Michael Gove confirms what i've been saying all along

[Jimmy Gabriel's Halo]

I can accept that I am naive in my opinions, as I am young. However, I can not accept that because someone is older than me they are instantly correct. Also, debate is always healthy. This is why I do not understand why people like Dune and thedelldays come on here, start a thread bragging about how right they are and then get all butthurt and personal when someone disagrees with them. It's only an internet forum at the end of the day and it is used for debate, not name calling.

 

But of course whether I am naive or not depends on your own view point.

 

And that, my young friend, is the trouble with your generation. Of course older people are always correct because we know more than you do as we've been around longer and have more experience of life. You'll need to embrace that as a concept as and when (or if) you start life in the real world of employment for example.

 

This is what my father said to me and what his father said to him and what his father said to him and so on and so on.

[Jimmy Gabriel's Halo]

I took my O and A levels in the sixties.

 

Specifically in maths, the syllabus has been massively dumbed down - I have seen my own children's work.

 

So the exams haven't got easier, they test what the kids are meant to know, but we don't teach them what we used to - they're not stretched enough.

 

I think this is true in other subjects as well.

 

For sure. When I took my O levels in the late 60's and A levels in the early 70's some very bright kids actually FAILED. Does this happen today ? I hear even a fail is a pass now or they're not allowed to fail anything in case they become damaged for life.

[Window Cleaner]

I did my O levels in the late 60s and still have my maths papers. As with a previous poster they included calculus and, comparing them with my son's GCSE papers, they are certainly different. Whether they are harder or not, I don't know. You can only be examined on what you are taught and some of the current stuff is unfamiliar to me.

 

Mrs ecuk268 has taught infants and juniors for decades and they do "set theory" which I didn't come across until degree level. The O levels were aimed at the grammar schools and the secondaries had CSEs. The GCSE seems to be a compromise between the two.

 

Set theory was certainly part of the London A Level syllabus (Applied Maths I think) at the

end of the 60s/early 70s.Couldn't say about O Level because I'm an ex Taunton's inmate where the reasonably bright passed from the 4th form to 5 Advanced without any specific O level attempt,you just picked up whatever you took early (like foreign languages in the 4th form) or the mandatory English Language/Lit and other time fillers such as Latin and British Constitution sort of crap in 5A.With 5 and 4 I have more A levels than O Levels

but with that system it didn't pay to f*ck about in the Upper 6th.

[Ludwig]

Set theory was certainly part of the London A Level syllabus (Applied Maths I think) at the

end of the 60s/early 70s.Couldn't say about O Level because I'm an ex Taunton's inmate where the reasonably bright passed from the 4th form to 5 Advanced without any specific O level attempt,you just picked up whatever you took early (like foreign languages in the 4th form) or the mandatory English Language/Lit and other time fillers such as Latin and British Constitution sort of crap in 5A.With 5 and 4 I have more A levels than O Levels

but with that system it didn't pay to f*ck about in the Upper 6th.

 

By Set Theory, how much was covered? Statistics 4 (a module contributing to further maths, sometimes) on OCR (exam board) covers basic set theory for probability, unions, intersections, possibly complements (I can't quite remember), but then within this, there isn't any particular difficulty (the same with basic calculus being included in a GCSE paper), it's just arbitrary as to whether it's done earlier or later (although perhaps 16 year olds ought to know basic calculus).

[Ludwig]

This doesn't even merit debate.

 

When I did my GCSEs I sat an Additional Maths paper. This was an additional GCSE that was harder than Maths and was supposed to challenge the brightest. It was an old O-level paper and it covered most of the first year of A-level maths. QED.

 

Combine obvious regressive measures like this with schools teacing Mickey Mouse subjects, hordes of semi-literate bog-standard people at "universities" and exam boards which can't even check their own papers properly and you evidently have a discredited exam system.

 

FSMQ maths is ******** (assuming that's what you did), a multiple choice exam based on some of the easier stuff you'll do over the course of AS pure maths/stats/mechanics isn't as difficult as you make out. The 'best' mathematicians are still adequately tested through exams, have a look at STEP papers, which are required for some degree courses, then tell me that the standard of mathematicians is declining (at the top - it'll be just as hard for someone in the 60s as now).

