Off topic - teaching jobs

dondada · Post by **dondada** » 17 Apr 2005, 08:49

A few of you who post on here will know that I'm a secondary school teacher by profession.

I'm on a temporary contract and the school I'm at has a few 'financial issues' next year. Anyway, I'll be moving on in the summer.

The profession has a specialist newspaper, weekly on a Friday, with a jobs section.

I've got ten years in. I get 13 weeks holiday a year (though I'd say I spend about half of them working - still bloody good though). I'm an ordinary classroom teacher, no extra responsibilities and next year my pay scale will be about 30k a year. Despite what teachers think, there are MANY worse paid jobs. I know because I've tried. When I worked for a local paper (briefly) I was on less than half that.

How many jobs were in the paper? 8332. The most I've EVER seen. Draw your own conclusions from that. Just thought I should share that with you...not sure why.

jomothepure · Post by **jomothepure** » 18 Apr 2005, 12:38

Have to agree. £30k seems not bad for the job to be honest. That's more than a lot of university lecturers, not that their necessarily any better than secondary teachers.

What is putting people off then? Thinking all children are little mad shits who jump around the classroom; or all the paperwork or what?

About 5% relevance here, but I would just like to add that it costs £42 to renew a passport these days. Bloody hell. That's just for sending them a piece of paper saying no changes to details or anything. So they charge £42 just to produce a little red book (which isn't even hardback anymore.) AND they send it back to you 2nd class. Pricks. So, my advice - get into the teaching or passport printing industries.

Coconut · Post by **Coconut** » 18 Apr 2005, 12:50

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:A few of you who post on here will know that I'm a secondary school teacher by profession.

I'm on a temporary contract and the school I'm at has a few 'financial issues' next year. Anyway, I'll be moving on in the summer.

The profession has a specialist newspaper, weekly on a Friday, with a jobs section.

I've got ten years in. I get 13 weeks holiday a year (though I'd say I spend about half of them working - still bloody good though). I'm an ordinary classroom teacher, no extra responsibilities and next year my pay scale will be about 30k a year. Despite what teachers think, there are MANY worse paid jobs. I know because I've tried. When I worked for a local paper (briefly) I was on less than half that.

How many jobs were in the paper? 8332. The most I've EVER seen. Draw your own conclusions from that. Just thought I should share that with you...not sure why.

My wife's a teacher. She's very good, 29, already doing lots of teacher training, being hired out by her borough, acting deputy, got a CV as long as my arm, excellent reputation, doing her MA as well, and she's basically quitting her school at the end of this school year whether she's got a job to go to or not.

Not the kids or the parents - she's got both very rough but likes that. It's the management, not necessarily within the school but by the borough itself. One of the big problems I can see from my angle is a lack of guided support and a lack of accountable support - those tasked with 'supporting' are in fact more concerned with keeping their jobs and hitting league table targets, often things which are entirely incompatible with the successful running of the school. Plus they often have very poor management skills indeed.

Something you only see from the inside, I reckon.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 18 Apr 2005, 14:20

Perhaps I shouldn't say this, but I marked some Bsc course (first year) - 70% of them shouldn't be in university if you ask me.

jomothepure · Post by **jomothepure** » 18 Apr 2005, 14:29

I know. I mentioned this before, but my Dad's a lecturer and his uni's passing people on 30-35%. I'm sure a lot of people are going to university thinking it will set them up for life, but some are leaving after doing an accounting degree and have big gaps in basic maths and communication skills. And Labour target of 50% of all school leavers or whatever to go on to further ed. is stupid.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 18 Apr 2005, 14:34

jomothepure wrote:I know. I mentioned this before, but my Dad's a lecturer and his uni's passing people on 30-35%. I'm sure a lot of people are going to university thinking it will set them up for life, but some are leaving after doing an accounting degree and have big gaps in basic maths and communication skills. And Labour target of 50% of all school leavers or whatever to go on to further ed. is stupid.

40% is the pass mark with me, but to go lower than 40% you have to be really thick (sorry if anyone here has failed). If they had made the effort but failed to answer the question properly I was actually passing them (which I wouldn't if I was in charge). However, some quite clearly were not bothered and hadn't even read a book.

I am still a student, but I am pro top up fees for this reason - the students are having it too easy and getting too many second, third and fourth chances. I think we need to bring in financial system which hopefully will seperate those who want to be there to gain a degree, and those who want to be there cause there is cheap weed available and also, those who are not capable of being there. Not sure if it is the answer - but something needs to change.

