What if: You've worked 50 hours this week and stopped after that. Fair enough?

What I would like to know is - if you were to stop working after a set amount of time (for arguments sake lets say 50 hours in a week would be your max) and clearly stated that as the reason things hadn't been done, what would happen?

No excuses, no apologies, just flatly state that you've worked for 50 hours that week (or 10 hours that day) which is already plenty, and that you'll carry on the next week / day.

What happens?

Because one thing that I'm seeing a lot of is talk of 60-70 hours a week being done by a lot of people, but what I'm not seeing much of is people explaining how they've defended themselves.

I've tried asking people and as far as I can tell most people don't even think to stand up for themselves with respect the to the hours that they work.

I get that things need to be done - but I also get that not everything can be done.

Personally I have no problem with being very clear about such matters to people. It's not a case of complaining or moaning - just saying that I have a life, I have this much time for work and if it goes over then it's going to have to be done the following week.

I think this is a perfectly reasonable position, but I don't have much feel for what the reactions to such a thing might be. I'm currently considering whether to take up some training in conjunction with my maths degree (re teaching), and trying to get a feel for things.

cheers

Unfortunately this is not always possible. A deadline might be involved such as completing a set of reports or there might be an internal inspection coming up to check the quality of marking for a particular yearbook. It's true that an experienced teacher can turn up for a lesson without having prepared a thing but professional pride would mean that very few would want to do this regularly.

...

There's nothing wrong with wanting a life outside of work. But I think that if you took on a job which you knew requires 'out of hours' work, it would annoy your employer if you turned round and said 'actually i'm putting a 50 hour limit on my out of hours work' after you were given the job. Things have to be done and if they have to be done now then do them now. It comes across as a bit of a bad work ethic to me.

Things have to be done and if they have to be done now then do them now. It comes across as a bit of a bad work ethic to me.

The Schoolteachers Pay and Conditions Document says "a teacher must work such reasonable additional hours as may be necessary to enable the effective discharge of the teacher’s professional duties, including in particular planning and preparing courses and lessons; and assessing, monitoring, recording and reporting on the learning needs, progress and achievements of assigned pupils."

There is no upper limit. If, with the support of your union, you wanted to argue that a total of 50 hours meant you had completed a "reasonable" number of additional hours you could certainly do so. It is easy for schools to dismiss teachers however. All they need to do is give you a bad appraisal and subsequently say you have failed to respond to the package of support provided.

It is easy for schools to dismiss teachers however. All they need to do is give you a bad appraisal and subsequently say you have failed to respond to the package of support provided.

Are you suggesting that they would be dismissed?

They'd only be dismissed if they failed to discharge some of their duties e.g. books were not being marked in accordance with school policy (and there are absurd policies in some schools that require triple making in different colours) or lessons were unplanned (again some schools require teachers to hand over all their planning each week for inspection).

As an inexperienced teacher (NQT), it seems to me that it would depend on what the things I left undone were...

I'm fortunate enough to work in a school with a supportive SLT (at least, that is the view I have of them, and quite possibly is not the view of other teachers in my school). I was regularly told last term that I am working very hard and that nobody expects me to work as hard as I am. The fact that I was generally the last person in school and had to be kicked out every evening, and that I was the first person in school every day, and that I spent quite a lot of my

weekends working as well, was appreciated but wasn't necessary.

As it was, I was fairly close to a breakdown at various points (although not solely because of all the work I was doing - other personal issues were also occurring), and working more than 60 hours a week. A part of my first NQT report included taking care of myself as one of my targets! After two days back, I know I will continue to be the first person in school aside from the caretaker every morning, but that is a personal choice due to traffic. I am trying to make sure that any work I do at the weekends are the things that absolutely MUST get done before Monday. If it isn't vital, I won't do it. And no one has thought twice about telling me off for not sending out a letter or three that probably should have gone out before Christmas.



All in all, I guess what I think is that, yes, I could quite easily say to my SLT that I've worked for 50 hours that week and I refuse to do any more. And unless something I hadn't done was absolutely vital and seriously urgent, then they probably wouldn't have a problem with it. But being able to do this would be heavily dependent on the school... and you just never know what will crop up in this job that requires out of hours work!

All in all, I guess what I think is that, yes, I could quite easily say to my SLT that I've worked for 50 hours that week and I refuse to do any more. And unless something I hadn't done was absolutely vital and seriously urgent, then they probably wouldn't have a problem with it.

That's good to hear, I wonder how rare this is ? And what type of school are you at re grammar, academy, independent , state etc? Which subject?

Seems not to be the norm from what I've been reading.


Also sounds that you were keen to make a good impression which is understandable, but this wouldn't be my first job, so I'm pretty aware of how much I would want to give and confident in drawing lines around that.


Still, it's hard to get any solid idea of what "out of hours" means with the vague definitions I've seen. So I'm a bit hesitant to commit to any training program that's going to lead me down a path to 60 hour weeks and poor pay.



cheers!

I'm a Year 6 teacher at a small primary school, state-funded, non-academised, with what you would call a "disadvantaged" demographic of children.

