Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should teachers be banned from striking? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should teachers be banned from striking?
    Yes
    65
    28.02%
    No
    167
    71.98%

    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    The minimum wage is not a living wage, a living wage is higher than it. Besides that, it's not just an issue of wages, that formed part of the strikes, but it's also cuts to funding to their services and the changes being made to the education system.

    I don't get the "disrupting education" line as well. It's the end of term tomorrow, admittedly I finished school 7 years ago, but back then the last week was a doddle, it consisted of watching films - and from what my little sister has told me, that's not changed much (except the films are now at least connected to the subject in someway) - what benefit education wise would they have got from going in today?
    Eh? Schools broke up last week here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No, because to be perfectly honest with you it does nothing. All it does is give them a day off from work then they return as content as ever. They do the same each year and it makes no difference to anyone it just disrupts the students for a day but half of the teachers or more are normally in school anyway.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    The Police and Army maintain order in times of civil unrest. Thats why they aren't allowed to...
    Having been a teacher myself, some teachers would say the same thing of schools!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    One thing I think people are missing here is how this will effect future generations of teachers. The position of being a teacher in the UK is no longer as respected as it once was, and people with university degrees (of the highest level) have much better prospects if they shy away from teaching altogether. Admittedly there are some great teachers who pursue there professions purely for the enjoyment of educating the next generation of students (and I was fortunate enough to be educated by many of these people). This is how it should be. Unfortunately, the reality is that people tend to take the jobs that will benefit them financially. As far as I am concerned this leads to huge problems to the future of our education system, and it is showcased today.

    Undoubtedly, the difficulty of education in this country has rapidly decreased and I believe this is due to the fact that the position of being a teacher has become much less appealing to the top graduates. I totally agree that we should make the material harder and work our way back to a level that we were at previously (but on a much larger scale). This, in my opinion, can only be done by making the job of a teacher appealing to top graduates in there respective fields. So, if striking improves the overall appeal for being a teacher I definitely agree with it. It seems to be that people can't have it both ways. As far as I can see, people who claimed to have been disrupted by the strike cannot both complain about the inconvenience and then the quality of teaching. With regards to the pupils, all the important exam periods are currently over and as someone who has spent plenty of time furthering my education I can undoubtedly say this will have little effect on your overall education, and as argued above leads to better education in future years.

    I have the upmost respect for teachers who are talented in there respective subjects and then impart this knowledge in a passionate manner to new students. I hope this strike has a positive effect and makes people realise the sacrifice some teachers have made in order to teach the next generation of children.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by WishingChaff)
    One thing I think people are missing here is how this will effect future generations of teachers. The position of being a teacher in the UK is no longer as respected as it once was, and people with university degrees (of the highest level) have much better prospects if they shy away from teaching altogether. Admittedly there are some great teachers who pursue there professions purely for the enjoyment of educating the next generation of students (and I was fortunate enough to be educated by many of these people). This is how it should be. Unfortunately, the reality is that people tend to take the jobs that will benefit them financially. As far as I am concerned this leads to huge problems to the future of our education system, and it is showcased today.

    Undoubtedly, the difficulty of education in this country has rapidly decreased and I believe this is due to the fact that the position of being a teacher has become much less appealing to the top graduates. I totally agree that we should make the material harder and work our way back to a level that we were at previously (but on a much larger scale). This, in my opinion, can only be done by making the job of a teacher appealing to top graduates in there respective fields. So, if striking improves the overall appeal for being a teacher I definitely agree with it. It seems to be that people can't have it both ways. As far as I can see, people who claimed to have been disrupted by the strike cannot both complain about the inconvenience and then the quality of teaching. With regards to the pupils, all the important exam periods are currently over and as someone who has spent plenty of time furthering my education I can undoubtedly say this will have little effect on your overall education, and as argued above leads to better education in future years.

    I have the upmost respect for teachers who are talented in there respective subjects and then impart this knowledge in a passionate manner to new students. I hope this strike has a positive effect and makes people realise the sacrifice some teachers have made in order to teach the next generation of children.
    I think the way to solve the teaching issues is to be somewhat stricter on those allowed to teach and create incentives for the more capable to move out of their respective industries into teaching, almost all of my best teachers (not including primary) have come out of industry to teach. On the flip side, those that do especially well at "proper" universities in "proper" fields should be encouraged to go into research while their mind is at its prime rather than going straight into teaching (or other profession).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Unfortunately, being much stricter with who is allowed to teach will lead to a huge decline in the total number of working teachers. The problem lies deeper than simply thinning the current herd of teachers. To meet the demand of required teachers in the upcoming years (of an exceptional standard) we must make the job more attractive.

