Schools 'break law' on teaching assistants

[alan-d]

I wonder how many HTs have squeaky bottoms after reading this?

 

BBC News - Schools 'break law' on teaching assistants, NUT claims

[MkII]

In my area schools have 100% totally unqualified (as TA's let alone teaching - some of the teachers aren't qualified as teachers) TAs taking classes alone on a permanent basis.. ie timetabled. Supply teachers are almost non existent in the 11 - 16 bracket. Around here teachers get cut rather than TA's. And inexperienced and non experienced teachers that take on senior positions. It's all about saving money. Personally I see no point sending my kids to a school that's no more than a child minding facility. My kids can play sodoku and watch films in their spare time if they really want to.

[webman]

Teachers and their unions have priced themselves out of jobs and work, with silly salaries and "non-contact time". It seems schools can no longer afford as many of them as they need to fill the timetable, so have to resort to other means. Cover supervisors, TAs, caretakers......

[chrbb]

Sorry don't agree with that statement, teachers in their first few years are on pitiful salaries.

 

My son's a primary school teacher in his second year on £22000, he has one session of ppa a week, runs all the after school/lunchtimes sports sessions, including matches. Works most evenings and weekends on marking and preparation.

[localzuk]

Sorry don't agree with that statement, teachers in their first few years are on pitiful salaries.

 

My son's a primary school teacher in his second year on £22000, he has one session of ppa a week, runs all the after school/lunchtimes sports sessions, including matches. Works most evenings and weekends on marking and preparation.

 

Starting pay is bad? Shocker... All jobs start on 'low' pay. How many careers do you know of which go up by almost £10k in 5 years? If he's only getting 1 PPA session a week, then the school is breaking his contract (teachers are entitled to an amount not less than 10% of timetabled teaching time as PPA time).

 

I agree with webman - teachers have priced themselves out of jobs and work. Why do you think most schools are so keen on hiring NQTs? They're cheaper than hiring someone with a couple years experience!

[chrbb]

Police constables start on more and increase by the same amount as do firefighters, they don't need a degree though, which has to be paid back. Lots of careers go up by that amount, because they're um careers not jobs!

[localzuk]

Police constables start on more and increase by the same amount as do firefighters, they don't need a degree though, which has to be paid back. Lots of careers go up by that amount, because they're um careers not jobs!

 

Police constables and fire fighters have slightly higher risk jobs though... Police are regularly involved in altercations, have to deal with drug users (and their associated needles etc...) and the like. Fire fighters have to deal with fires, floods, etc... A lot more dangerous than the average teaching job.

 

Teaching is a well paid career, whatever anyone says, and anyone who complains about it needs to wake up to the real world where most people don't get such good pay, pensions, or holidays - regardless of having a degree or not.

[Guest theeldergeek]

Sorry don't agree with that statement, teachers in their first few years are on pitiful salaries.

 

My son's a primary school teacher in his second year on £22000, he has one session of ppa a week, runs all the after school/lunchtimes sports sessions, including matches. Works most evenings and weekends on marking and preparation.

 

I'd do all that, and more, for 22k a year! I'm an ICT Technician, skilled in a huge array of different technologies but I earn less than 20k a year, and spend much of my own time 'working' in one respect or another. I might not be "qualified" per se, but my skills are just as valuable to industry and in particular, education.

 

Teachers are paid excessively for what they do in my opinion, particularly those at more 'senior' levels.

 

And it infuriates me to hear teachers complaining they can't afford this, that or something else when my wife and I are surviving on a joint income which, in some cases, is less than a single 'qualified' teacher earns!

Edited July 3, 2010 by theeldergeek

[chrbb]

Not been in been in one of our local schools then!

 

Presumably there's a reason why we're not all teachers then if the salary is so good

[mossj]

Spend much of my own time 'working' in one respect or another.

and teachers don't I assume?

I might not be "qualified" per se, but my skills are just as valuable to industry and in particular, education.