[Window Cleaner]

By Set Theory, how much was covered? Statistics 4 (a module contributing to further maths, sometimes) on OCR (exam board) covers basic set theory for probability, unions, intersections, possibly complements (I can't quite remember), but then within this, there isn't any particular difficulty (the same with basic calculus being included in a GCSE paper), it's just arbitrary as to whether it's done earlier or later (although perhaps 16 year olds ought to know basic calculus).

 

 

Jeez it's a long,long time ago now and as with everything Taunton's related it's complicated because they let you have a stab at an A level known as PAM in the Lower 6th before graduating to the fully separated Pure Maths and Applied Maths in the Upper 6th. I certainly did quite a lot of set theory in the syllabus along with vector algebra and some stats. As I was more inclined to physics I sort of concentrated on the Pure Maths aspect. I remember a load of gumph been forced into my head about Taylor's Theorem and McLaurin's theorem and Lami's theorem and a whole lot of other theorems.The basic calculus we did in the 4th form so it must have been part of the O level programme at that time, differentiation and integration as applied to basic stuff like calculating the area under a graph and that sort of thing.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Think the grammar school system is shot and no longer a vehicle for social mobility (I went to one years ago in bompey fwiw).

 

It is a fact that social mobility was higher when we had Grammar Schools.Harold Wilson, Ted Heath, Jim Callaghan, Margaret Thatcher, and John Major were all Grammar school educated. Nowadays the high flyers of both parties are by and large privately educated and this trend will continue, we are further away from a comprehensive educated Prime Minister as we've ever been. In the late 60's lots of the high flyers in the media and politics came out of Grammar schools, that is now lost. The problem with pre comprehensive education was the secondary moderns, not the Grammar schools. We have Grammar schools where I live in Poole and 95% of parents want their kids to attend.

 

One of the consequences of the present ecomonic conditions is that rich parents who would have funded their kids throughout their education privately, are now funding it until 11, and then trying getting them into Grammar.The upshot of this is that there are less places available for "normal" children.I have heard that more and more kids are passing the entrance exam and not getting places because of this. There are extremely bright kids who should be Grammar educated, but aren't because spaces are so scarce.There should be more Grammar schools, but also more money and speciallist learning for the ones that fail the 11+. As I said earlier the Secondary moderns were the problem, not the Grammar schools.

[bridge too far]

Perhaps one of the reasons that secondary schools were perceived to be failures is that the children who ended up there were labelled 'failures'. Another reason could be that resources were disproportionately allocated to the grammar schools. And I speak as one who 'benefited' from a grammar school education as did all my children as we lived in Buckinghamshire at the time, one of the few counties left that has selection.

 

Grammar schools were elitist back in the day. I was one of the few working class girls who went to my grammar school and was regularly made to feel like a second-class citizen because my father was a builder and everyone else had doctors or solicitors or the like for parents.

 

With true comprehensive education there is always the opportunity for children to succeed as they develop at different rates. One of my daughter's friends failed her 11+ in Buckinghamshire and went to an underachieving secondary school. She was a late developer and did well at her school against the odds. She is now fashion editor for a large glossy magazine.

 

I think Ed Miliband went to a comprehensive school. He seemed to do OK, having gone to Oxford and the LSE.

[Saintandy666]

Perhaps one of the reasons that secondary schools were perceived to be failures is that the children who ended up there were labelled 'failures'. Another reason could be that resources were disproportionately allocated to the grammar schools. And I speak as one who 'benefited' from a grammar school education as did all my children as we lived in Buckinghamshire at the time, one of the few counties left that has selection.

 

Grammar schools were elitist back in the day. I was one of the few working class girls who went to my grammar school and was regularly made to feel like a second-class citizen because my father was a builder and everyone else had doctors or solicitors or the like for parents.

 

With true comprehensive education there is always the opportunity for children to succeed as they develop at different rates. One of my daughter's friends failed her 11+ in Buckinghamshire and went to an underachieving secondary school. She was a late developer and did well at her school against the odds. She is now fashion editor for a large glossy magazine.

 

I think Ed Miliband went to a comprehensive school. He seemed to do OK, having gone to Oxford and the LSE.

 

Re: The Milibands... I bet their father had some degree of influence in them getting into Oxford to do PPE. Ralph Miliband is very famous, and obviously a man of principle as he no doubt probably had the funds to send them to private schools.

