Forum menu
S'funny Junky - according to you you cannot read my posts as you block them... 😉
not at work you can goad me then 😉
So, at the moment, for a school to be seen as "acceptable" the teachers need to coax a whole 35% of the pupils to 5 GCSE grade A-Cand teachers get paid for this!
Nationally pretty easy locally, well you try it. As I said my current school is over 80% my last one was struggling to top 20% the first was the better run school with better resources and better teachers but it had kids from a massively different socio economic background, massively different priorities from pupils and parents and vastly inferior prior attainment. To judge a school based on this is the argument of an idiot, hence you and Mr Gove
It alarms me how many people have the attitude that teachers should just 'suck it up' and take the shafting because 'it's worse in the private sector'.
WTF! what kind of way is that to live your life? Let's all be grateful for the scraps thrown from the big table????? Don't forget to doff your caps when the boss walks by...
Isn't teaching of children an important job? why shouldn't there be good rewards in it?
I'm not a teacher.
Any mention of Gove deserves to be accompanied by this
As I said my current school is over 80% my last one was struggling to top 20% the first was the better run school with better resources and better teachers
And I imagine the salaries and pensions were the same in spite of the greatly differing results. Surely the vocational side of the job would push you into the challenge of getting 20% to a much higher level, imagine the personal satisfaction. Some things money just can't buy.
How is life in the current job?
EDIT:
Isn't teaching of children an important job? why shouldn't there be good rewards in it?
Who said there shouldn't be? Good rewards for good teachers, **** all for the lazy ****ers, but not a blanket right for everyone.
Other than performance related conditions how could you possibly differentiate between a good teacher and a bad one, other than the good ones would be more likely to do better in terms of promotion, etc.?
You can't use statistics for it, such as pass rates, because you are dealing with children, not numbers.
As I said, i'm not a teacher, and I don't know how a poor teacher would be improved into a better one??
Perhaps someone who has worked with a 'lazy ****er' could answer that? I can imagine it pisses them off more than most if they have to work with people like that. But it's going off on a tangent and is smoke and mirrors which takes away from what this is really about.
Also, Don Simon you said your pay was 60% of what it was some years ago. If you are self employed that is your choice and i'm guessing when times were good you were earning a substantial wedge - better than you could have earned in the Public Sector? You mentioned your pay is roughly 5k per month? is that after a 60% cut?
IMHO a spurious argument to say that Public Sector workers should accept this change to previously agreed proposals because the big money isn't available in the private sector anymore??
Yeah, inflation has been 4+% for the last two or three years. In real terms, it feels like much more than this to me. I haven't had a pay rise in two years and likely won't get one this year. Doesn't mean that because I'm feeling the pinch everyone else should.
this country is ****ed
p.s. because it's not about people feathering their nest - it's about getting what they deserve to have a decent life in retirement.
I despair about the social conscience of this country.
Also, Don Simon you said your pay was 60% of what it was some years ago. If you are self employed that is your choice and i'm guessing when times were good you were earning a substantial wedge - better than you could have earned in the Public Sector? You mentioned your pay is roughly 5k per month? is that after a 60% cut?
Rremember I'm not the one who's complaining here. The answer to your question are in my previous post, if you'd care to look again.
My personal beef is that the public sector teachers have chosen a life, a job a vocation. They knew the deal before they signed up, long term contracts, good paid holidays and a pension. The pay off for this, imo, is a lower income in return for lower risk, long term contracts etc. Now we have teachers complaining, nay demanding, that there conditions shouldn't change even though this could have a negative impact on the country, they want to have their cake and eat it AND try to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
I can remember my sister, a nurse, complaining when a dinner time conversation revealed my salary. How is it possible after 5 years stuying that he can earn more than me, she asked. Well, no-one put a gun to your head sweetheart. You chose the job for a reason greater than money. I don't begrudge you that choice and respect you for making it. In equal measures I am not jealous of you either.
Due to no fault of you or me, we are in a crisis and have to work together to pull ourselves up, if you want to go off on your personal nest egg building crusade, go for it, but also live with the consequences. 😉
My personal beef is that the public sector teachers have chosen a life, a job a vocation. They knew the deal before they signed up, long term contracts, good paid holidays and a pension.
And the deal is being changed. Hence the problem.
aracer - Memberthe increments you are talking about are just the same as any employee in the private sector taking on more duties and getting an increase because of itIf you got increments like that in the private sector you'd have a very good point. I'll accept your lack of understanding of the private sector given you're clearly insulated from that.
I used to get increments exactly like that in the private sector- and it makes sense, after all, after 3 years in the same job I was doing more work, better, than I did after 1.
What you seem to have done here is assumed that because you've never seen it, it never happens. To be fair there's a lot of that going around.
And I imagine the salaries and pensions were the same in spite of the greatly differing results
No the school with poor results from the less able kids had higher salaries as it was an academy and was free to set salaries.