Schools survived without IT and could at a push again (although it wouldn't be a very good school)

Teachers are paid excessively for what they do in my opinion, particularly those at more 'senior' levels.

No there not I think they are paid just about right.... some senior IT positions are paid excessivily well, just like in all prefessions the higher up the ladder the more pay you get.

[Guest theeldergeek]

and teachers don't I assume?

 

Assume what you like. I never said they do, or don't.

 

Schools survived without IT and could at a push again (although it wouldn't be a very good school)

 

Sorry, but I'm not entirely sure what point you are making, but if it's the one I think you are making, you are being wholly unrealistic.

 

I should just pack up and go then should I, my job is really quite unnecessary after all?

 

No there not I think they are paid just about right.... some senior IT positions are paid excessivily well, just like in all prefessions the higher up the ladder the more pay you get.

 

Well, I don't expect you to agree with me over teachers pay any more than I do your political views, however, I've yet to meet anyone 'senior' in IT who is "paid excessively" that isn't actually worth it and gets 13 weeks holiday a year.

Edited July 3, 2010 by theeldergeek

[Guest theeldergeek]

Not been in been in one of our local schools then!

 

Presumably there's a reason why we're not all teachers then if the salary is so good

 

No, I haven't been in one of your local schools, why would I?

 

I wouldn't want to be a teacher, much the same as teachers wouldn't want to be ICT Technicians.

 

What point were you making?

[FN-GM]

Starting pay is bad? Shocker... All jobs start on 'low' pay. How many careers do you know of which go up by almost £10k in 5 years? If he's only getting 1 PPA session a week, then the school is breaking his contract (teachers are entitled to an amount not less than 10% of timetabled teaching time as PPA time).

 

I agree with webman - teachers have priced themselves out of jobs and work. Why do you think most schools are so keen on hiring NQTs? They're cheaper than hiring someone with a couple years experience!

 

I totally agree there.

 

Police constables start on more and increase by the same amount as do firefighters, they don't need a degree though, which has to be paid back. Lots of careers go up by that amount, because they're um careers not jobs!

 

It might be worth pointing out that firefighters do longer days sometimes 16+ hours. Plus the job is dangerous. Also take into account the holidays a teacher has.

 

Really paying back the degree isnt a good argument. When your son decided to be a teacher he already knew he would have a degree to pay for. A degree isn't mandatory for good pay. There are plenty of well paid jobs, better than teachers that don't require a degree. A plumber is an example. When your son decided to become a teacher he would already know what the pay is and what to expect.

Edited July 3, 2010 by FN-GM

[leco]

Getting back to the original topic ... Many headteachers are using "members of the wider school workforce" to take classes. Many headteachers are employing NQTs, the teaching profession would eventually become extinct if not.

 

Way back in the mists of political rhetoric someone suggested that more adults in the classroom would be a good thing. It was predicted that these other adults would in time take over from teachers. The teaching unions objected, as did the wider school workforce unions. Parents didn't like the idea of their children being taught by non-qualified people. However, over time these objections have somehow been forgotten all in the cause of economy. Cut budgets and that's what happens.

[PiqueABoo]

over time these objections have somehow been forgotten

 

You think? Not by a single parents I can think of from Sprogette's Primary class where Teacher is the DH and the amount of time the class are abandoned to TAs has been a serious bone of contention all year.

 

More generally you wouldn't need so much TA help at that level if there hadn't been the political mandates to a) Be unrealistically exclusive i.e. leave some seriously disruptive kids in classes (which in many cases significantly undermines everyone else's education even with a TA around to help keep them in check), b) Be unrealistically differential i.e. expect Teacher to magically tailor every lesson to every kid's unique learning capability.

 

Teachers and their unions have priced themselves out of jobs and work, with silly salaries and "non-contact time".

 

Again coz I live with one and know very well what the real scale of her job is I definitely don't agree with that either. Yes some Teachers do get away with doing a fraction of the job the ought to do (and whose fault is it for letting that happen and how much are they paid to stop it happening?), but you can not extrapolate that to all Teachers.

