Page 3 of 6
Re: Do we need teachers
Posted: 23 Apr 2014, 10:13am
by georgew
Allow politicians to use Education as a political tool and what you get is the current situation. Follow the example of Finland, where teachers are chosen from the highest qualified university students, given excellent training and then awarded accordingly as befits a high status occupation, and the situation is very different.
" There are no rankings, no comparisons or competition between students, schools or regions. Finland’s schools are publicly funded. The people in the government agencies running them, from national officials to local authorities, are educators, not business people, military leaders or career politicians. Every school has the same national goals and draws from the same pool of university-trained educators."
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovatio ... 55/?page=2Such is the lack of respect given to the profession by the present Government, that they have decided that now teachers require little or no training. Little wonder then that some posters share the same attitude but I do wonder just how long these people would survive with their sanity intact after a few years in teaching.
Do read the whole article if you want some insight into what our education system should and hopefully could be.
Re: Do we need teachers
Posted: 23 Apr 2014, 10:32am
by kwackers
georgew wrote:Little wonder then that some posters share the same attitude but I do wonder just how long these people would survive with their sanity intact after a few years in teaching.
Personally I think the above attitude that teaching is such a specialist skill that it can only be practised by a tiny group of unique individuals and that if normal folk tried it they'd fail and go mad is what actually drives my attitude...
IME, most teachers are ordinary folk - they simply think they're somehow more special than the rest of us. It's this 'ordinariness' which makes most of them distinctly lacklustre but imo the structure in the public sector makes it difficult to weed the ordinary folk out and better reward those that really are a bit 'special'.
Re: Do we need teachers
Posted: 23 Apr 2014, 10:53am
by georgew
kwackers wrote:georgew wrote:Little wonder then that some posters share the same attitude but I do wonder just how long these people would survive with their sanity intact after a few years in teaching.
Personally I think the above attitude that teaching is such a specialist skill that it can only be practised by a tiny group of unique individuals and that if normal folk tried it they'd fail and go mad is what actually drives my attitude...
IME, most teachers are ordinary folk - they simply think they're somehow more special than the rest of us. It's this 'ordinariness' which makes most of them distinctly lacklustre but imo the structure in the public sector makes it difficult to weed the ordinary folk out and better reward those that really are a bit 'special'.
Can I ask if you have taught?
Again, exactly where did I imply that teachers are "special"? I do think that they should be carefully selected, highly educated and carefully trained however. If that excludes them from being "ordinary" then too bad. I graduated many years ago with a Joint Hon. Psych/Philosophy degree plus a post graduate qualification and I dare-say could have made my way in the commercial world. In fact I did so up to the age of thirty when I entered University. I chose teaching as I thought of it as a noble and worthwhile profession and now, having been retired for many years, I still think so.
Do read the article in the link.
Re: Do we need teachers
Posted: 23 Apr 2014, 11:10am
by kwackers
georgew wrote:Can I ask if you have taught?
No, the nearest I've come is as a 'guest speaker' on a couple of occasions.
georgew wrote:Again, exactly where did I imply that teachers are "special"? I do think that they should be carefully selected, highly educated and carefully trained however.
It's implied in your statement: "I do wonder just how long these people would survive with their sanity intact after a few years in teaching"
georgew wrote:If that excludes them from being "ordinary" then too bad.
Which is exactly the point I tried to make.
Currently most teachers are ordinary, they were mostly ordinary when I was a kid too. Only a couple stood out. And yet they ask us to treat them as something special, that I should fund them a better pension and wages than I can earn myself!
I'd have no problem doing that for the good ones, but I've no intention of supporting such action for the majority that I see as simply 'cruising' to a nice retirement (thank you very much).
georgew wrote:Do read the article in the link.
I did.
Re: Do we need teachers
Posted: 23 Apr 2014, 11:22am
by Psamathe
kwackers wrote:georgew wrote:Little wonder then that some posters share the same attitude but I do wonder just how long these people would survive with their sanity intact after a few years in teaching.
