Strikes to go ahead

kabayiri

Before this thread I didn't think the strike action planned for tomorrow would make any difference to the governments' plans.

After reading the points, I still don't.

It's an ineffective nuisance at best.

Orpheo : school is childcare for many parents. That's reality for you. Apparently they have to go out to work and pay their taxes, so that we can employ school teachers and fund retired school teachers. The days of the stay at home mom have long since passed.

Really2

I rest my case.:)

Orpheo

Really2 wrote: »

So why not reply back to why parents may be miffed on the fact that they will have to take holiday/ pay for child care/ unpaid leave to teach their own child at home in term time given that they are paying taxes for state education.
Your assertion was

my responses was about incovienence
and you said

Then you think that school is there to look after you kids while you go to work. You have the education system you deserve.

If your whole idea of this not possibly causing some problems to the public is based on parents are responsible for children 24/7 it kind of makes a mockery of the point of education as we should not trust others with children?

You are going about getting support the wrong way.

I am not affected by this but the way you think the public is unaffected shows just how out of touch you are. There will be many affected and possibly justified miffed if the attitude to them is the same as your.

You are struggling to read.

I have not said that the public will not be inconvenienced. "Wound up" means something entirely different. The rest of the above post is incoherent babble.

Let me be clear:

Some parents will be inconvenienced.
The public will be affected.

Is there bad feeling towards teachers from the majority of parents? No, I'm just not seeing it. As I have said, I have spoken to people and they are generally quite supportive.

You are making a very big fuss about a one day strike that you think is "ineffective".

Orpheo

really2 wrote: »

i rest my case.:)

.....
tfft.

Really2

kabayiri wrote: »

Orpheo : school is childcare for many parents. That's reality for you. Apparently they have to go out to work and pay their taxes, so that we can employ school teachers and fund retired school teachers. The days of the stay at home mom have long since passed.

I would not quiet agree on that bit but on the jist of your post I do, but for many when children are in school it is a part of the day they do not to have to fund for childcare.
If schools did not exist they would need to fund a full day but then not have to fund schools with taxes.
The truth is parents lose a service which they pay for out of their taxes for one day because of a strike.
Thankfully most teachers do not think like Orpheo and do realise that while in school the children are actually in the schools care.
So when a school is closing for the day that defaults on to the parent.

Really2

Orpheo wrote: »

Is there bad feeling towards teachers from the majority of parents? No, I'm just not seeing it. As I have said, I have spoken to people and they are generally quite supportive.

I will agree with that the majority will not be feeling bad for just the one day, if it goes further you may see a change.

Depends if there is any effort to negotiate.

But I think you are having a massive leap of faith if you think the strike is well supported by parents either.

40% of people support the teacher’s strike on Thursday, 49% of people oppose it.

The figure was not actually that different amongst parents of school age children – 39% of whom supported the strike, 51% of whom opposed it.
Support was very marginally lower amongst GB adults for the civil servants striking than for the teachers – 38% supported their strike, 50% opposed it.

Orpheo

kabayiri wrote: »

Orpheo : school is childcare for many parents. That's reality for you. Apparently they have to go out to work and pay their taxes, so that we can employ school teachers and fund retired school teachers. The days of the stay at home mom have long since passed.

Oh !!!!!!. Of course school is treated as childcare by parents. The rest of this is fallacious. There were tax-payer funded schools long before mums went to work... Education Act 1870. Mums going to work hasn't made it any better and let's face it, the two income family has just made life more expensive. The days of the SAHM have not passed, there are still stay-at-home-parents who do so because they want to parent their kids.

Really2

Orpheo wrote: »

there are still stay-at-home-parents who do so because they want to parent their kids.

And the ones who don't stay at home, don't want to parent too their children I presume?

I think most parents want to parents their kids, not everything in the DM is true.

But i's a funny argument you put forward, my wife will work 4 days a week (from 3 full days) so she can take him and pick him up from school.

Is that using the school as child care? I would argue you are still giving the same time to your child as someone who stays at home and financial security.

Orpheo

Really2 wrote: »

Thankfully most teachers do not think like Orpheo and do realise that while in school the children are actually in the schools care.
So when a school is closing for the day that defaults on to the parent.

I take angry exception to this. I am fully aware of my duty of care and I have stated as much in a previous post.

I have alway understood that my responsibility is to teach children well enough such that they learn, for that to happen then they must be in my care and I must care for them while they are.

Orpheo

Really2 wrote: »

And the ones who don't stay at home, don't want to parent too their children I presume?

I think most parents want to parents their kids, not everything in the DM is true.

But i's a funny argument you put forward, my wife will work 4 days a week (from 3 full days) so she can take him and pick him up from school.

Is that using the school as child care? I would argue you are still giving the same time to your child as someone who stays at home and financial security.

There you go presuming again. The trouble is you can't do anything with what I do say so you attack what I don't say. I didn't say any of what you suggest in the above post, you are opening a new front. I don't give two hoots about what your work-home-childcare-parenting arrangements are, that's your business. What I said was that some parents stay at home because they want to parent their children. That other parents make other choices about how their children are raised is implicit and I make no comment or judgment on that. Why put words into my mouth?