    I agree that people who spend time applying their knowledge in industry and then move into teaching tend to be good teachers. They can pass on first hand experience from working in that field. However, I cannot see how we can incentivise people in industry to take teaching jobs. Industry will always pay more money and carry more respect than teaching. So I cannot see why people would suddenly decide to leave better paying jobs to train as teachers (although I am sure, as you have said, their are a few cases).

    On the research aspect, it is very difficult to encourage more people to continue to pursue research. Again, it is a financial issue. The current PhD salaries are around £15,000 a year (for three years). Undoubtedly, this is much less than people would be getting if they worked in industry, and given that you probably require a first class degree to pursue a reputable PhD, you would get even more from private companies.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I think the way to solve the teaching issues is to be somewhat stricter on those allowed to teach and create incentives for the more capable to move out of their respective industries into teaching, almost all of my best teachers (not including primary) have come out of industry to teach. On the flip side, those that do especially well at "proper" universities in "proper" fields should be encouraged to go into research while their mind is at its prime rather than going straight into teaching (or other profession).
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by WishingChaff)
    Unfortunately, being much stricter with who is allowed to teach will lead to a huge decline in the total number of working teachers. The problem lies deeper than simply thinning the current herd of teachers. To meet the demand of required teachers in the upcoming years (of an exceptional standard) we must make the job more attractive.

    I agree that people who spend time applying their knowledge in industry and then move into teaching tend to be good teachers. They can pass on first hand experience from working in that field. However, I cannot see how we can incentivise people in industry to take teaching jobs. Industry will always pay more money and carry more respect than teaching. So I cannot see why people would suddenly decide to leave better paying jobs to train as teachers (although I am sure, as you have said, their are a few cases).

    On the research aspect, it is very difficult to encourage more people to continue to pursue research. Again, it is a financial issue. The current PhD salaries are around £15,000 a year (for three years). Undoubtedly, this is much less than people would be getting if they worked in industry, and given that you probably require a first class degree to pursue a reputable PhD, you would get even more from private companies.
    The incentivising (did I just "make that up") really is the hard bit, but standards definitely need to be brought, especially if the sorts of things my sister tells me about when she was doing her BEd still happen. As for the PhD, in some respects you have to disregard what they earn while doing it, especially considering that's almost 30,000 more than they were in the previous years (well, not strictly true, but considering the debt it kinda is) and that generally when doing a PhD you're likely going into research, and with a PhD you on average get paid 27% more than someone with just a BA, IIRC (but the increase from MA-> PhD is minimal given MA is already either 23 or 26% up on BA).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    As I said, I also agree that standards need to be brought up, and in that statement alone is why, in principle, I agree with teachers striking. I am currently a researcher in an esoteric field and can say that it is not assured that PhDs lead to a career in academia. It is very difficult to become a full time researcher and very few people make it. Also, it can be the case that companies shy away from PhD applicants due to their lack of experience in non academic work. I have had friends who have had more trouble finding jobs after a PhD than they would have had if they applied with their masters.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The incentivising (did I just "make that up") really is the hard bit, but standards definitely need to be brought, especially if the sorts of things my sister tells me about when she was doing her BEd still happen. As for the PhD, in some respects you have to disregard what they earn while doing it, especially considering that's almost 30,000 more than they were in the previous years (well, not strictly true, but considering the debt it kinda is) and that generally when doing a PhD you're likely going into research, and with a PhD you on average get paid 27% more than someone with just a BA, IIRC (but the increase from MA-> PhD is minimal given MA is already either 23 or 26% up on BA).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    considering that disease is indiscriminate and in the western world there aren't many diseases that near exclusively affect the poorest in society
    The working classes are suffering an exclusive blight in Britain.. "A successful parasite is one that is not recognized by it's host, one that can make its host work for it without appearing as a burden. Such is the ruling class in our society."
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Reece Sure)
    The working classes are suffering an exclusive blight in Britain.. "A successful parasite is one that is not recognized by it's host, one that can make its host work for it without appearing as a burden. Such is the ruling class in our society."
    I wonder though, where would the working class be without them?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Teachers shouldn't strike as nurses and policemen can't strike because they hold important jobs in society. The new law that children can't be taken out of school for holidays illustrates how a few days of absence can affect an education
    Even though teachers are poorly paid- they have good holidays which police and nurses don't have yet all three job positions are facing simialr cuts