I wouldn't say that I was keen to make a good impression, as I did some of my training at that school and already had a relationship with many of the members of staff. However, I have always been a hard worker, and in one of my previous (non-teaching) jobs, it was absolutely the norm for me to work 11-13 hour days, 6 days a week.


Yes, I would agree with you that the definition of "out of hours" is vague, or possibly even non-existent. However, I think with teaching, it is a foolish person who enters into it with any sort of financial incentive. The pay is not likely to equate to a decent wage for the amount of hours any teacher puts in, ever. But I choose to teach because I enjoy it, truly. Last term, in spite of everything, it was spending 5 hours of my day with my class that was keeping me going. And, as has already happened to me in the three months of being a proper teacher, I would willingly spend a few hours at the weekend "working" if it is spent dealing with an issue that will affect a child's life (i.e. a safeguarding issue).

Yes, I would agree with you that the definition of "out of hours" is vague, or possibly even non-existent.

However, I think with teaching, it is a foolish person who enters into it with any sort of financial incentive. The pay is not likely to equate to a decent wage for the amount of hours any teacher puts in, ever.

And, as has already happened to me in the three months of being a proper teacher, I would willingly spend a few hours at the weekend "working" if it is spent dealing with an issue that will affect a child's life (i.e. a safeguarding issue).

Yes! it's pretty hard to get any sort of handle on it.





Can I just stress how ridiculous this notion is in my opinion. I constantly hear it, along with the "I did XYZ hours last week" as though it's some badge of honour.

Are you a volunteer? No, so you're getting paid. There's a wage attached. If there was a school equidistant to yours, same conditions etc etc and offered a job would there be a certain point at which the pay would be motivating? I imagine in nearly all cases the answer would be yes.

Because someone is asking for reasonable pay and hours does NOT mean that they're expecting some kind of CEO. And it's really unfair of people to insinuate that's the case. Perhaps if people realised how they were driving talented people away from the industry (and children) with such notions they might be a bit more reasonable themselves. I'm sure they could do more time if they wanted.




I'm quite happy to leave something until I'm actually meant to do it. I've worked in mental health, and learnt that somethings just happen. Sure you can break your neck weekly if you like, but ultimately the positive change from it is next to nothing in comparison to changes from the top down.


Perhaps someone will twist that statement into "oh so you don't care" or something equally extreme and nonsensical.

As somebody who chooses to willingly work in this role, I accept this. Like it? Not much. But I am much less motivated by money than other people might claim to be. I have always chosen my jobs based on happiness and fulfilment. Unfortunately for my bank balance, these are not the ridiculously well paid jobs. Fortunately for me, I don't care.

As a teacher in an area where there is a recruitment crisis, I could have hand picked any number of jobs near enough to my house to commute to. Given where I live, I could have chosen somewhere that attracted a higher salary simply due to its proximity to London. I could have chosen an academy, given that they tend to pay higher salaries. I chose a school that I liked, and where I knew I could have a huge impact on the children because their parents cannot or will not afford them whatever it is they are lacking. I knew what I was getting into. I knew it was hard work for little salary.

But you know what - it isn't the salary that drives people away, it is the hard work.

And given my experience of people in general (Warning: sweeping generalisation of human beings coming up), I would say that a lot of people would leave teaching even if the salary was 3x what it is, simply because they wouldn't want to do the work involved.

In simple terms, it isn't teaching and the salary that drives people away from the profession. I believe it is the government and the amount of uninformed control they have over the profession, which makes the job what it is. I think politicians are the real problem here.

You seem to be contradicting yourself - saying that you don't like it but you don't care...? I've not said anything (nor read anything) along the lines of it should be "ridiculously well paid" either so I'm not sure what you're on about. It seems that you're exaggerating to try and make your position seem reasonable?

Note I said that there would be a certain point where the pay is motivating, it didn't reach that point, great. What I'm getting at is this 'holier than thou' attitude many seem to put out on this topic is daft, it's blatantly not black and white. Yes yourself (me) and many others would have priorities other than money with respect to work, but that doesn't mean that getting money isn't important OR that peoples time isn't.

Nonsense I think. It's the *culture* that drives a lot of people away. Doing a stupid amount of hours isn't *hard* work in a particularly meaningful way, it's just stupid work. It causes stress, lack of free time etc. There are many jobs which the work is hard because the actual work is hard, whether you're doing half an hour or half a day of it, so I don't think that this makes sense here.

People who imply that others can't "hack it" or whatever is daft. And what's frustrating is often people who don't go into teaching as a result are *really* good candidates, they just so happen to have enough strings to their bow that they don't **need** to do teaching like another might. I personally know a few people who're PhD level and wanted to go into teaching and didn't because of the culture there. So as a result the system (and the students) have lost out on some fantastic maths teachers. Great.

Can't you understand that people DO want to do the work involved. There are many people who would love to do it and are passionate about it but they're not about to make themselves a martyr for it.

Basically they think that teachers time and finances should be reasonably respected. Makes sense to me as well.