[webman]

PiqueABoo: I don't apply it to all teachers at all, but the unions (and some teachers). They fought for more pay, and got it. They fought for less teaching time, and got it. They fought for the dropping of "admin tasks" and they got that too. So now schools are faced with teachers who cost more, teach less, and do very few "admin" duties. Students still have to be taught and admin duties still need to be carried out - so naturally this then falls to everyone else (who don't have the luxury of über-strong unions, or decent/fair pay & conditions, or the amount of holiday time...)

 

The education system is so unbalanced that this behaviour from schools is extremely likely and, it seems, popular.

[leco]

You think? Not by a single parents I can think of from Sprogette's Primary class where Teacher is the DH and the amount of time the class are abandoned to TAs has been a serious bone of contention all year.

Sounds very familiar - does she come to my school?

More generally you wouldn't need so much TA help at that level if there hadn't been the political mandates to a) Be unrealistically exclusive i.e. leave some seriously disruptive kids in classes (which in many cases significantly undermines everyone else's education even with a TA around to help keep them in check), b) Be unrealistically differential i.e. expect Teacher to magically tailor every lesson to every kid's unique learning capability.

Now don't get me going on that one - I was attempting to keep the discussion focussed on use of "cheaper teaching staff" - but I could go off on one about integration/differentiation/every child matters etc.

[SimpleSi]

I am that bogeyman that the NUT fears

 

The union is not particulary worried about poor teaching - they are just looking after their members and trying to make sure their members have well paid jobs.

 

Heads have to live in a semi-real world and only have so much money to spend - so some of the time they use non-teachers to educate children.

 

regards

 

Simon

[laserblazer]

Maybe our school is different but when the TAs take a class they do it properly. The kids are made to toe the line. This might be because the majority of our TAs are very able and have experience in raising kids.

[Firefly_Transport]

Maybe our school is different but when the TAs take a class they do it properly. The kids are made to toe the line. This might be because the majority of our TAs are very able and have experience in raising kids.

 

Yes: thats is good, and much power to them

 

BUT

 

Are they properly covered by the Insurance?

 

Where do they stand in the event of a problem?

 

Given that they are in all probability paid rather less - is that fair to them for the work, or to teachers who have pay deals undermined.

 

Do they have ALL the training they should have?

 

 

 

Clearly it is not a clear-cut issue, but given the potential moves to the use of instructors and commercial trainers to widen the base of learning for students; these issue have to be sorted out accross the country. If its done well - great - but if it isn't, and I belive in most cases that will be the reality, it will blowup in the relevant schools face.

 

There is a nasty habit in the country of doing something on the fly and only dealing with it after the inevitable enquiry.

[featured_spectre]

Right, Having been put in the situation where I have been told "Teach these lessons or lose your job", I can say this. They say that they are specialists, and to a point I agree when they teach secondary level and above. Primary teachers need to essentially be a jack of all trades, covering all aspects of education - that does NOT make them a specialist.

 

Teachers are on TOO HIGH a wage for what they do. Not one teacher I knows does marking in the holidays, not one. I know ~400 teachers over 5 schools, and I have asked around 3/4 of them what do they do in the holidays? The main bulk of answers were "go away with the spouse", "relax", "do something I enjoy", not ONE said they do marking.

 

When I asked about marking, the bulk said that they "do it in PPA time, as that is plenty of time to get it done", and occasionally they will either come in early at 8amand do marking until 8:50 (provided they dont have any morning briefings or anything) and occasionally stay until 4pm (I am in at 7:30 doing morning checks on all whiteboards, projectors, and PCs, I leave at 5pm at which point I have done my nightly clean up of ICT suites, turned off all equipment etc).

 

In my school, teachers do an 8am - 4pm (MAXIMUM) or 8:45 - 3:25 (MINIMUM) job, with 20 minute break in the morning, 1 hour 10 mins for lunch, and 15 min break in the afternoon (so 1 hour 45 mins break all together). The union reps in my school, is pushing for 9am starts for teachers (school starts at 8:50 currently) and 3pm finish (it finishes currently at 3:20), and the teachers to leave at 3:10, and ANY detentions to be taken care of by TA's, LSA's or Ancillery staff. Unfair? I think so!

