unexpectedly half-way through her Year 10, and the school she went to here (and the exam board they used) weren't able to equivalise her first half-year's geography work in part because it was so very different from what exists around S. E Wales.  As a result, she had to do a whole year's work in 6 months.  Geography wasn't the only subject this occurred with, either.

[L.A.]

It is far easier to get rid of a teacher for not being a good teacher today than it was even as recently as 10 years ago.  I'd agree that it still isn't that easy - but should it be that easy?   

If a poor teacher were teaching your child (or grandchild) I don't think you would be asking that question.

I hadn't thought about the possibility of 'the odd subject that isn't available'.  I was thinking more about a pupil who arrives at a new school in - say the middle of Year 9 - only to find that the whole syllabus is different and they have to re-do work that is important in the lead-up to GCSE courses to suit the syllabus of the new school.  Under current conditions, most will have the existing work looked at by the new school and/or the new exam board and equivalised with the new school's work; I'm not sure that that will happen within acadamies.  OK,my daughter's experience was a bit different to the norm - we had to leave Nepal unexpectedly half-way through her Year 10, and the school she went to here (and the exam board they used) weren't able to equivalise her first half-year's geography work in part because it was so very different from what exists around S. E Wales.  As a result, she had to do a whole year's work in 6 months.  Geography wasn't the only subject this occurred with, either.

There wouldn't seem to be any fundamental reason why the equivalised system need be different for acadamies. I don't think that is the issue that they are threatening to strike over.

[Hope]

If a poor teacher were teaching your child (or grandchild) I don't think you would be asking that question.

I'd probably be asking whether all the teacxhers were of the same standard and therefore whether the child ought to be being withdrawn.  That said, I've know some pretty poor teachers in their early days, who have become amazing and very classy ones with experience.  I've also worked with some who never really get out of first gear.  Such teachers will often remove themselves from the system.

[L.A.]

I'd probably be asking whether all the teachers were of the same standard and therefore whether the child ought to be being withdrawn.  That said, I've know some pretty poor teachers in their early days, who have become amazing and very classy ones with experience.  I've also worked with some who never really get out of first gear.  Such teachers will often remove themselves from the system.

And much more likely to remove themselves if their pay was frozen.

[Hope]

And much more likely to remove themselves if their pay was frozen.

I'm not sure that is the case.  People are such that, when 'threatened', they can become far more stubborn.

[L.A.]

I'm not sure that is the case.  People are such that, when 'threatened', they can become far more stubborn.

In many, possibly the majority of other types of employment, staff have their annual review and pay rises may be conditional on performance. I don't see any reason why the teaching profession should be any different.

[Hope]

In many, possibly the majority of other types of employment, staff have their annual review and pay rises may be conditional on performance. I don't see any reason why the teaching profession should be any different.

LA, teachers have a salary scale that they move up depending on the results of their annual reviews. Teachers are paid according to three pay spines - the Main Pay, Upper Pay and Leadership Spines.  If a teacher is deemed to be failing, they will not move up the appropriate spine - but their pay won't be frozen.  Whilst the detail is different in different forms of employment, this same principle applies to most forms of employment.  If a given job doesn't have as many 'spine' levels as teaching does, a person may seem to have their pay frozen, as it will only increase by - say - the rate of inflation (or as has happened for many since 2008, less than that rate), but they will still get the minimal rise available.  Teachers' pay scales have changed since I last worked in a school, but I think that there are 6 levels within the Main Spine and 3 in the Upper Spine (those are for ordinary classroom teachers).  You then get into the Leadership Spine - in which there are 43 levels (and these are for posts of responsibility up to and including headteacher roles).  In other words, ordinary teachers don't automatically move up their spines simply because of 'time served'.

[L.A.]

LA, teachers have a salary scale that they move up depending on the results of their annual reviews. Teachers are paid according to three pay spines - the Main Pay, Upper Pay and Leadership Spines.  If a teacher is deemed to be failing, they will not move up the appropriate spine - but their pay won't be frozen.  Whilst the detail is different in different forms of employment, this same principle applies to most forms of employment.  If a given job doesn't have as many 'spine' levels as teaching does, a person may seem to have their pay frozen, as it will only increase by - say - the rate of inflation (or as has happened for many since 2008, less than that rate), but they will still get the minimal rise available.  Teachers' pay scales have changed since I last worked in a school, but I think that there are 6 levels within the Main Spine and 3 in the Upper Spine (those are for ordinary classroom teachers).  You then get into the Leadership Spine - in which there are 43 levels (and these are for posts of responsibility up to and including headteacher roles).  In other words, ordinary teachers don't automatically move up their spines simply because of 'time served'.

If that system already exists, I fail to see what all the fuss is about?

[Hope]

If that system already exists, I fail to see what all the fuss is about?

That is a national system.  If academies come in, in the way I've understood the Government to say, national agreements like this will be under threat. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In many, possibly the majority of other types of employment, staff have their annual review and pay rises may be conditional on performance. I don't see any reason why the teaching profession should be any different.

The question is though what are we measuring. In the history of teachers performance management has been by inappropriate criteria.

Secondly, once immature pupils know and immature parents know that the teaching industry is about teaching and teachers the game is I'm afraid up since responsibility for the home pushing pupils and the responsibility for success is shifted from the pupil.

Fuelling all of this are middle class types encouraging this tipsy turkey picture of education while pushing their own kids and putting the responsibility on the offspring....rather like the same people that perpetuated the myth that class sizes didn't matter while sending their kids to schools with small class sizes.

[L.A.]

The question is though what are we measuring. In the history of teachers performance management has been by inappropriate criteria.

Secondly, once immature pupils know and immature parents know that the teaching industry is about teaching and teachers the game is I'm afraid up since responsibility for the home pushing pupils and the responsibility for success is shifted from the pupil.

Fuelling all of this are middle class types encouraging this tipsy turkey picture of education while pushing their own kids and putting the responsibility on the offspring....rather like the same people that perpetuated the myth that class sizes didn't matter while sending their kids to schools with small class sizes.

Parents are well able to make a judgement as to which teachers are good and which are a waste of space. You can get a pretty good idea by how your kids are doing in a subject, whether they enjoy the subject and the kinds of responses you get on parents evenings.

Yes, class size is one  important factor, but the quality of the individual teacher is the most vital.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's always struck me that walking out on your responsibilities is not the best way to demonstrate your professionalism.

If you have a society subscribing to the myth that what's wrong with public service education is schools and teachers and that is ultimately realised in an increase of abuse by slummocky, pony tailed and pyjamad slob parents the  option of saying alright try education without us always a possibility.

We are an unthinking and ungrateful country at our peril.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Parents are well able to make a judgement as to which teachers are good and which are a waste of space. You can get a pretty good idea by how your kids are doing in a subject, whether they enjoy the subject and the kinds of responses you get on parents evenings.

Yes, class size is one  important factor, but the quality of the individual teacher is the most vital.

Not all parents are able to.
If you subscribed to a consumerist approach to schooling, namely, the customer is always right, then you are or have been ,part of the problem...........