Personally I think the above attitude that teaching is such a specialist skill that it can only be practised by a tiny group of unique individuals and that if normal folk tried it they'd fail and go mad is what actually drives my attitude...
I think there are many jobs where people come under exceptional pressure. Different jobs and different pressures. Just because employees in one job consider their's high-pressure does not mean that other jobs are not. I spent much of my career in IT and (surprisingly) saw somebody completely crack-up under pressure (he was shaking and we really thought his heart was going to give out - a software bug was about to send hundreds of millions of £ "down the toilet" as a spacecraft was expected to literally destroy itself; we just laughed and got on spending 36 hrs sorting it out). Loads of examples where my career/employment has exerted exceptional pressure. I did not have a holiday for 15 years and only got 2 Bank Holidays a year (and weekends just meant working even longer hours from home). But it was just "the job" and you got on and did it. I'm sure loads of others have similar experiences.
Ian
Re: Do we need teachers
Posted: 23 Apr 2014, 11:40am
by georgew
kwackers wrote:georgew wrote:Currently most teachers are ordinary, they were mostly ordinary when I was a kid too. Only a couple stood out. And yet they ask us to treat them as something special, that I should fund them a better pension and wages than I can earn myself!
I'd have no problem doing that for the good ones, but I've no intention of supporting such action for the majority that I see as simply 'cruising' to a nice retirement (thank you very much).
georgew wrote:Do read the article in the link.
I did.
And? ...... if you read the article then I take it that you have no view on this as an alternative.
I do wonder, given that you see the profession as such an easy option and a means of "cruising " to a nice retirement, why you didn't choose to become a teacher yourself. Could it have something to do with this?
"An extensive NASUWT study has examined a number of dimensions and factors relating to health and safety issues in schools and colleges from the perspective of nearly 6,000 teachers, school and college leaders and health and safety trade union representatives. The subsequent report, Safe to Teach?, published in 2008, found the majority of respondents (69%) reported having suffered from work-related stress and in more than three in ten (31%) cases this resulted in members needing to take time off work."
http://www.nasuwt.org.uk/TrainingEvents ... UWT_004882This is merely one of many research findings which report the same findings.
Still, don't let this deter you, after all, being ordinary should be qualification enough in your view.
Re: Do we need teachers
Posted: 23 Apr 2014, 11:41am
by kwackers
Psamathe wrote:I think there are many jobs where people come under exceptional pressure. Different jobs and different pressures.
And that's exactly where I'm coming from. I'm fed up with public service employees trying to elevate their jobs above all the others and the rhetoric they use to do so - and mainly in order to line their own pockets to boot.
Re: Do we need teachers
Posted: 23 Apr 2014, 11:50am
by kwackers
georgew wrote:And? ...... if you read the article then I take it that you have no view on this as an alternative.
There's several threads worth of discussion in that article which don't (imo) contribute to the current one.
georgew wrote:why you didn't choose to become a teacher yourself.
Because I didn't want to...? I don't follow the "if it's so good/easy/blah then you would have done it yourself" argument - what sort of argument is that?
I deal with people all the time who thought that entering my profession would be an easy way to making money. Unfortunately they're usually wrong, you need to be good and more importantly - lucky (like most other professions) otherwise it can be a long slog...
georgew wrote:Could it have something to do with this?
Teachers suffer from stress - as does half the working population. And so it seems we're back to considering teachers stress to be higher than anyone else's? Why would that be?
I'd also suspect that as a teacher having work of due to stress you'd be much better looked after by your employer/union than most private companies. I wonder how many people suffering from stress in private companies simply soldier on? With no unions looking after them and collating figures for political use then we may never know...
Re: Do we need teachers
Posted: 23 Apr 2014, 12:14pm
by georgew
kwackers wrote:Psamathe wrote:I think there are many jobs where people come under exceptional pressure. Different jobs and different pressures.
Right. So this is reason enough to ignore the stress of teachers which is amply evidenced.