I think you may have missed the point though, much like Mr Gove
Welcome to the real, post crisis, world Mike. Now why do you feel you have more rights than the rest of us to be immune to the effects of the crisis?
WTF are you going to do when redundancies are announced? And how quickly can you learn to be efficient, I mean proper efficient?
don simon you need to work on your debating skills I have no idea what the point your making is to be honest.
WTF are you going to do when redundancies are announced
redunancies have been announced at my school, I presume its the same in most other schools, seem so from conversations.
My point? See my first post. Stop f*****g whinging!
You c ould have said earlier that you have problems understanding, bless.
can you point out where I was whinging?
I thought your point was that your wage had reduced by 60% so everyone else should suffer. You seem to be the one whinging the most as far as I can see.
your first post seems like a whinge to me
Older and wiser, why not? 70 today doesn't necessarily mean they're going to smell of wee.
I am a teacher, I work in the private sector, I calculated that with adjusted figures my salary has decreased by 60%. Count yourselves lucky and stop f*****g whinging.
WTF are you going to do when redundancies are announced? And how quickly can you learn to be efficient, I mean proper efficient?
We've had redundancies at our place already.
We have £400000 less next year than this, assuming we can recruit the same number of students. We'll have a million quid less the following year, assuming we maintain numbers.
As for efficiency, we get better results than nearby school sixth forms and private schools, with considerably larger class sizes.
On top of the pensions changes, we've had changes to EMAs and who knows what effect tuition fees will have on recruitment to take A levels. Oh, and academies are going to be able to decide to run A levels, so all the schools that go that route will become potential competitors.
And the central government plan? There isn't one. They launch all of this without any real consultation or planning or thought and see what happens.
can you point out where I was whinging?I thought your point was that your wage had reduced by 60% so everyone else should suffer. You seem to be the one whinging the most as far as I can see.
I'm not going back through the whole thread to copy and paste for quotes, but turning my example and trying to use it as your defence doesn't impress me. Re-read and think again or better still, for the umpteenth time why should publkic sector teacher not have to lose some of their pensions? There is no logical answer so you have to feign confusion and tell me I'm talking bollox, but apparently you do understand. For me this has been an interesting debate and has given me further insight into the way public sector workers think. Thanks.
On top of the pensions changes, we've had changes to EMAs and who knows what effect tuition fees will have on recruitment to take A levels. Oh, and academies are going to be able to decide to run A levels, so all the schools that go that route will become potential competitors.
Not sure I see anything negative here either. Pension changes reduce govt spending during a financial crisis. I hope you're EMAs get better, why do people use abbreviations? I guess you're learning the language of business, it's a start... What is wrong with competition? How do you benchmark yourselves without competition? How can you improve, and in general you (all scholls) need to improve. Saying [i]my school[/i] is performing better than average is just another demonstration of a selfish attitude.
A career average pension can be better if your wages consistently fall behind inflation. I find it shocking that teachers cannot understand this basic concept and are allowed to train children. If your real terms wages are lower at the end of working life than at the start, then the last thing you want is a final salary pension.
Teachers should explain why they believe the rest of the country should guarantee their pensions, before embarking on a strike that only a third of their members support.
Otherwise, they can strike as long as they want for all the country will care: every working day they spend in the pub unpaid reduces the career average pay which will determine their pension.
I'm not going back through the whole thread to copy and paste for
so thats a no then?
How can you improve, and in general you (all scholls) need to improve
wow you do irony!
dmjb4 - Membera strike that only a third of their members support.
Is this one of those "big lie" things where you hope that by repeating a blatant falsehood over and over, it becomes accepted as truth?
Did you open this thread to support the cuts or look for some kind of support for the teachers? The whole thread is one long whinge fest.
Irony? Where?
Only about a third of union members supported the strike. 40% of 92% is 36%. Or about a third.
Can you not do basic arithmetic or use a calculator?
Was that an intentional missing of the point? Probably. 36% of union members voted for the strike. This is not the same as "a strike that only a third of their members support". Support /= voted for.
Junky - I hope you don't teach English, as your reading and comprehension is a fail. Go back and try re-reading the last comment of mine you quoted and see if you can work out what it actually means, and why you need a 4th column in order to prove my conjecture.
Just a few points to help you out:
Final salary/career average wasn't the only difference between the two options I had, hence that wasn't the factor in one costing more than another - apologies for not making that clear (I was only using it to explain why I understood both systems quite well, having looked at both options in fine detail).
I am better off having been under career average than final salary due to having not got a pay rise - or at least not one which has kept up with inflation. Are you really so stupid that you don't understand this concept?
I had a go with an inflation calculator, and whilst I finished off on more than I started on, I finished on less than I was on 9 months in when I completed training and got a big rise. I'm pretty confident I would have been better to have been on career average for my whole time in that pension scheme. I'd very very surprised if I was at all unique in this lack of progression in salary in the private sector.
This ijs just wrong and making your self look stupid even more so for not even relaising how stupid you are being
Back at you. Though reading that (and the rest of your post), I hope you don't teach children at all with that standard of English usage.