 

Now I have NO teaching background whatsoever but I was told by the headteacher to teach or lose my job (and I am currently taking the head to a tribunal regarding this as she knew that I would refuse), but how is it fair that I did not sign a teaching contract, NOWHERE in my contract does it say I should teach, I am in no way qualified to be a teacher, so why do they have the ability to force this upon me?

 

Admin staff in my school, do MORE paperwork, on LESS hours, and LESS pay, with MORE stress, and teachers pile on their paperwork on top! That is also unfair.

 

For my skill set I am paid BELOW national average, I am on ~£18000 at the minute (I have been offered jobs where I could walk out here today and be paid £35'000, but I stay because of the job satisfaction), and yet a teacher is on ~£30'000 (AVERAGE!) for doing less hours, less work (in my opinion), for being exceptionally rude to ancillery staff, because (and this is a direct quote from our old science teacher) "I am better than you because I have a degree and I earn more" (I have heard other teaching staff say worse to TA's, and not just in my school so I know it isnt isolated).

 

Teachers should grow a pair of cajones, and do the job they have signed the contract to do, and unions should stop being so greedy and leaving the rest of us to pick up the pieces.

 

Now lets watch the neg rep and arguments come in!

[PiqueABoo]

Can't be asked coz it's becoming increasingly ridiculous, but I'd recommend studying a bit group psychology, specifically the stuff about in-groups and out-groups.

[witch]

They say that they are specialists, and to a point I agree when they teach secondary level and above. Primary teachers need to essentially be a jack of all trades, covering all aspects of education - that does NOT make them a specialist.

 

I have some sympathy with the rest of your post, but I must take issue with the above statement. I believe that primary, and more specifically, reception and early years teachers are probably the most important and MOST specialist teachers of all. What they are specialist in, is TEACHING. They take very small children and teach them how to listen, how to sit still, how to read and write and count, all of which are skills that a child cannot progress without.

Up to Year 8 (that's as far as I know well) most good teachers could make a reasonable stab at most subjects but the teachers of the higher years would get nowhere with the little ones. They expect their pupils to be able to do the basics all ready.

We all remember the good teachers and the bad ones. Some of us have followed certain paths in life due to the teachers we had. It is important to have good teachers because of the level of influence they have and the shaping they do of young lives.

I think the pay/work balance is just about right at the bottom/middle ends, but I do think that the top end is a bit over paid. A good teacher is worth his or her weight in gold, but this doesnt necessarily apply to year leaders or whatever!

I also know a lot of teachers and I do agree that some only put in the standard day that the rest of us do. BUT most of them do marking at weekends and spend the last few days of any week off, or last week at least of the summer holidays, preparing and marking.

There was a time when teachers were seriously underpaid - those days have gone and most teachers admit that - they really want the unions to deal with the ridiculous unnecessary and irrelevant paperwork they have to wade through rather than go on and on about pay and conditions

[featured_spectre]

Point taken

[alan-d]

I just typed a lengthy reply but it disappeared before I could post it .

 

So a summary of a post that never was is;

 

Head Teachers have a finite budget to work with. There are many many good teachers respected by Support Staff, students, parents and other teachers and then there are the bad teachers who do the bare minimum necessary. Unfortunately it is usually those bad teachers that have the loudest voice in the Unions. Until Support staff have the same level of representation as teaching staff then HTs will always take the easier route to solve a problem. Support Staff are cheaper and easier to replace than teachers and until the imbalance is addressed this will always be the case.

 

So how do we resolve it? Pay Support Staff more? Sorry no money to do that. Reduce Teachers pay? Nope, sorry that would be unfair to those that do earn their pay and those 'Louder Voices' would bring the system down.

 

Whatever the solution is, it's going to be a long and probably painful process but at the same time normal or improved services are to continue. Catch 22?