And that's exactly where I'm coming from. I'm fed up with public service employees trying to elevate their jobs above all the others and the rhetoric they use to do so - and mainly in order to line their own pockets to boot.
Well, looking on the bright side it does seem that Cameron's propaganda aimed at dividing our citizenry has been successful: private sector employees (hard-working and deserving); public service workers (idle, overpaid and undeserving); sick, disabled and unemployed (idle and undeserving).
Such credulity which combined with envy, pays rich rewards for the politicians who use towards their own ends.
Re: Do we need teachers
Posted: 23 Apr 2014, 12:32pm
by Vorpal
kwackers wrote:Psamathe wrote:I think there are many jobs where people come under exceptional pressure. Different jobs and different pressures.
And that's exactly where I'm coming from. I'm fed up with public service employees trying to elevate their jobs above all the others and the rhetoric they use to do so - and mainly in order to line their own pockets to boot.
I don't believe that teachers are trying to elevate their jobs above others. Many people with bachelors' degrees in industry make 150% what teachers do. I've known people with technical or accounting degrees, just out of university to make nearly as much as the *maximum* salary for teachers. And they weren't exceptional people. They just chose careers that would make more money than teaching.
While teachers have other compensations, such as generous summer holidays and a public pension scheme, IMO it's not enough to make up the difference in salary. All of the teachers I know went into teaching (and have stayed with it) because they love teaching and want to contribute that way to society, not because they want to be public employees, or somehow elevate their jobs above others. It's certainly not a profession to enter just for sake of lining one's pockets. Most other professions which require university education make more money than teaching.
Stress is something else, and IMO poorly managed by employers of all sorts in the UK, public and private.
Re: Do we need teachers
Posted: 23 Apr 2014, 12:34pm
by Psamathe
georgew wrote:kwackers wrote:Psamathe wrote:I think there are many jobs where people come under exceptional pressure. Different jobs and different pressures.
Right. So this is reason enough to ignore the stress of teachers which is amply evidenced.
And that's exactly where I'm coming from. I'm fed up with public service employees trying to elevate their jobs above all the others and the rhetoric they use to do so - and mainly in order to line their own pockets to boot.
Well, looking on the bright side it does seem that Cameron's propaganda aimed at dividing our citizenry has been successful: private sector employees (hard-working and deserving); public service workers (idle, overpaid and undeserving); sick, disabled and unemployed (idle and undeserving).
Such credulity which combined with envy, pays rich rewards for the politicians who use towards their own ends.
The politicians are mainly referring to the senior management and directors when they talk about "private sector" deserving obscene incomes and bonuses (and mainly financial sector ex-public school men).
Whilst few believe Cameron's spin and PR, it gets harder in the case of the "undeserving public sector". And the Conservatives have got even that accusation wrong in the past (e.g. when they have gone for the NHS nurses). But as somebody pointed out earlier, poor performing employees don't remain in post long in the private sector but can in the public sector. They may/may not be a minority but they are very obvious to everybody. My own experience with e.g. Planning Departments easily illustrates the inadequacy of quite a few employees. So whatever the truth, such "lazy and undeserving" spin and PR becomes easy to believe even if not true across the entire pubic sector.
Most companies have good and bad times and in the bad times it can be necessary to cut staffing levels and most companies will lose the least capable staff (irrespective of redundancy pay-offs, etc.). I suspect that the public sector tend to use voluntary redundancy as far as possible (meaning the more capable take a larger pay-off as they stand a good chance of getting another job). So there can be a tendency for the least capable to accumulate in post.
Ian
Re: Do we need teachers
Posted: 23 Apr 2014, 12:44pm
by Psamathe
Vorpal wrote:...
While teachers have other compensations, such as generous summer holidays and a public pension scheme, IMO it's not enough to make up the difference in salary. All of the teachers I know went into teaching (and have stayed with it) because they love teaching and want to contribute that way to society, not because they want to be public employees, or somehow elevate their jobs above others. It's certainly not a profession to enter just for sake of lining one's pockets. Most other professions which require university education make more money than teaching.
