We are all in this together, well not if you are in a union.

dopester

misskool wrote: »

You do get paid a stipend, I think it's about £1k a month tax free. Not sure if all teachers on a PGCE get it. The training is quite intensive, you have to attend lectures and do the homework for it and prepare lessons for school and be a full time teacher.

I'm not sure I understand this. PGCE (post graduate certificate in education) is a qualification for teaching. Is it a free course? No it would seem. Varies.. but "The maximum amount a university can charge students for tuition fees is now £3,145 (although this may change slightly from year to year)."

If you already have a degree, consider a postgraduate certificate in education (PGCE).
A PGCE course mainly focuses on developing your teaching skills, and not on the subject you intend to teach. For this reason, you are expected to have a good understanding of your chosen subject(s) – usually to degree level – before you start training.

How long does a PGCE take?
Courses generally last for one year full-time or up to two years part-time.

Where can you do a PGCE?
PGCE courses are available at universities and colleges throughout the UK. It may also be possible to study for a PGCE via flexible distance learning, or in a school by completing a programme of school centred initial teacher training (SCITT).

From that page.. tax free bursury from £4K to £9K + possibility of a non-repayable maintenance grant + possibility of a Golden Hello from £2.5K to £4K if you "take up a permanent position teaching the subject you trained to teach in."

Whereas someone like my sister, doing the LPC full time (1 year), had to take out a £6500 loan with RBS to pay the fees for that 1 year course, and get no grant or 'stipend' whatsoever.

Then at the end of 12 months the interest free loan shot up to 19% APR. (Which she then took a 2 year £6,500 loan with Alliance and Leicester at 6% to repay RBS. And she had no job secured unlike it would seem these teachers. Only fortunate to land a position as a Trainee on £16K just before her LPC ended, winning out from 1000 candidates, with the firm narrowing it down to 8 people who had to work at the firm for a week before selections made for the 2 Trainee positions.) and is still only on £25K, 4 years later.

lostinrates wrote: »

TBH, for a training contract alternative with that sort of pay,..that sounds pretty OK.

Too right it does Lir.

dopester

treliac wrote: »

And private schools can chuck out anyone they choose to.... unlike state schools, which are stuck with the inclusion policy and have to try and teach all sorts of rebels alongside those who want to learn. A pretty impossible task in many instances!

What does TWH know about it anyway?!

In my (very limited) experience private schools won't just expel, unless it's really serious. They'll try and help the pupil overcome their issues.

Also fee paying students are very welcome at many a struggling private school, as there are fewer parents with money to spend on education in these times.

Saying that, I do remember that we were partly-worried my sister was going to get expelled from her private school when she was just 11 years old.

A Religious Education test paper, completed in the classroom, and handed in when teacher called time.

An innocent mistake with an answer.. but the school got so angry. Our parents called in and everything. The teachers really believed she'd given her answer deliberately. Very embarrassing.

Qu.16: What is this man doing?

The answer was Meditating, but in haste, and perhaps overhearing word from elsewhere and not knowing what it meant (she honestly didn't).. wrote something else beginning with M.

Davesnave

dopester wrote: »

In my (very limited) experience private schools won't just expel, unless it's really serious. They'll try and help the pupil overcome their issues.

Quite right too, but in the course of doing that, they will normally be assisted by parents, who have made an extra financial investment here.
In state schools, in the case of the worst-behaved pupils, the back-up one might expect, or at least hope for, isn't usually forthcoming!

I loved your story. On a similar theme, I seem to remember, as a new grammar school pupil, having a suspicion that 'matriculating' might be a far more interesting experience than it turned out to be!

Spartacus_Mills

LizEstelle wrote: »

From my own experience of his worthy contributions to threads, I don't believe that dear ol' pale naggy and education have ever had much interaction...

Your comment is rather ironic given the partisan Labour bunkerbot drivel you post.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Glass houses and all that.

JasonLVC

marklv wrote: »

There is no country that has zero income tax outside of the gulf states with their obscene oil profits, and even here there will always be some tax to pay!

Belize (South America) is income tax free.

Andorra (between France and Spain) is income tax free. .

St Kitts and Nevis is income tax free (but a work permit costs $700) and they are looking at introducing VAT next year.

Turks and Caicos Islands is income tax free.

The Seychelles is income tax free (but there is a social security tax paid by employer of 20%).

Monaco (of course) is income tax free for non-French residents.

This list is not exhaustive, some countries have different rules on whether income from outside the country can be taxed or not, some have a flat fee you pay whatever you earn, some have different rates for non-residents/residents, etc.

The Gulf states are indeed free of income tax as you posted.... but the UAE for example, are also free of corporation tax, sales tax and capital gains tax too - so are truly tax free. The UAE are however considering introducing VAT at around 3% from 2012-2013ish.

Spartacus_Mills

marklv wrote: »

If you want less tax then go off to the USA, but even there you will not find zero tax. There is no country that has zero income tax outside of the gulf states with their obscene oil profits, and even here there will always be some tax to pay!

A balance on taxation has to be struck although it may be desirable to some/many to have a low tax environment a level of public provision will always be required. For me the issue is around the level of tax which is going up and is currently too high and how it is spent/managed.

A true low tax economy like the USA is not Utopia, but then neither was the former Eastern Bloc with the high degree of state provision.

If the government raises taxes and takes too much money out of the economy it will hamper the recovery especially as it will be taking money from the private sector which it needs to grow to help us through recovery.

Spartacus_Mills

JasonLVC wrote: »

Belize (South America) is income tax free. Not a Gulf state.

Andorra (between France and Spain) is income tax free. Not a Gulf state and in Europe.

St Kitts and Nevis is income tax free (but a work permit costs $700) and they are looking at introducing VAT next year. Not a Gulf state.

Turks and Caicos Islands is income tax free. Not a Gulf state.

How do these governments raise their revenue ?

there has to be a means to raise revenue for social costs/spending or do they take the view that the individual pays for everything ?

treliac

dktreesea wrote: »

When it comes to teaching, there are lots of newly qualified teachers who cost relatively little to employ compared to teachers who have been doing it for 10 to 15 years. You don't have to make people redundant. You just do something like closing down the school and not offering the teachers who worked there another post. Meanwhile, at the receiving schools you employ two or three newly graduated teachers to absorb the pupils from the closed school.

So you'd throw older, experienced teachers on the scrap heap because they might have earned a higher salary and employ tons of new and inexperienced teachers in their place. How horrible!

lostinrates

I'm skimming, but privates and publics most certainly do expel! Lets just say I know of several occasions with in my social circle when they have done. I think its probably less often than in state education, but its most certainly not unheard of. the word beginning with M wouldn't do it though. I'm pretty sure any sane person would have, um, laughed their head off but I'd argue sometimes ''social'' problems might be more swiftly dealt with by expulsion than possibly state schools can. Doesn't necessarily help the kid involved though! I think this IS changing though. From current experience the problem is when the problem maker has siblings also at the school and is rich overseas money.....not something I encountered at school, where rich foreign money was less pandered too.

carolt

treliac wrote: »

So you'd throw older, experienced teachers on the scrap heap because they might have earned a higher salary and employ tons of new and inexperienced teachers in their place. How horrible!

Wouldn't wish to send my kids there - would you?

Believe it or not, newly qualified teachers, however willing, by definition lack experience - there is no way you could run a school staffed only with them.

Not if you wish pupils to learn anything at all.

What a bizarre idea.

Not to say that if all new teachers knew they'd be on the scrapheap after a couple of years in favour of younger, cheaper models, no-one would bother qualifying as teachers in the first place...