Strikes to go ahead

Really2

Orpheo wrote: »

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.

So why state school is childcare then ? it is a legal obligation to send a child to school and if it were not truancy would be higher.

So your debate seems to have a major flaw.

Parent's send children to school to be educated, if you remove the education for a day they have to make other arrangements.
That is nothing to do with viewing school as child care but everything to do with looking after your child.

Really2

Orpheo wrote: »

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?

I said

Really2 wrote: »

My child is not at school yet, but it would wind me up should I need to find child care for one day when they are usually at school.

So I should imagine it has wound up/ inconvenienced / made financially worse off a number of parents?

You would be fairly blind to see that it does wind up a fair amount of the public with children who work work for a living (the parents not the children )?

People do value the work teachers do but also accept things have to change and many are a lot financially worse off already. The private sector has been and continues to be hammered.

you said

Orpheo wrote: »

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

No, not judgmental at all.;)

Excuse me for wanting my child to be educated in term time and seeing it a slight problem as having to rearrange plans when we work.

mintedmatty

Lets try and keep it civilised chaps/chapettes eh!

Orpheo

Really2 wrote: »

So why state school is childcare then for parents?

Hello. Where did I state this?

Really2 wrote: »

it is a legal obligation to send a child to school and if it were not truancy would be higher.

So your debate seems to have a major flaw.

Without the legal obligation there would be no such thing as compulsory schooling and therefore no such thing as truancy so... I think your argument seems to have a a major flaw.

Really2 wrote: »

Parent's send children to school to be educated,

Ah. So at last we agree on what school is for.

Really2 wrote: »

if you remove the education for a day they have to make other arrangements.

Yes. That's all rather obvious.

Really2 wrote: »

That is nothing to do with viewing school as child care but everything to do with looking after your child.

I don't dispute this. What I do dispute is the validity of the argument that teachers shouldn't strike because working parents will have to find alternative childcare arrangements. Yes they will have to find alternative childcare arrangements, no, that is not a compelling reason not to strike.

mintedmatty

Orpheo, just out of curiosity and without wanting to stick my nose into your business, I am just trying to get my head round how financially worse off you and teachers in general would be as a result of the changes? would you be willing to tell me? PM me if you prefer.

ILW

Is it currently difficult to recruit teachers?

mintedmatty

I don't dispute this. What I do dispute is the validity of the argument that teachers shouldn't strike because working parents will have to find alternative childcare arrangements. Yes they will have to find alternative childcare arrangements, no, that is not a compelling reason not to strike.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, cant agree with that but my opinion is not just on teachers either, my missus works for the NHS and we would seriosuly fall out if she ever decided to strike. What good comes from it?

Really2

Orpheo wrote: »

1) Hello. Where did I state this?

2) What I do dispute is the validity of the argument that teachers shouldn't strike because working parents will have to find alternative childcare arrangements. Yes they will have to find alternative childcare arrangements, no, that is not a compelling reason not to strike.

1) Read above post (my quote post 103)

2) Who said that, no one.
The point was it was an inconvenience and they would have to make arrangements if they worked.
That was likely to drain support (like 51% of parents oppose the strike) or "wind people Up" as you like to put it.
You have every right to strike but it should be a last resort after negotiation and the public have the right to disagree with a strike regardless if they think teachers do a good job, this is not about teaching it's about money.

Generali

ILW wrote: »

Is it currently difficult to recruit teachers?

AIUI it depends on the subject.

Goldmans will pay a maths grad a lot of money. They're less fussed about history graduates.

Orpheo

Really2 wrote: »

I said


you said


No, not judgmental at all.;)

Excuse me for wanting my child to be educated in term time and seeing it a slight problem as having to rearrange plans when we work.

Now you are quoting me out of context and arguing against positions I have not taken.

Yes, I was judgmental of you, not all parents. You deserved it. You think that I should not fight my corner because you may have a "slight problem" rearranging plans. So not that inconvenient after all then.