What do you *mean* by "the government and the amount of uninformed control they have over the profession"? The regulations etc? Yes, I'm sure that this adds to things as it puts up the workload and increases the stress placed on teachers as a result. (what are you doing to improve this?)

Politicians are a problem yes, as well as what seems to be a culture of teachers who don't have any respect for their personal time and brandish those who do as unwilling to work hard. And ultimately it's the quality of education that suffers over all. As a result I would probably argue that people of such dispositions are either pretty short sighted or aren't actually that bothered about improving the system over all.

Compared to other jobs, teaching will not be well paid because it remains a public service role. ....

I did it anyway, because I care about my job.

That is not something alien to other jobs. Many people I know, and I'm sure many I do not, take work home with them at some point because they care about getting it done. The only difference that seems to be causing you an issue here is the amount of money I receive compared to somebody like my sister, who frequently takes work home. At what point does money ever make taking work home reasonable?

That is not something alien to other jobs. Many people I know, and I'm sure many I do not, take work home with them at some point because they care about getting it done. The only difference that seems to be causing you an issue here is the amount of money I receive compared to somebody like my sister, who frequently takes work home. At what point does money ever make taking work home reasonable?

At what point does the work that needs doing become so important that it requires taking home? Every person will have a different answer to these questions, at which point I say that the entire debate becomes a waste of time.

Time is important. Money has been made important.

The amount of work put into teaching by a lot of people has been generated by the expectations and demands on the profession. The expectations and demands on the profession have been generated by, vaguely speaking, a lot of people who don't know anything about education (i.e. politicians).

Because teachers are held accountable for the outcomes of their students, if they care about their job they work hard to make sure they do everything in their power to generate good outcomes. We have to justify everything we have done, prove that we tried everything we could to get that student where they needed to be, and that has to happen for every single student. Class teachers are under pressure from SLT because SLT are pressurised by the budget and the continuing scrutiny of schools and their performance. Ultimately, it is a choice to spend however many hours a week teachers spend working. The 'holier than thou' attitude you see is actually people who care about their job doing what they feel they need to do. They work that many hours because, for whatever reasons, they choose to. Those that can't find the reason to continue working that much tend to be the ones who leave.

Of course people can't hack it. In the same way that people can't hack an office job because it drives them crazy with boredom, or they can't hack a job in a supermarket because it isn't mentally challenging. It is natural for people to be unable to cope with certain things, and when they can't cope, they avoid the situation and do something else. Being a teacher, like any other job, requires a skill set combined with a set of personality traits. To which end, people who do want to do the work involved by don't want to martyr themselves do not have that combination of traits to become a teacher. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that - possibly they are more sane in some ways than other people.

It interests me that you mention "enough strings to their bow that they don't need to do teaching like another might". To me, this implies that you are measuring people based on things like intelligence, qualifications and academic ability, or the lack thereof.

Whatever strings to their bow that you are implicating, it still comes back to the point I have just made. Skills and personality traits need to combine in a particular way to produce someone both capable and desirous of teaching. If they don't want to teach because of pay, culture or something else, then at this particular time they are not cut out for teaching - again, maybe they are more sane than other people who can cope with the demands of a teaching job. The whole thing is relative, as is much of life.

In terms of time and finances being respected, and in terms of your previous idea that teaching should be a more respected job - by questioning the motives and comments made by current teachers who feel the need to justify their work/life balance, you disrespect the job more by insisting that we should be working less, and making more of a stand against low wages and long working hours.

Until a person actually sets foot into a classroom with 30 odd children, who all need to learn about 7 different things to each other in the space of an hour, with just one teacher and possibly one other adult to help out in the room, that person will not understand the job and therefore find it difficult to respect it as it should be respected.

For me, being respected as a teacher would not necessarily look at a pay rise and shorter working hours - it would look like a lot less scrutiny of the things that I do as a teacher, and a more relaxed attitude to how I do my job. Sure, that change might affect the length of my working hours, but not necessarily.

As I mentioned previously, the level of control over education by politicians and the government is what dictates the amount of money schools have to spend (or not, as the case may be), and what they have to do as part of their daily job. But education doesn't suffer because teachers don't respect their personal time - quite the opposite, because if they didn't sacrifice some of their personal time to get some of their job done, it would result in something being missed out or not done that would have been beneficial to the education of the children in their care.

So sue me for taking a "back seat" in solving the pay and work/life balance issues in the profession I chose to be in from this point forward. If people don't want to be teachers for whatever reason, or can't understand those that do want to teach in spite of the 'lack of respect for pay and time', I can't help them. Because I want my time working to be spent improving children's lives, and I want my free time to be spent enjoying the many "strings to my bow". Which, ultimately, means that I will not be reading this thread any more. I have spent enough time on here, and I have other things to do than remonstrate over matters that I can neither control nor directly change as an individual. I wish you happy remonstrating

You do have some options to stand your ground but it will depend on your workplace. If there is a culture of working long hours and it is expected and you refuse they may just decide that you're not the right employee for them.

As far as standing up for yourself it's very reasonable to say 'I can't work more than X hours a week and can't complete my full workload in this time, what should I prioritise?'.