Strikes to go ahead

Jennifer_Jane

Really2 wrote: »

Touching on the above and holidays.

My little lad starts reception class in Sept. At the meet the teacher thing a few weeks ago the head said.

We do not want any holiday in term time, even a day off can disrupt a child's education.

The problem I see here is that parents may start to feel, "well if they can do it" and start having term time holidays again.

I understand striking and holidays are a fair bit different, but if the reason given is because it disrupts a children's education there is a precendent being set that it does not matter that much one day.
Or that perhaps strike action was taken to quickly (as little negotiation has seemed to have taken place)

Surely the teacher means that if the child is taken out of school during term-time then that child is missing part of the curriculum. If there is no school then it's just as disruptive as a Bank Holiday. I agree with you that it will certainly mean that parents will start to have term time holidays again though because of not thinking it through. A terrible move. School attendance by pupils should be sacrosanct.

Jennifer_Jane

ess0two wrote: »

+1 i've just submitted an unauthorised absence for my son,3 days.Letter returned informed that i'm being reported for this,been to the school and argued the toss over tomorrows strike,got it over turned to authorised absence.

Sad that you have to do this. My view is that if a parent feels it's OK to take a child out of school, then it's probably OK for the child to think that school is less important than it is - and whilst it may not be for your child, I think it impacts on the whole class. IMHO, of course!

Really2

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

What entertains me about some of the arguments I've heard are the complete levels of ignorance. "Noone got into teaching to get rich - they should go work in the private sector instead".

But if you are good and become head of department or a head teacher you can be very well paid in reality.
No one becomes employed to get rich (you get rich working for yourself, but you can also go bust) but people do work for money.
So trying to make out it is nothing to do with money would be very wrong, the whole strike is based on money.

LydiaJ

Really2 wrote: »

Touching on the above and holidays.

My little lad starts reception class in Sept. At the meet the teacher thing a few weeks ago the head said.

We do not want any holiday in term time, even a day off can disrupt a child's education.

The problem I see here is that parents may start to feel, "well if they can do it" and start having term time holidays again.

I understand striking and holidays are a fair bit different, but if the reason given is because it disrupts a children's education there is a precendent being set that it does not matter that much one day.
Or that perhaps strike action was taken to quickly (as little negotiation has seemed to have taken place)

That's interesting. It's also one of the reasons why teachers have chosen to strike in late June when exams are over.

However, I think you've misunderstood the head's point about "even one day can make a difference". If a child misses a day or a week or whatever, the rest of the class carries on. When the child returns, the other children have learnt x and are now learning y. The child who has had time off is now trying to learn y without having learnt x first. This can make their learning of y much more difficult. If they then don't ever quite understand y, then they are at a disadvantage when it comes to trying to learn z.

If the whole class is cancelled, then the teacher just teaches x the next time the class is there. The order isn't disrupted. This happens all the time for school trips etc.

Of course this is much more a problem in some subjects than others, and it makes a big difference whether the topic that you happen to miss is a particularly foundational one, and whether you get any help with catching up.

ETA X-posted with Jennifer_Jane

Really2

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Surely the teacher means that if the child is taken out of school during term-time then that child is missing part of the curriculum. If there is no school then it's just as disruptive as a Bank Holiday.

Sorry I disagree there, as bank holidays are taken in to account in the school year, this day was not so in reality it is one day of teaching lost.
If they have 5 one day strikes that is as bad as a weeks holiday in a terms as those days are lost. They can't be made up without skipping over bits, much the same as term time holidays.

@ lydiaJ I do understand the catch up part, but surely every day off is one less day to teach in, they will be one day behind any one the previous year in terms of education time.

ess0two

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Sad that you have to do this. My view is that if a parent feels it's OK to take a child out of school, then it's probably OK for the child to think that school is less important than it is - and whilst it may not be for your child, I think it impacts on the whole class. IMHO, of course!

Far from it,my child realises how important school is,i also value doing 'family' things,sadly its required the loss of 3 days,does it make me a bad parent?.

What message does this strike send to the kids?we can't be a rsed teaching you etc etc,what next a 2/3/4 day strike in future.

Jennifer_Jane

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

In the private sector if your employer reduces the pension deal you have the option to leave and find a better package..

I'm sure RP that a lot of people in the private sector don't realise that their pensions have been reduced. It was part of the T&Cs of my private pension plan that the annuity rate which you would be guaranteed on retirement could change. It certainly did, but no-one was told about it. You would only know if you kept a sharp eye on projected benefits.

And there's little you can do about it if your employer is the main business in the area, you are getting closer to retirement age, and so on. You are tied to that employer until retirement. Well, I was, being grateful for a job at age 51.

Jennifer_Jane

ess0two wrote: »

Far from it,my child realises how important school is,i also value doing 'family' things,sadly its required the loss of 3 days,does it make me a bad parent?.

What message does this strike send to the kids?we can't be a rsed teaching you etc etc,what next a 2/3/4 day strike in future.

Yes, exactly, completely agree, although wouldn't have used the language you do. But agree. Have you read my words? I said that you 'had' to take your child out of school, thus assuming that it was not something you had necessarily wanted to do - and I also added that it might be the impact on the other children that was the key thing. But why was it 'unauthorised' in the first place if it was a necessary thing.

Got to go - so not ignoring you. But must get on now.

ess0two

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Yes, exactly, completely agree, although wouldn't have used the language you do. But agree. Have you read my words? I said that you 'had' to take your child out of school, thus assuming that it was not something you had necessarily wanted to do - and I also added that it might be the impact on the other children that was the key thing. But why was it 'unauthorised' in the first place if it was a necessary thing.

Got to go - so not ignoring you. But must get on now.

The only things they'll authorise,are special circumstances,funerals etc.
I personally would have called the school on illness for the 3 days,yet the misses gets all moral about being honest.TBH its opened a right can of worms in our house.

kabayiri

A question to teachers then.

If you're going to the effort of striking, then at least strike for a number of weeks during exam season. This has more chance of bullying the government into changing their plans.

Anything else is a bit, well, ineffective isn't it?

What is the point of a short disruption? It will just wind up the public and give the DM ammunition to spin out all those old cliches about teachers.