[trousers]

As in the predictability that I ram dunce's pathetic argument into the ground as I base my arguments on fact and not on conjecture?

 

You can't have have opinion and fact. One or the other, surely...? ;-)

[View From The Top]

I can't think of anything worse then sending my kids to a grammar school with all the chinless Tarquins and Sophies that populate our local one even though both would breeze through the 11+. I prefer my kids to be grounded and rounded.

 

We will look at all the local schools, I would expect them to all be academies by then, and choose according to what they wish to study.

 

My nipper will want to do maths and science and my eldest daughter English and the humanities.

 

Personally I'd adopted the German model.

[Verbal]

You can't have have opinion and fact. One or the other, surely...? ;-)

 

You can base your arguments on facts and they (arguments) will still be opinions. The question is: what are facts?

 

Unfortunately this requires speed-reading everything from Plato to Wittgenstein before coming up with pithy one-liner on here that will then be instantly dismissed by dune based on what he sees out of his bedroom window.

[dune]

Oh Gove said it?!? It MUST be fact then. Any man who is as useless as him, as clueless as him, as moronic as him could make that claim...oh.

 

The day Pob actually proposes something worthwhile and meaningful for our excellent state education system in this country will be the day hell freezes over.

 

I love this argument and in fact, doing the research for my MA I looked at some English O-Level and A-Level papers from 1964-1968 (and am more than happy to scan them and upload the photocopies I took). The questions are a hell of a lot simpler than what pupils are asked to do today: The O-Level in particular focuses on one skill in a question where the GCSE asks for at least two every time: for example one of the O-Level questions is "A friend doesn't like poetry, you need to convince him otherwise in the form of a letter.". Dear o dear, if that's what Gove wants to go back to, you wont hear the pupils complaining!

 

Plus being lectured at about exams from a man who can barely pick his knuckles up off the floor to carry his HNC certificate is a bit rich don't you think.

 

I wouldn't have said anything if I knew you were going to react like this.

[ecuk268]

I can't think of anything worse then sending my kids to a grammar school with all the chinless Tarquins and Sophies that populate our local one even though both would breeze through the 11+. I prefer my kids to be grounded and rounded.

 

Can't really say what things are like now but I came from a working class home, passed the 11 plus and went to Barton Peveril Grammar (this was in the 60s). I would say that the social mix was pretty varied. I certainly didn't feel out of place, there were plenty of kids with a similar background as well as those from more affluent homes.

 

It didn't really matter to us, we all got along pretty well. What it did give us was self-confidence. I can remember the head telling us that we were the cream of the primary schools and no matter what our background we were as good as anyone else. It certainly wasn't a bastion of middle-class snobs.

[View From The Top]

Can't really say what things are like now but I came from a working class home, passed the 11 plus and went to Barton Peveril Grammar (this was in the 60s). I would say that the social mix was pretty varied. I certainly didn't feel out of place, there were plenty of kids with a similar background as well as those from more affluent homes.

 

It didn't really matter to us, we all got along pretty well. What it did give us was self-confidence. I can remember the head telling us that we were the cream of the primary schools and no matter what our background we were as good as anyone else. It certainly wasn't a bastion of middle-class snobs.

 

Local grammar has an intake of 70 on which a whole 7 aren't fee paying.

 

My mates daughters both had scholarships there and had a terrible time as they were "poor".

 

I appreciate that this wasn't always the case. My boss, from sunny scunny, and as working class and left wing as they come, went to the local grammar but times and schools have changed, and not necessarily for the better.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I can't think of anything worse then sending my kids to a grammar school with all the chinless Tarquins and Sophies that populate our local one even though both would breeze through the 11+. I prefer my kids to be grounded and rounded.

 

We will look at all the local schools, I would expect them to all be academies by then, and choose according to what they wish to study.

 

My nipper will want to do maths and science and my eldest daughter English and the humanities.

 

Personally I'd adopted the German model.

 

I nearly called my daughter Sophie. Is that not a pretty bigoted attitude?

 

Is the German model not based on grading students?

[ben05]

FSMQ maths is ******** (assuming that's what you did), a multiple choice exam based on some of the easier stuff you'll do over the course of AS pure maths/stats/mechanics isn't as difficult as you make out. The 'best' mathematicians are still adequately tested through exams, have a look at STEP papers, which are required for some degree courses, then tell me that the standard of mathematicians is declining (at the top - it'll be just as hard for someone in the 60s as now).