    Strikes are widely ineffective anyway
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I wonder though, where would the working class be without them?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If left unexploited, with proper organisation a collective force of nature capable of achieving incredible feats. We owe the ruling classes nothing, they are a fiend, a parasite by nature and definition alike.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Reece Sure)
    If left unexploited, with proper organisation a collective force of nature capable of achieving incredible feats. We owe the ruling classes nothing, they are a fiend, a parasite by nature and definition alike.
    Well then, why don't you show me a society in recent times that has survived without a ruling class and hasn't let a new ruling class rise. It's also debatable whether you can truly have a society without a ruling class anyway.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Well then, why don't you show me a society in recent times that has survived without a ruling class and hasn't let a new ruling class rise. It's also debatable whether you can truly have a society without a ruling class anyway.
    Typical boring fallacy. "Because it has never rained on a Tuesday before today, it will never rain on a Tuesday today or after today." Why is it that philosophers that living thousands of years ago are able to identify your flaws in logic whilst you, living in the present modern day, fail to do so?

    I needn't highlight history; any country with the very viable option of reducing the power of the ruling classes are immediately crushed by societies dominated by ruling classes. It's a theme that has recurred too often throughout our very short history
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Reece Sure)
    Typical boring fallacy. "Because it has never rained on a Tuesday before today, it will never rain on a Tuesday today or after today." Why is it that philosophers that living thousands of years ago are able to identify your flaws in logic whilst you, living in the present modern day, fail to do so?

    I needn't highlight history; any country with the very viable option of reducing the power of the ruling classes are immediately crushed by societies dominated by ruling classes. It's a theme that has recurred too often throughout our very short history
    The thing is your quoting theory, theory that has had many opportunities to happen in practice, but never has manged it. And surely, the fact that the ruling class always comes back just shows that it's practically a necessity, does it not?
    • TSR Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Quady)
    Eh? Schools broke up last week here.
    Might just be Leicester's school system. Our half terms are all a week out on everyone else, but we've always finished the second week of July (and I was quite shocked to find out from friends at uni that college starts for a-levels not GCSEs).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I wonder, is that down to there being a trend between competence and intelligence, i.e., could it be that, generally, the better teachers are the smarter ones with more common sense (in my experience, yes). Consequently, the better teachers know that striking will serve no real purpose wasting their time (and more importantly to them, money) and the students time also. I think the irony is that part of the complaint is that they're "only" getting a 1% pay rise, yet all they have to do is go on strike for 4 days over it to negate it, and I wouldn't at all put it past the unions. Obviously, they wouldn't be sensible enough to put it as 4 day solid, instead put it as 4 ineffective spread out days.
    Yes, I've noticed that the teachers who don't strike normally have bit more common sense, which is probably part of the reason that they're better teachers. I didn't realise that they were basically wasting their pay rise by striking so much as well, that's an interesting point.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by All-rounder)

    As you should all know, ALL teachers are required to be part of a union, NUT is an example of just one.
    No, we aren't

    When their union decides they are going to strike, BY LAW, the teachers in that union have to as well whether they want to or not.
    No, this is not true
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by rmlgud)
    Yes, I've noticed that the teachers who don't strike normally have bit more common sense, which is probably part of the reason that they're better teachers. I didn't realise that they were basically wasting their pay rise by striking so much as well, that's an interesting point.
    Given there is no obligation to pay them when striking, since they're doing no work, if there are any employers that would still pay their striking workers it definitely isn't the government.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Given there is no obligation to pay them when striking, since they're doing no work, if there are any employers that would still pay their striking workers it definitely isn't the government.
    :confused::confused:

    I do not think you will find any employer that pays striking workers
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
    Uni match

    Applying to uni?

    Our tool will help you find the perfect course

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

    Quick link:

    Educational debate unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.