Tony Blair once said he would like to see 50% of the 18 year olds in University. Not being funny, if 50% were in uni who are going to be doing the essential jobs that require no university qualifications - where are our plumbers, electricitions going to be.

Wales · Post by **Wales** » 18 Apr 2005, 14:37

My girlfriends in uni, some of the others in her class are as thick as corned beef sandwiches, 35% to obtain a degree is at best criminal.

jomothepure · Post by **jomothepure** » 18 Apr 2005, 14:54

I may have got slightly carried away there.

I think 40% is still the pass mark for the final degree, but people are being past in the 30% for 1st, 2nd, 3rd year work, and are carrying over stuff from years before.

Money is involved in this. A university can get 10k a year from an overseas student, so obviously they would give any help to those students that just verges on the legal in order to get them to stay.

From a different perspective, you've got families from, for example China, shelling out 10k a year for their son or daughter to study here, and that's minus accomodation and living costs. Now imagine if their son were to return home without this degree that pretty much the whole families' life savings and long term interests lie on...

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 18 Apr 2005, 17:54

Wales wrote:My girlfriends in uni, some of the others in her class are as thick as corned beef sandwiches, 35% to obtain a degree is at best criminal.

Exactly. The powers that be fill everyones heads with dreams these days.

'Thick as shit? Too lazy to work? Then go to Uni for another 3/4 years studying some media-studies bullshite course and act like a schoolkid until you're 22!! And then you'll still be thick as shit but what's even better is that there will be another 400,000 kids with degrees from 3rd-rate polytechnics and employers find it almost impossible to cut the wheat from the chaff'.

People that used to do menial jobs are now going to university believing they can become solictors, record producers and IT professionals, hence the shortage of people willing to fill 'low skilled' labour positions.

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 18 Apr 2005, 22:18

lol, 40%?

What the fornicate?

dondada · Post by **dondada** » 19 Apr 2005, 02:51

Goz wrote:
Wales wrote:My girlfriends in uni, some of the others in her class are as thick as corned beef sandwiches, 35% to obtain a degree is at best criminal.
Exactly. The powers that be fill everyones heads with dreams these days.

'Thick as shit? Too lazy to work? Then go to Uni for another 3/4 years studying some media-studies bullshite course and act like a schoolkid until you're 22!! And then you'll still be thick as shit but what's even better is that there will be another 400,000 kids with degrees from 3rd-rate polytechnics and employers find it almost impossible to cut the wheat from the chaff'.

People that used to do menial jobs are now going to university believing they can become solictors, record producers and IT professionals, hence the shortage of people willing to fill 'low skilled' labour positions.

For real. The thing is, it keeps them off the dole. Now many get £30 a week to carry on for two years. Smashing for the kids from poorer backgrounds who wanted to go but merely 'dole at school' for the uninterested ones who make the place a nightmare for others.

jab · Post by **jab** » 19 Apr 2005, 03:13

Are you guys joking? I mean really?
I dont know much about British school system, but could that be true? I mean 35% or even 40% to pass at university level?

In my uni (back in the day) if you didnt get a minimum of 60% you wouldnt pass. Period. And that was considered shamefully low.

Please tell me that was joke?!!?

BunglesFingers · Post by **BunglesFingers** » 19 Apr 2005, 04:38

There are far too many people kids at Uni who probably shouldn't be there, but if it helps them to stay off from the streets and get a bit more of an education, even if they spend half the time stoned, surely it's better than being on the dole or doing some job that they will quit every 6 months.

Those who have the ability will do well and get a good degree, those who mess about will end up with bugger all or an almost worthless degree so they'll soon realise that they have wasted their time. It's the same at school. The majority of kids that get their heads down and work will be successful, the one's that cause trouble and clown around will probably end up with bugger all.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 19 Apr 2005, 06:24

I have to confess, that I was one of the 'dole at school' mob. I did my first year twice, spending the entire year getting smashed and sleeping all day, organising parties and generally getting up to no good. I missed almost all my classes and lectures in the first 2 years, but did manage to complete all my coursework. In the end I pulled my finger out of my arse in the final year, and pulled out a 2:1, but really, should it have been that easy to do so?

However, I will say this. Being at university broadened my horizons, and gave me the confidence that if I am given a task to do, I can do it if I put my mind to it. My arguement is I didn't really need to take 3 years to do it.

Interesting that in the newspaper today, they are talking about abolishing the English Lit A Level, and merging it with the language A Level. Makes sense to me, English Literature is a strange subject, spending your time writing about other people's books. Far better to teach people the language properly, with an element of critical study, and some creative writing.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 19 Apr 2005, 06:28

jab wrote:Are you guys joking? I mean really?
I dont know much about British school system, but could that be true? I mean 35% or even 40% to pass at university level?