 

I have my last exam tomorrow and did a Step paper in maths last week, it was Hell. The problem is, is that Not all schools can offer Further maths or Step papers. Supposedly the "Better" or "well-Funded" schools can offer it, and with uni becoming more competitive all the top uni's want Step and Further Maths. If some schools cant offer it its not giving everyone an equal chance to get into a "good" uni. Even if they did have the ability.

[View From The Top]

I nearly called my daughter Sophie. Is that not a pretty bigoted attitude?

 

Yep. I believe in a society based on ability, not the wealth of the parents. I've little to no time for the trustfund brigade.

 

Is the German model not based on grading students?

 

I was thinking for along the lines on academic/trade/profession routes that are open to them.

 

We try to shoe horn all our kids through a poorly designed system.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Yep. I believe in a society based on ability, not the wealth of the parents. I've little to no time for the trustfund brigade.

 

 

 

I was thinking for along the lines on academic/trade/profession routes that are open to them.

 

We try to shoe horn all our kids through a poorly designed system.

 

I believe it is a basic right to do everything to give your own children the best start in life.

[TheCholulaKid]

Michael Gove's an idiot. He should be listening to Ken Robinson:

 

[View From The Top]

I believe it is a basic right to do everything to give your own children the best start in life.

 

And I believe that every child should have an equal chance regardless of the wealth of their parents.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

And I believe that every child should have an equal chance regardless of the wealth of their parents.

 

I approve of that attitude from a teacher but not from a parent. You are both a parent and a teacher.

[View From The Top]

I approve of that attitude from a teacher but not from a parent. You are both a parent and a teacher.

 

 

I care not one jot if you approve. However, as my kids are outstripping their peers to a scary degree I can afford to be smug but I understand why you have the approach you do and I'd not criticise it.

[Mr_Red]

Maths is 110% easier now than when we was at school three quarters of students get A grades because they've done their homework and the other half get C grades for being able to write their names on the exam paper.

 

English to. All you need is a capital letter at the start of a sentence and a full stop at the end. Anyone can work the rest of it out.

 

Exams....all a waste of time if you ask me.

 

when I was a lad we did a paper round before school eight hours in the class room 3 hours homework a night and still had time for a w#nk before dinner.

 

the kids these days don't know how easy they have it

 

I can't tell if this is tongue in cheek or not. I'm not sure that you would get an A in English though.

[Ludwig]

I have my last exam tomorrow and did a Step paper in maths last week, it was Hell. The problem is, is that Not all schools can offer Further maths or Step papers. Supposedly the "Better" or "well-Funded" schools can offer it, and with uni becoming more competitive all the top uni's want Step and Further Maths. If some schools cant offer it its not giving everyone an equal chance to get into a "good" uni. Even if they did have the ability.

 

I self-taught further maths A2 and did all my STEP preparation alone. Maths is probably the 'easiest' subject to self-teach - even if I did manage to monumentally cock up STEP III (despite doing perfectly fine in II).

[HK_Phoey]

Michael Gove's an idiot. He should be listening to Ken Robinson:

 

 

This. Please also see the two speaches Sir Ken gave at TED.

 

 

 

each talk is about 20mins long but will worth it if you have any interest in education or more importantly the output of the education system. Plus the guy is an extremely amusing speaker

[ben05]

I self-taught further maths A2 and did all my STEP preparation alone. Maths is probably the 'easiest' subject to self-teach - even if I did manage to monumentally cock up STEP III (despite doing perfectly fine in II).

 

Ouch. I had to self teach M3 and S2 cause of timetable clashes. Just finished C4. Exams all over !

[Trader]

Can't really say what things are like now but I came from a working class home, passed the 11 plus and went to Barton Peveril Grammar (this was in the 60s). I would say that the social mix was pretty varied. I certainly didn't feel out of place, there were plenty of kids with a similar background as well as those from more affluent homes.

 

It didn't really matter to us, we all got along pretty well. What it did give us was self-confidence. I can remember the head telling us that we were the cream of the primary schools and no matter what our background we were as good as anyone else. It certainly wasn't a bastion of middle-class snobs.

 

Me too - Barton Peveril 1961-68 - was a good school and not at all elitist.