It would have been much more better [ 😉 ] if you had attacked the maths rather than the english. Then again you cant you just suggest you can
I am better off having been under career average than final salary due to having not got a pay rise - or at least not one which has kept up with inflation. Are you really so stupid that you don't understand this concept?
You dont understand it. How can a pension based on your wage be better if your wage is lower? The calculation method is irrelevant as your salary is lower therefore your pension is. If your wage increases so will the average [ or the final salary]. Can you show me with some maths how this works as you describe? PLEASE would you it should be easy my table took about a minute.
Instead of telling me I have done it wrong do some maths to show this. I am quite prepared to admit I am wrong if you do it with some numbers rather than a shitty attack of my english - this may be true but it does not make my argument incorrect which you can easily do with some numbers.
You appear to be one of those people who wont admit they are wrong and just keep going. Unless you want to do some maths I have nothing further to add [ see add get it ]
If your pay rises don't match inflation over your working life, the only way you would be better off under a final salary pension is if you or someone else is contributing a greater % of pay into the pot, or if the other terms differed.
Price inflation greatly effects the time value of money. £100 went further 20 years ago then it does today. £100 invested in your pension 20 years ago is worth more than £100 invested yesterday.
You are almost always worse off under a final salary
The armed forces all spend a lot of time at lower paid ranks/rates before promotion with the associated payrises therefore almost everyone will be worse off on an average salery pension. If the Hutton stuff is applied fully then I would expect to see a bit of an armed forces exodus. Unless of course that's part of the cunning plan...
It would have been much more better [ ] if you had attacked the maths rather than the english.
I was just going for the easy target 🙁 - and there was nothing actually wrong with your numbers apart from them answering the wrong question. I'd have given you some numbers a while ago if you'd asked for them (and not been so rude about my mathematical abilities that I doubted you'd believe them).
Unfortunately to make this work, we can't ignore inflation as that's a fundamental issue here (well I could normalise the figures, but it would look dodgy and you'd accuse me of cheating). So here are in column 1 are real salary figures, and in column 2 the same figures adjusted for inflation (which is the number used when calculating a career average salary). I'll use 1.0 as the baseline salary in year 1 and constant 5% inflation rate (the actual rate doesn't make any difference to the conclusion) This is the simple version with no pay rise at all:
year 1 1.00 1.55
year 2 1.00 1.48
year 3 1.00 1.41
year 4 1.00 1.34
year 5 1.00 1.28
year 6 1.00 1.22
year 7 1.00 1.16
year 8 1.00 1.10
year 9 1.00 1.05
year 10 1.00 1.00
Final salary: 1.00
Career average salary: 1.26
Now for the slightly more complicated version with a constant but below inflation pay rise:
year 1 1.00 1.55
year 2 1.03 1.52
year 3 1.06 1.49
year 4 1.09 1.46
year 5 1.13 1.44
year 6 1.16 1.41
year 7 1.19 1.38
year 8 1.23 1.36
year 9 1.27 1.33
year 10 1.30 1.30
Final salary: 1.30
Career average salary: 1.42
Of course in the real world things aren't constant and sometimes you might even get an above inflation increase even in the private sector, but it doesn't change the conclusion that if your pay doesn't keep up with inflation you're better off on a career-average than final salary scheme.
It would appear that if you continued those figures for 20 -40 years it would no longer hold true which is probably a fairer time scale for a pension calculation. The second example will be better by 14 years in for example.
I dont understand why your second column is not 1 at the start can you explain please? Why is the average salary used for your calculation higher than the actual salary?
It would appear that if you continued those figures for 20 -40 years it would no longer hold true
If I extend it to 40 years, with 5% inflation and no salary increase I get:
Final salary: 1.00
Career average salary: 3.02
with 5% inflation and 3% annual increase I get:
Final salary: 3.17
Career average salary: 4.72
The point you're missing here is that as you extend the period the career average also increases - and at a greater rate than the final salary does.
I dont understand why your second column is not 1 at the start can you explain please?
Ah - if you don't understand that, that would explain the reason you've missed the point. It's because the second column is adjusted for inflation. In other words it's the value of that salary at year 10 (in the example I gave - at year 40 in my recalc). ie after 9 years of 5% inflation, something which was worth £1 is now worth £1.55.
Why is the average salary used for your calculation higher than the actual salary?
Because it's the arithmetic mean of the inflation adjusted salary, and the inflation adjusted salary at the start is higher than the inflation adjusted salary at the end (just as the case is for me over the last 10 years).
still confused but busy at work will post up a reply later
so the average salary is effectively weighted to be what it would be in real terms but the final salary is not.
Is that really the case?
I dont care I'm still having the day off.
🙄
I dont care I'm still [s]having the day off[/s] striking.
actually I'm not striking, not a member of NUT or ATL
I'm a stay at home dad.. I'm going to strike over child benefit and working family tax credits..
that'll teach 'em...