In my uni (back in the day) if you didnt get a minimum of 60% you wouldnt pass. Period. And that was considered shamefully low.

Please tell me that was joke?!!?

40% is the pass mark for most subjects, but then 40% of what? It's an arbitrary figure. For instance, in English Lit, it was nigh on impossible to get a mark much over 70%, I think I got 80% for one essay and that was a real cracker. So really most essays are being marked between 30-70% spread.

Coconut · Post by **Coconut** » 19 Apr 2005, 07:10

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Interesting that in the newspaper today, they are talking about abolishing the English Lit A Level, and merging it with the language A Level. Makes sense to me, English Literature is a strange subject, spending your time writing about other people's books. Far better to teach people the language properly, with an element of critical study, and some creative writing.

Noooooooooo!

Language should be taught:
a. at home
b. at school

The fact that in many cases it is not should not make it a university subject. If kids are going to have to spend three years at uni learning how to use an apostrophe then the language ieven more fecked than I think it is.

Just as, say, studying fine art is the basis for a career in art, if you want to be a creative writer then what better way than to study the literature that has preceded you?

James, you of all people should know that literature can provide so much more than a good story. the study of literature can teach a mixture of skills and attributes, from research, synthesis and thinking skills to nuance, clarity of expression, persuasion and the ability to juggle multiple thought streams while maintaining a cogent argument. And the literature itself is a fantastic insight into a world of philosophies and also into world history.

If you want to study language then grand but literature should be an essential part of this and should always be available as a separate subject.

Ignoring Shakespeare at degree level will mean that in a generation's time nobody will know any of his plays. As it is the A-Level has been watered down so that 'harder' books are ignored in favour of more easily-understood modern books. But the reason the 'greats have been around for so long is that they are quality stuff.

Wales · Post by **Wales** » 19 Apr 2005, 07:20

the missus is doing english lit, like you say 70% of the class are getting between 40-60%. One of them, when prompted about dickens, piped up "ahhh he wrote muppets christmas carol"

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 19 Apr 2005, 07:23

jab wrote:Are you guys joking? I mean really?
I dont know much about British school system, but could that be true? I mean 35% or even 40% to pass at university level?

In my uni (back in the day) if you didnt get a minimum of 60% you wouldnt pass. Period. And that was considered shamefully low.

Please tell me that was joke?!!?

Well hang on a sec.. the pass marks between unis are not internationally transferable. 40% in a British Uni might be like 60% in a German or American one? who knows?

I'm studying an M.Sc at the moment (and working full time incidently) and just got 80% for a piece of coursework. This is a "very good" but not "exceptional" mark at my uni now (Brookes, Oxford). But in Swansea (my undergraduate uni) if you got 80% in ANYTHING you were deemed to be Stephen Hawking or something. A superb piece of work only got you about 60-70%....

Different unis seem to have different marking systems, and they sure as shit aren't going to be the same systems between different countries...

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 19 Apr 2005, 07:29

Coconut wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:Interesting that in the newspaper today, they are talking about abolishing the English Lit A Level, and merging it with the language A Level. Makes sense to me, English Literature is a strange subject, spending your time writing about other people's books. Far better to teach people the language properly, with an element of critical study, and some creative writing.

Noooooooooo!

Language should be taught:
a. at home
b. at school

The fact that in many cases it is not should not make it a university subject. If kids are going to have to spend three years at uni learning how to use an apostrophe then the language ieven more fecked than I think it is.

Just as, say, studying fine art is the basis for a career in art, if you want to be a creative writer then what better way than to study the literature that has preceded you?

James, you of all people should know that literature can provide so much more than a good story. the study of literature can teach a mixture of skills and attributes, from research, synthesis and thinking skills to nuance, clarity of expression, persuasion and the ability to juggle multiple thought streams while maintaining a cogent argument. And the literature itself is a fantastic insight into a world of philosophies and also into world history.

If you want to study language then grand but literature should be an essential part of this and should always be available as a separate subject.

Ignoring Shakespeare at degree level will mean that in a generation's time nobody will know any of his plays. As it is the A-Level has been watered down so that 'harder' books are ignored in favour of more easily-understood modern books. But the reason the 'greats have been around for so long is that they are quality stuff.

English Language though, is not the study of how to read and write, it's pretty much creative writing, and those skills are very useful indeed. Personally I would be in favour of something which combined the two A Levels, as the two skills should be interwoved with one another.