In theory under our capitalist system market forces should come into play where the advantages and disadvantages balance to provide the right number of people wanting any role. It the advantages outweigh the disadvantages then you get far more (suitable) applicants for any position whilst when the disadvantages outweigh the advantages you cannot recruit (suitable) staff.
So in theory it should be "self-correcting". Maybe the difficulty comes in defining "suitable applicant". I would assume that as the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, so the quality of applicants would decline. But I would also assume that no school would appoint an unsuitable applicant. And the balance can change over time (as it can in any employment) and there are never guarantees that the balance (as any individual determines it) will be maintained throughout your career (and striking when the balance shifts is difficult to justify). Everybody is subject to market forces impacting their employment "package".
That is not to say I think our "Capitalist" system so good - but that's another subject.
Ian
Re: Do we need teachers
Posted: 23 Apr 2014, 1:06pm
by kwackers
georgew wrote:Well, looking on the bright side it does seem that Cameron's propaganda aimed at dividing our citizenry has been successful: private sector employees (hard-working and deserving); public service workers (idle, overpaid and undeserving); sick, disabled and unemployed (idle and undeserving).
Such credulity which combined with envy, pays rich rewards for the politicians who use towards their own ends.
If you want to ignore everything I've said you'd be correct.
There are rubbish people in all professions, the good(?) thing about private employers over public ones is it's easier to either get rid, downgrade or reposition them whilst rewarding those that are genuinely good.
With teachers we seem to have a lot of shouting about how they collectively are worth every penny - the good, bad and indifferent included.
Re: Do we need teachers
Posted: 23 Apr 2014, 1:15pm
by georgew
kwackers wrote:georgew wrote:
why you didn't choose to become a teacher yourself.
Because I didn't want to...?
I don't follow the "if it's so good/easy/blah then you would have done it yourself" argument - what sort of argument is that?
Here's the thing.
When someone describes teaching in such glowing terms and sees it as such an easy job that the "ordinary" man on the street can walk in and do it, and then goes on to talk of it being well paid, having "cushy" pension arrangements and all, it does seem reasonable that the speaker sees this job as attractive and would be expected to pursue it. Now I have no idea as to why you didn't choose to do this
Re: Do we need teachers
Posted: 23 Apr 2014, 1:16pm
by Vorpal
Psamathe wrote:So in theory it should be "self-correcting". Maybe the difficulty comes in defining "suitable applicant". I would assume that as the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, so the quality of applicants would decline. But I would also assume that no school would appoint an unsuitable applicant. And the balance can change over time (as it can in any employment) and there are never guarantees that the balance (as any individual determines it) will be maintained throughout your career (and striking when the balance shifts is difficult to justify). Everybody is subject to market forces impacting their employment "package".
But when teaching positions were going unfilled 15 years ago, I believe that there were unsuitable appointments made. And some of those people are still in the system, which probably contributes to the attitudes expressed by those who believe that teachers are trying to milk the system. They made some attempts to fix the problem by making the requirements more stringent, which had the immediate impact of more teaching jobs going unfilled. It was then that, as I understand it, salaries were increased, and especially for those entering teaching as a career change.
This **** attitude about the public sector is borrowed from the USA, where people like Scott Walker have all but broken the unions, and; IMO, ruined a state education system in Wisconsin that was once one of the top ranked in the USA. And other politicians have learned form his example and are borrowing his tactics, not just in the USA, but also in the UK. I think it stinks.
The way to save money in government is *NOT* by making cuts, especially in education. Education is the future, and cuts in education today will impact the economy for 30 years.
To improve prosperity, countries need to invest in their countries and their people. Scandinavia was little affected by the economic recession because Scandinavian countries invested in infrastructure and *increased* money for education in the same period that other countries were decreasing spending.
Even if people really think that public sector employees are overpaid, it's a drop in the sea compared to other government spending. There are many opportunities for cuts that won't harm the education system. We should look there first.