What is your soln to the Southern Rail dispute?

[tanglewood]

So a year to train a teacher?
I don't think so.
Even the naturally talented teachers need more than a year to know the job inside out,would you say?

Teacher training is completed in a year. Continuous professional development is continuous. Like in all jobs.

Apparently train conductor training takes 18 months. And then there is continuous professional development. Like in all jobs.

There are some people with presence, competence, communication skills, and knowledge who could walk into a classroom with no formal training and could teach really well. They'd forget to tick some boxes for sure, but the kids would learn. Like being a university lecturer - a qualification is an indicator of competence, but no more.

I'd like to see the requirement for a degree dropped, allow prior learning and skill to be taken into account, and provide those who want to teach with modules of learning and support they need to fill their gaps, leading to a practitioners licence regulated by the profession itself in the manner of a chartered profession. But most are wedded to set pieces like a degree and a PGCE, like that's any real indicator of competence.

Now I am a parent of a kid doing GCSE PE, I'd love him to be taught by someone like his badminton coach. His coach has fantastic knowledge of everything needed for the GCSE PE. In my former role I would have employed him like a shot if I was allowed to (as well as running superb group lessons for juniors, he was a world top 10 player and also coaches Chris and Gabby Adcock!) - but he doesn't have a degree and therefore doesn't have a PGCE, and therefore can't teach PE at school. So my son learns from him, then in his PE lessons he gets a teacher who knows rather less about PE and has rather less credibility. I'd like this to change, so that state schools can do what private schools already do, and employ the best whatever their paper qualifications are. Must be why private school kids still dominate the medal hauls. Sad, and I'd like to see it change.




I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels

[reohn2]

Teacher training is completed in a year. Continuous professional development is continuous. Like in all jobs.

Apparently train conductor training takes 18 months. And then there is continuous professional development. Like in all jobs.

Thanks,we agree then

[pete75]

18 months training! What on earth are they doing for 18 months? Teachers are trained in 9 months!

Rubbish. It takes four academic years for a graduate teacher to train and five for some subjects which have a four year degree course like modern languages. Three or four years to learn the subject matter to be taught and another year for the teacher training.

Instead of being rude, why not just look it up?

https://getintoteaching.education.gov.u ... ing-routes

You need a degree to get on a course. To get a degree you need other qualifications too. None of these are anything to do with teacher training. If you qualify for training, the training is 1 year, or two years part time. If school-led, it is two terms.

I know, because I am a qualified teacher, as posted earlier.


It's a composting toilet -> my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels

I'm not being rude merely pointing out that to qualify to teach most subjects a prospective teacher needs to spend three or four years on a degree course training in the subject they are to teach and then a year on a teacher training course. Four or five years training to be say a history teacher.

[tanglewood]

Rubbish. It takes four academic years for a graduate teacher to train and five for some subjects which have a four year degree course like modern languages. Three or four years to learn the subject matter to be taught and another year for the teacher training.

Instead of being rude, why not just look it up?

https://getintoteaching.education.gov.u ... ing-routes

You need a degree to get on a course. To get a degree you need other qualifications too. None of these are anything to do with teacher training. If you qualify for training, the training is 1 year, or two years part time. If school-led, it is two terms.

I know, because I am a qualified teacher, as posted earlier.


It's a composting toilet -> my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels

I'm not being rude merely pointing out that to qualify to teach most subjects a prospective teacher needs to spend three or four years on a degree course training in the subject they are to teach and then a year on a teacher training course. Four or five years training to be say a history teacher.

But the entry requirement can't be called part of the training!. To get on a degree course you need other qualifications - why not add 2 more years for A levels or equivalent, and some GCSE time too, to the training period for teachers?

By your reckoning anyone with a degree (half of school leavers now, hurrah!) can say they are 75% of the way through their teacher training...


I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels

[mjr]

In other words, each pound in tax from motorists costs us two pounds!

You think it is relevant to count the cost of delays in traffic, and the opportunity cost of being physically inactive in a car, as being part of a "subsidy".

Subsidies or tax breaks, call them what you will - these are costs we incur by someone choosing to be another motorist and the motorists aren't paying the full costs, so what would you rather call it?

[tanglewood]

In other words, each pound in tax from motorists costs us two pounds!

You think it is relevant to count the cost of delays in traffic, and the opportunity cost of being physically inactive in a car, as being part of a "subsidy".

Subsidies or tax breaks, call them what you will - these are costs we incur by someone choosing to be another motorist and the motorists aren't paying the full costs, so what would you rather call it?

Ok - so now we should add the environmental, noise, and inactivity costs to the rail and bus "subsidies".


I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels

[mjr]

You think it is relevant to count the cost of delays in traffic, and the opportunity cost of being physically inactive in a car, as being part of a "subsidy".

Subsidies or tax breaks, call them what you will - these are costs we incur by someone choosing to be another motorist and the motorists aren't paying the full costs, so what would you rather call it?

Ok - so now we should add the environmental, noise, and inactivity costs to the rail and bus "subsidies".

It may be interesting to do that because it would probably close the gap between the motorised modes because rail and bus travel pollute less and cause less inactivity (passengers can move around inside rail and both encourage people to move around and to and from stations).

But what's the point: how would it help identify an unsubsidised mode of transport?

[pete75]

In other words, each pound in tax from motorists costs us two pounds!

You think it is relevant to count the cost of delays in traffic, and the opportunity cost of being physically inactive in a car, as being part of a "subsidy".