Having studied English Literature at A level and Degree Level, I think it's a bit too esoteric, the language of criticism is highly rigid, much like art criticism, and I dislike it for that reason. There's to many academics, talking too much shit.

Classics of course are important, they have stood the test of time and the likes of 'The Cantebury Tales' are in my opinion unsurpassed despite the passage of 700 years. Is the purpose of eductation though to force people down these narrow routes? Surely this should be part of a broader education about the language. This WILL be taught at school first, but a love of the more complex nuance of the language would be best taught as a combined language/literature A level in my opinion. If people then want to go on and specialise at Degree level, then so be it.

J · Post by J » 19 Apr 2005, 07:38

my a level English course was a combination of Lit and lang.

As for the canterbury tales being classics, I know im gonna get slated for this but while the tales themselves may have been classics, I dont see the poignience in studying something that is written in an ancient langauge that resembles a four year old's tweenies programme from over half a millenium ago.

"with a hey nonny widwe wonth thee"

what? fornicate off! bollox!

really it pompous in the extreme to expect people to have to study books written in something that doesnt even resemble English. 700 yrs on.

pathetic and up their own arses in my view. At least shakespeare you can understand but Chaucer you need a translator, its to about as much to do with German as it has English.

as you can guess i was made to study it and its unintelligable shit.

save it for the acedemics.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 19 Apr 2005, 07:50

J wrote:my a level Enlgish course was a combination of Lit and lang.

As for the canterbury tales being classics, I know im gonna get slated for this but while the tales themselves may have been classics, I dont see the poignience in studying something that is written in an ancient langauge that resembles a four year old's tweenies programme

"with a hey nonny widwe wonth thee"

what? fornicate off! bollox!

really it pompous in the extreme to expect people to have to study books written in something that doesnt even resemble English. 700 yrs on.

pathetic and up their own arses in my view. At least shakespeare ytou can undersatand but Chaucer you need a translator, its to about as much to do with German as it has English.

as you can guess i was made to study it and its unintelligable shit.

save it for the acedemics.

J, it's very easy to pick up a good translation though, and as you said, the stories themselves are fantastic. Shakespear isn't THAT much easier to understand. The reason the book is still studied though, is that the stories are an excellent look back into history, they are written by a man who had a great eye for detail, and a great sense of humour. There was an animated series of the Cantebury Tales which was absolutely fantastic,.

However, there is plenty of 'modern' literature (modern starts around 1700's I seem to recally) to read, and what about everything being written about today? Is it all crap? Surely some of it merits including.

Wales · Post by **Wales** » 19 Apr 2005, 07:57

i always wonder how many of the "meanings" were supposed to be there and how many have been created by the disection of his work over the years.... we'll never know.

J · Post by J » 19 Apr 2005, 07:58

Yeah but they dont make you study ther translated version dude, thats my point, wtf has that got to do with English as we know it.

not being funny but I dont htink they let submit the animated version as a source in an exam paper.

i even had to study the friggin prologue which is about as interesting as ant crap.

you also misintepret me i think, i love books dude, just not ones that you are made to study cos they are demmed classics even if they have zero interest or in fact literary relevance to this day and age.

give me dickens or orwell anyday.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 19 Apr 2005, 08:02

Wales wrote:i always wonder how many of the "meanings" were supposed to be there and how many have been created by the disection of his work over the years.... we'll never know.

that's the case with any work of literature. If anything, the language they used back then was far less open to interpretation, and the forms were simpler making it easier not harder to find the literal meaning. The whole book is full of innuendo though, it's pretty much like one long Carry on movie for much of it.

I studied the book at O level with a copy which had the original text on one page, and the translation opposite, which worked well, because you pretty soon figured out what the "olde englishe" words like "Whann thatte aprill with his showers soote" and all that jazz meant.

J · Post by J » 19 Apr 2005, 08:04

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Wales wrote:i always wonder how many of the "meanings" were supposed to be there and how many have been created by the disection of his work over the years.... we'll never know.
that's the case with any work of literature. If anything, the language they used back then was far less open to interpretation, and the forms were simpler making it easier not harder to find the literal meaning. The whole book is full of innuendo though, it's pretty much like one long Carry on movie for much of it.

I studied the book at O level with a copy which had the original text on one page, and the translation opposite, which worked well, because you pretty soon figured out what the "olde englishe" words like "Whann thatte aprill with his showers soote" and all that jazz meant.

exactly i wanna shoot me muck would have done.

Off topic - teaching jobs

Off topic - teaching jobs

Re: Off topic - teaching jobs