Teachers and Sick Leave..

[andikay]

Oh no. Please don't do that. But also, don't be surprised when folks disagree with you.

 

You are not disagreeing you are attacking the members because they disagree with you.

You have actually agreed with me.

 

Here

 

So, not exactly the most informed basis for forming an opinion.

 

 

 

 

I agree entirely. If you read the rest of my posts on this thread, you should see that pretty clearly. I've also maintained consistently that malingering teachers are few and far between. They undoubtedly need sacking.

 

Long term illness can hit anyone. Most reputable private sector companies have sick pay schemes, just like the public sector. A teacher on genuine long term sick leave can have a disproportionate effect upon a small number of pupils. That is really an issue for the senior managers at the school to resolve. They should have the budget, the contacts and the creativity to make sure that the problem is dealt with. I know a place where that happens:wink:

 

Which still leaves us with mystery of why you and sues budgie are bad-mouthing a hardworking, valuable profession.

[taxman]

You are not disagreeing you are attacking the members because they disagree with you.

 

No, he is debating with you. He is also winning the argument.

[Guest sibon]

This is a forum, people become members to debate issues, my children’s education suffered because of a couple of teacher that never attended school, one of them was disable and couldn't teach, she couldn't be sacked or replaced. I can't make it any clearer. I'm not attacking all teachers just the ones that are incapable of working but are still being paid. If they can’t do the job they are being paid to do they should leave and allow the school to replace them.

Why attack the members because they disagree with you or have had a different experience than you?

 

So, you want to be able to disagree with others, but you don't think that I should be able to do likewise. That isn't going to make for a very interesting debate.

 

On to the points that you raise about your children. Quite simply, the school shouldn't have allowed long term absence to have a profound effect upon their education. They can appoint temporary replacements, rearrange timetables, use senior staff who carry a lighter teaching load etc. I assume that you discussed this with the school. You could also have moved your children to another school if the problem was so severe - although I appreciate that is a massive step.

 

As for not being able to sack teachers, it simply isn't true. I've seen plenty of teachers either asked to leave, or sacked because they weren't up to the job. Schools are under such massive scrutiny these days that they can't afford to tolerate underperforming teachers.

[Guest sibon]

No, he is debating with you. He is also winning the argument.

 

Maybe I know what I'm talking about for once:D

[andikay]

No, he is debating with you. He is also winning the argument.

 

So, not exactly the most informed basis for forming an opinion.

 

 

 

 

I agree entirely. If you read the rest of my posts on this thread, you should see that pretty clearly. I've also maintained consistently that malingering teachers are few and far between. They undoubtedly need sacking.

 

Long term illness can hit anyone. Most reputable private sector companies have sick pay schemes, just like the public sector. A teacher on genuine long term sick leave can have a disproportionate effect upon a small number of pupils. That is really an issue for the senior managers at the school to resolve. They should have the budget, the contacts and the creativity to make sure that the problem is dealt with. I know a place where that happens:wink:

 

Which still leaves us with mystery of why you and sues budgie are bad-mouthing a hardworking, valuable profession.

 

My bold is an attack on a member not a disagreement, Sibson as done this on several occasions, what does admin keep says attack the post not the member.

 

 

It’s not about winning or losing, I entered the debate because I had a bad experience on the subject being debated, there would be little point in the forum if members felt they shouldn’t contribute just because other members can’t resist attacking them.

[Guest sibon]

My bold is an attack on a member not a disagreement, Sibson as done this on several occasions, what does admin keep says attack the post not the member.

 

 

It’s not about winning or losing, I entered the debate because I had a bad experience on the subject being debated, there would be little point in the forum if members felt they shouldn’t contribute just because other members can’t resist attacking them.

 

You see, from my point of view, that is a question. You've answered it now and thanks for doing so.

 

It isn't a personal attack at all. I simply wanted to know why you had such a downer on the teaching profession.

 

I've no idea why sues budgie is on her high horse though.

[Wildcat]

What solution, you might want to read what I wrote again, all I have said is that people wouldn’t want to payer a builder to sit at home when he should be building your extension.

You wouldn’t pay a plumber to sit at home because he can’t bend over to fit your central heating.

You wouldn’t pay a taxi driver if he could no longer drive.

So why should we pay teachers that can no longer teach.

 

In which case you should read my response it was pretty clear

 

Let me try to make it simpler...

 

Where you want to retain employees for anything more than a short period of time you offer permanent contracts which includes sick pay.

 

Where you use casual contracts you get low staff retention rates, disrupted learning and a worse education for your children.

 

It should be fairly obvious... it is afterall the supply teachers on precisely the same sort of contracts as builders taxi drivers etc that were delivering the lower standard of teaching you are complaining about.

 

You are throwing the baby out with the bath water!

[andikay]

So, you want to be able to disagree with others, but you don't think that I should be able to do likewise. That isn't going to make for a very interesting debate.

 

On to the points that you raise about your children. Quite simply, the school shouldn't have allowed long term absence to have a profound effect upon their education. They can appoint temporary replacements, rearrange timetables, use senior staff who carry a lighter teaching load etc. I assume that you discussed this with the school. You could also have moved your children to another school if the problem was so severe - although I appreciate that is a massive step.

 

As for not being able to sack teachers, it simply isn't true. I've seen plenty of teachers either asked to leave, or sacked because they weren't up to the job. Schools are under such massive scrutiny these days that they can't afford to tolerate underperforming teachers.

 

 

 

You can debate without continually badmouthing other members because they have a different opinion to you.

I agree we could have moved school, I took the option of my children coming home and studying during the lessons with no permanent teacher, the school couldn’t sack or replace the teacher, I did everything I could but there was nothing they could do other than keep using supply teachers and they were useless.

[andikay]

In which case you should read my response it was pretty clear

 

Let me try to make it simpler...

 

Where you want to retain employees for anything more than a short period of time you offer permanent contracts which includes sick pay.

 

Where you use casual contracts you get low staff retention rates, disrupted learning and a worse education for your children.

 

I agree but that doesn't change the fact that if someone can't teach because they find teaching to stressful, they should find a job they can do.

[Guest sibon]

You can debate without continually badmouthing other members because they have a different opinion to you.

I agree we could have moved school, I took the option of my children coming home and studying during the lessons with no permanent teacher, the school couldn’t sack or replace the teacher, I did everything I could but there was nothing they could do other than keep using supply teachers and they were useless.

 

Was this recently?

 

I ask because there was a reluctance to tackle this sort of issue ten or fifteen years ago. These days, the stakes are too high. OFSTED have all sorts of powers to tackle underperformance in schools and Heads are constantly required to furnish them with information. If it goes wrong, the Head carries the can. Very few of them survive a negative OFSTED inspection. So they have no way to wriggle out of difficult decisions.

 

Of course, that is very different from supporting a member of staff in genuine difficulty. Even then, good heads will make sure that the pupils are unaffected. For example, if the supply teachers are not of a massively high standard, classes can be shared with a more skilled colleague.