Subsidies or tax breaks, call them what you will - these are costs we incur by someone choosing to be another motorist and the motorists aren't paying the full costs, so what would you rather call it?

But motorists are paying the full costs and more. Who pays the majority of income tax - people who are motorists so if they are being subsidised it's self subsidy. On average non motorists receive far more taxpayer subsidy than motorists. According to the IFS 43% of the working population pay no income tax at all whilst just 300,000 taxpayers fund over 25% of the nations tax. The vast majority of the latter will be motorists while a minority of the former will be. You really need to think about just who is subsidising who.

[mjr]

Subsidies or tax breaks, call them what you will - these are costs we incur by someone choosing to be another motorist and the motorists aren't paying the full costs, so what would you rather call it?

But motorists are paying the full costs and more. Who pays the majority of income tax - people who are motorists so if they are being subsidised it's self subsidy.

Income tax is not a motoring tax. Maybe people who are motorists are subsiding themselves but they're doing so as ordinary taxpayers, alongside non-motorists.

On average non motorists receive far more taxpayer subsidy than motorists. According to the IFS 43% of the working population pay no income tax at all whilst just 300,000 taxpayers fund over 25% of the nations tax. The vast majority of the latter will be motorists while a minority of the former will be.

Will they? Don't the richest travel first-class and have people to drive for them? And I think there are a couple of claims there which don't hold water, but as I mentioned: they're irrelevant because it still means the costs of motoring are subsidised from other taxes.

What mode of transport is unsubsidised? It ain't motoring, for sure.

[Mick F]

What mode of transport is unsubsidised? It ain't motoring, for sure.

Who pays for the roads?
It's the taxpayers who pay for the roads.

Subsidise?
It could be that you aren't a motorist, but you still subsidise them.

[tanglewood]

Subsidies or tax breaks, call them what you will - these are costs we incur by someone choosing to be another motorist and the motorists aren't paying the full costs, so what would you rather call it?

But motorists are paying the full costs and more. Who pays the majority of income tax - people who are motorists so if they are being subsidised it's self subsidy.

Income tax is not a motoring tax. Maybe people who are motorists are subsiding themselves but they're doing so as ordinary taxpayers, alongside non-motorists.

On average non motorists receive far more taxpayer subsidy than motorists. According to the IFS 43% of the working population pay no income tax at all whilst just 300,000 taxpayers fund over 25% of the nations tax. The vast majority of the latter will be motorists while a minority of the former will be.

Will they? Don't the richest travel first-class and have people to drive for them? And I think there are a couple of claims there which don't hold water, but as I mentioned: they're irrelevant because it still means the costs of motoring are subsidised from other taxes.

What mode of transport is unsubsidised? It ain't motoring, for sure.

"Rich"?

Try this. You may be "richer" than you think!

https://www.theguardian.com/society/dat ... u-compared


I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels

[Mick F]

Try this. You may be "richer" than you think!
https://www.theguardian.com/society/dat ... u-compared

What a strange and interesting (and stupid) thing to fill out!

We are WELL below the poverty line.

It asks you how many children over the age of 14.
We have two:
One aged 42, the other 37. Both independent and left home years ago.

If I say None, we are only JUST over the poverty line.

[tanglewood]

Try this. You may be "richer" than you think!
https://www.theguardian.com/society/dat ... u-compared

What a strange and interesting (and stupid) thing to fill out!

We are WELL below the poverty line.

It asks you how many children over the age of 14.
We have two:
One aged 42, the other 37. Both independent and left home years ago.

If I say None, we are only JUST over the poverty line.

Oh dear - bet you enjoyed the news this week that the retired now have higher incomes than those of typical working ages...


I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels

[pete75]

Subsidies or tax breaks, call them what you will - these are costs we incur by someone choosing to be another motorist and the motorists aren't paying the full costs, so what would you rather call it?

But motorists are paying the full costs and more. Who pays the majority of income tax - people who are motorists so if they are being subsidised it's self subsidy.

Income tax is not a motoring tax. Maybe people who are motorists are subsiding themselves but they're doing so as ordinary taxpayers, alongside non-motorists.

On average non motorists receive far more taxpayer subsidy than motorists. According to the IFS 43% of the working population pay no income tax at all whilst just 300,000 taxpayers fund over 25% of the nations tax. The vast majority of the latter will be motorists while a minority of the former will be.

Will they? Don't the richest travel first-class and have people to drive for them? And I think there are a couple of claims there which don't hold water, but as I mentioned: they're irrelevant because it still means the costs of motoring are subsidised from other taxes.

What mode of transport is unsubsidised? It ain't motoring, for sure.

The point is if a person pays £30,000 a year in tax and receives £10,000 worth of benefits of all kind from the state they are not being "subsidised". If someone is paying £3000 a year in tax and receiving £10,000 worth of benefits from the state they are being"subsidised". You need to look at the overall picture. Anyone who is a net contributor to the nations revenues is, in your terms, "subsidising" those who are net takers from the revenue. It's how our society works. If taxation wasn't used to provide universal facilities then the currently badly off would be even worse off. To regard stuff paid for by taxation as being subsidised is wrong in my opinion. If you are against state provided things being "subsidised" then the alternative is those who use them should pay the full cost. You have bigger targets than motoring - tilt at the NHS and the education system for a start.

[mjr]

And my point which seems to be being wilfully ignored is that all transport is tax funded in some way, or whatever you want to call it. That alone doesn't make it a bad idea, contrary to the earlier claim.