George Osborne considering freeze on benefits to save £4.4bn

dopester

Prudent wrote: »

There has been a real change in special ed over the last decade. Medical advances means we are caring for children that continue to live with hugely complex conditions.

Out of my class two children would not be alive without intense intervention throughout the school day. Do we leave them to die?

Can't they adapt part of the school so the teachers assistants can live in the building?

That way they can be paid a bit less, but get a decent benefit out of it. Assuming they don't live with parents and pay a below normal rent level already.

There were a couple of flats in our school for student/young teachers to live in full-time.

If the money really was to be cut, which isn't particularly the case for special needs schools compared to other schools, I don't see why parents can't volunteer to do one day every month. Insurance liability / red tape would have to be cut. It might also take away from people who want to do it as a career.

Jobseekers too - work for benefits, but you would want many repeats of that young man who slapped and ridiculed that young child. It's a bit complicated, especially with special needs.

Parents who do have assets and income should be made to significantly contribute to special school costs though - if that is not the case already. Even if it means downsizing their home, or not buying a new fancy car but having to make do with an older car.

I admire you if you chose your job for the honest desire to do it. Really caring and doing a very demanding job where people you teach and look after deserve a chance of as normal life as possible, love and respect. It's the level of public sector wasteful spending in the system I get heated about.

Prudent

dopester wrote: »

Can't they adapt part of the school so the teachers assistants can live in the building?

That way they can be paid a bit less, but get a decent benefit out of it. Assuming they don't live with parents and pay a below normal rent level already.

There were a couple of flats in our school for student/young teachers to live in full-time..

Both of my assistants are married with children and have high earning hubbys and large houses. I am poorer than them

We all love the job, but its is demanding and there is no room for staffing cutbacks.

B.E.N

leveller2911 wrote: »

The only way IMO we can help is to FORCE the parents to work and pay into society and contribute to the system with the hope of them actually changing their lifestyle.Bring back "Tough love".

If they still don't care for their son properly then he should be taken into care, yes I know its expensive but at least he has a chance and personally I don't believe it would cost any more than we are paying them now..Stop ALL of their benefits full stop.

To be honest, I'm quite surprised that he hasn't been taken into care already, going on the information given!

I agree that a stricter benefit system is needed, but, to be honest, now is the wrong time to do it.

2.47 million people unemployed, many of these that have been working for the last 10 years, have a demonstrated work ethic, are highly skilled/educated. There just aren't the vacancies available to enforce such a scheme, no matter how good it would seem on paper.

carolt

Teaching assistants are paid near starvation wages. The average rate of pay round here is c £7/hour. That doesn't sound too bad - but then you remember that unlike teachers, who do get holiday pay for the long school holidays, teaching assistants don't.

So a full school year pays way, way under minimum wage. For what is often a very difficult and responsible job.

For the record, I considerd changing to teaching primary level, and thought about working as a teaching assistant in a primary school to get experience of the work.

There was no way I could have afforded to do it. The pay was just too low.:eek:

leveller2911

B.E.N wrote: »

To be honest, I'm quite surprised that he hasn't been taken into care already, going on the information given!

I agree that a stricter benefit system is needed, but, to be honest, now is the wrong time to do it.

2.47 million people unemployed, many of these that have been working for the last 10 years, have a demonstrated work ethic, are highly skilled/educated. There just aren't the vacancies available to enforce such a scheme, no matter how good it would seem on paper.

I agree but the problem I see ahead is that by the time the economy has picked up the present Government will shoot themselves in the foot (like they always do) we will have an election and Nu -Labour 2 will get back in and we are back where we are today....

The lack of jobs today doesnt stop the Government Forcing (especially the long term unemployed)people at the threat of benefit withdrawl into training.We need to cut the deficit but at the same time we need to prepare for the up turn and begin manufacturing again and if we have people trained up ready and waiting then it has to be an advantage.

We need to invest millions of real £'s now and not just lip service and spin which Im worried is all we will get.

lvader

carolt wrote: »

Teaching assistants are paid near starvation wages. The average rate of pay round here is c £7/hour. That doesn't sound too bad - but then you remember that unlike teachers, who do get holiday pay for the long school holidays, teaching assistants don't.

So a full school year pays way, way under minimum wage. For what is often a very difficult and responsible job.

That is still more that what my wife is paid doing a custmer service job. She gets far more abuse and far less job satisfaction.

The_White_Horse

when they say "we are all in this together" this should also mean the poor and the benefits brigade. reading the paper today, it seems i will be less well off after the budget, but someone on a lower salary will be hundreds of pounds better off. how are we "in this together"?????

I am happy to pay more tax if everyone does and we are ALL worse off. if however, it is just the middle earners who are persecuted, they can f**k right off. i won't be happy to pay an extra penny.

ALL means all. It doesn't mean "some". I want benefits cut. I want lower earners to pay more tax and then I will pay more tax.

remember, this is about cutting the defecit - NOT about making taxes fairer (and what fairer means, is anyones guess).

carolt

lvader wrote: »

That is still more that what my wife is paid doing a custmer service job. She gets far more abuse and far less job satisfaction.

If your wife is getting paid under the minimum wage, then she should sue her employer.

As for 'far more abuse', maybe she should try working in an inner-city school if she thinks it's so easy.

B.E.N

leveller2911 wrote: »

The lack of jobs today doesnt stop the Government Forcing (especially the long term unemployed)people at the threat of benefit withdrawl into training.We need to cut the deficit but at the same time we need to prepare for the up turn and begin manufacturing again and if we have people trained up ready and waiting then it has to be an advantage.

True, training is good, but it needs consolidation, and if the jobs aren't there, that won't happen.

My personal opinion, is that more University places should be funded. It will cost money, but will take 000s of under-25s out of unemployment (meaning that there will be less competition for jobs) and in 3 years time (once the economy is up and moving again - *hopefully*), we'll have a skilled, able, workforce.

Obviously, to ensure this is the case, we will have to ensure these courses are of some practical use - science/vocational related courses, etc.

It's also important that emphasis is placed on vocational courses, but only ones that are of a similar duration (circa 3 years, Full Time) as it again helps to reduce the amount of competition in the Labour Market.

Furthermore, students are renouned for spending lots of money, so it could be used as an economic stimulous measure as well.

leveller2911

B.E.N wrote: »

True, training is good, but it needs consolidation, and if the jobs aren't there, that won't happen.

My personal opinion, is that more University places should be funded. It will cost money, but will take 000s of under-25s out of unemployment (meaning that there will be less competition for jobs) and in 3 years time (once the economy is up and moving again - *hopefully*), we'll have a skilled, able, workforce.

Thats ok but there are far too many non degrees in subjects of no practical use whatsoever.Universities need to change too and stop being so much of a 3yr Jolly for many.

Obviously, to ensure this is the case, we will have to ensure these courses are of some practical use - science/vocational related courses, etc.

It's also important that emphasis is placed on vocational courses, but only ones that are of a similar duration (circa 3 years, Full Time) as it again helps to reduce the amount of competition in the Labour Market.

To their shame the last 2 previous Governments did very little on vocational courses, we have an abundance of higly educated people with little or no practical skills and common sense.In the Construction industry in particular has suffered from a decline in a skilled workforce over the last decade or more.