tonys wrote:

Kate P wrote:

tonys - what about the free overtime the department gets out of teachers involved in extra-curricular activities? Without them, the character of our schools would be lost as would those great relationship-building experiences. At the same time, the level of commitment is extraordinary. We come back to the same point you haven't yet responded to which really is the value placed on teachers and the teaching profession by the department.

I thought I had. Anyway as I see it like a Soldier or a Guard who expects to see in his/her wage packet, recognition for the fact he/she may be asked to risk their life in the course of their duty, a teacher who expects to see their real value recognised through pay is I suspect, in the wrong job.
If you’ve got the talent & find it a fulfilling career, I think it is well paid & the holiday arrangements more than compensate for extra curricular work, which in any event I would think, looking from the outside, is probably the most fulfilling part of it.

I'm charmed tonys. Answering the question with another question or by focussing on something entirely different is not, in fact answering the question.

But there are a couple of points worth picking up in the peculiar, twisty logic of your response.
1. Soldiers who take tours abroad often do because it's financially very rewarding. It's an added extra, if you like that is to a degree expected but is remunerated.
2. To suggest that doing extra curricular activities is a fundamental hazard of the job, like the risk of losing life in the course of duty is incorrect, a strawman for several reasons. You're a bright guy, you don't need me to point them out to you.
3. Teaching is a profession, not a vocation. Your response above suggests that unpaid overtime is something that teachers should simply do and offer it up for the holy souls. It isn't.
4. The holidays do not compensate for the unpaid overtime - otherwise there'd be a discriminating mechanism that equates the length of holidays with the voluntary input of the teacher. This is not the case.
5. Teaching can be a fulfilling career regardless of the extra-curricular involvement of the teacher - job satisfaction doesn't depend in teaching on productive overtime any more than it does in nursing, the army, the prison service or the legal profession. The logic of that presupposition escapes me completely.
6. As does the breathtakingly arrogant presumption that a professional who considers fair payment for fair hours worked is somehow in the wrong job. The "real value" of a teacher is never measured in pounds, shillings and pence, and that is a substantially different propostion to the one I'm asking you to deal with - the fact that the Department of Education does not value the hours worked by teachers outside the timetable.

I'm asking a question about economics, not about emotions, philosophies, ideologies, or idealisms. Leaving all of those aside, tonys - can you answer the question? Why doesn't the Department of Education place an economic value on the hours worked by teachers outside the timetable? I could add "... un the name of the kind of rounded education the curricula tend not to provide" but I'd hate to divert you from the course of true economics.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

What did the people at the meeting say EvotingMachine?

The parents or the speakers ?

Well, both ?

Kate P wrote:

tonys wrote:

Kate P wrote:

tonys - what about the free overtime the department gets out of teachers involved in extra-curricular activities? Without them, the character of our schools would be lost as would those great relationship-building experiences. At the same time, the level of commitment is extraordinary. We come back to the same point you haven't yet responded to which really is the value placed on teachers and the teaching profession by the department.

I thought I had. Anyway as I see it like a Soldier or a Guard who expects to see in his/her wage packet, recognition for the fact he/she may be asked to risk their life in the course of their duty, a teacher who expects to see their real value recognised through pay is I suspect, in the wrong job.
If you’ve got the talent & find it a fulfilling career, I think it is well paid & the holiday arrangements more than compensate for extra curricular work, which in any event I would think, looking from the outside, is probably the most fulfilling part of it.

I'm charmed tonys. Answering the question with another question or by focussing on something entirely different is not, in fact answering the question.

But there are a couple of points worth picking up in the peculiar, twisty logic of your response.
1. Soldiers who take tours abroad often do because it's financially very rewarding. It's an added extra, if you like that is to a degree expected but is remunerated.
2. To suggest that doing extra curricular activities is a fundamental hazard of the job, like the risk of losing life in the course of duty is incorrect, a strawman for several reasons. You're a bright guy, you don't need me to point them out to you.
3. Teaching is a profession, not a vocation. Your response above suggests that unpaid overtime is something that teachers should simply do and offer it up for the holy souls. It isn't.
4. The holidays do not compensate for the unpaid overtime - otherwise there'd be a discriminating mechanism that equates the length of holidays with the voluntary input of the teacher. This is not the case.
5. Teaching can be a fulfilling career regardless of the extra-curricular involvement of the teacher - job satisfaction doesn't depend in teaching on productive overtime any more than it does in nursing, the army, the prison service or the legal profession. The logic of that presupposition escapes me completely.
6. As does the breathtakingly arrogant presumption that a professional who considers fair payment for fair hours worked is somehow in the wrong job. The "real value" of a teacher is never measured in pounds, shillings and pence, and that is a substantially different propostion to the one I'm asking you to deal with - the fact that the Department of Education does not value the hours worked by teachers outside the timetable.

I'm asking a question about economics, not about emotions, philosophies, ideologies, or idealisms. Leaving all of those aside, tonys - can you answer the question? Why doesn't the Department of Education place an economic value on the hours worked by teachers outside the timetable? I could add "... un the name of the kind of rounded education the curricula tend not to provide" but I'd hate to divert you from the course of true economics.

"If you’ve got the talent & find it a fulfilling career, I think it is well paid & the holiday arrangements more than compensate for extra curricular work, which in any event I would think, looking from the outside, is probably the most fulfilling part of it."

That's the second time I've explained to you my postion on the "extra work" teachers have to do and no I don't except the ridiculous notion that teachers pay is for 9 months spread over 12.