[CB Saint]

Ouch. I had to self teach M3 and S2 cause of timetable clashes. Just finished C4. Exams all over !

 

What the hell happened to A level maths and further maths - that was all that used to be needed. Step this and C4 that - no wonder teacher complain about the hours.

[Winnersaint]

I suspect that this is part of a long term plan. Gove has announced that the target for secondary schools to reach as far as 5*A-C grades inc English and Maths will be 50% by 2015 and at almost the same time he announces plans to reform what he calls a discredited exam system. Put these two things together and you can see where this is heading. Taking coursework and modular exams out of the equation will make it more difficult for some, not all, to be successful. This will in turn increase the number of schools that "fail" ie. don't reach the 50% benchmark, allowing the government to take them out of local authority control and turn them into academies. It could be argued that Gove's success will be measured by the number of academies that are created more than any other yardstick and that the exam reforms are merely a crude way of making that happen. Politician in cynicism and downright dishonesty shock!!

[LGTL]

I suspect that this is part of a long term plan. Gove has announced that the target for secondary schools to reach as far as 5*A-C grades inc English and Maths will be 50% by 2015 and at almost the same time he announces plans to reform what he calls a discredited exam system. Put these two things together and you can see where this is heading. Taking coursework and modular exams out of the equation will make it more difficult for some, not all, to be successful. This will in turn increase the number of schools that "fail" ie. don't reach the 50% benchmark, allowing the government to take them out of local authority control and turn them into academies. It could be argued that Gove's success will be measured by the number of academies that are created more than any other yardstick and that the exam reforms are merely a crude way of making that happen. Politician in cynicism and downright dishonesty shock!!

 

In a nutshell. Academies also mean the Headteacher can set their own pay scale, which is very much in Gove's interest.

[St_Tel49]

Everyone who is old and has no knowledge of them whatsoever except the Daily Mail and its parody 'the Daily Express' to young people all the time.

Let's put emotions aside and apply cold hard reason. The FACTS are that the the number of candidates passing GCSE and A Level and the grades that they get have increased year on year for the last 15 or 20 years to the point that employers and univerities find the results unhelpful in selecting candidates for employment of admission. That is the fact. The REASONs for this are what are up for debate. The reasons could be any combination of the following:

a) Kids are much brighter now than they were 20 or more years ago. If that were so then evolution has worked faster in the last 20 years than it has in the previous several million

b) Kids work much harder today than they did 20 years ago. Personally I have not seen a shred of evidence to support that idea. They appear no better or no worse than we were at doing their homework

c) Teachers are much better than they used to be. H'mmm not at all convinced by that. I am quite sure that they are no worse than they used to be but I am not convinced they are better.

d) The standards accepted by examiner's are less that they once were. I know someone who marks exams and there is certainly an element of this in it but not enough to account for increase

e) They are now measuring something different than they did 20 years ago.

My money is mostly on e) but unfortunately, what they are measuring now does not seem to discriminate sufficiently. If everyone has an A what value is the A? If everyone has a degree what value has the degree? If 50% of young people get degrees then they are being fed the expectation that they will walk into Graduate jobs but, as they are currently discovering, the law of supply and demand works and there are simply not enough graduate jobs for them to walk into - nor is there ever likely to be.

My own view is that, in light of the £9k a year, if I were a young person starting out I would seriously look at other ways of getting to where you want to go.

Edited 20 June, 2011 by St_Tel49
english

[St_Tel49]

I feel sorry for many taking exams now.

 

There's more pressure to do well, more necessity for it, more expensive uni, yet all they get should they do well is 'well exams have got easier'. Pretty much no win situation.

 

I'm sure some exam boards have got easier, but that's not actually the kids fault. The idea of everyone passing let alone having good grades does make it less worthwhile IMO. Everyone going to uni also devalues it. There'll always be thick or lazy kids whatever the standards. But maybe with bigger classes and mire difficult teaching circumstances it would be difficult to replicate results on older exam boards?

 

I also have a feeling many older people will always drone on about easy exams to make themselves feel better, regardless of fact. You'd expect each generation to grow more intelligent on the whole, but older generations like to highlight the thicker people as examples. As a general trend I do think people have become more educated anyway.

 

Taking one mans comments as fact doesn't suggest a successful education yourself though mr dune.

Why, for heaven's sake? The sum of knowledge increases which make it easier to deduce new things but I don't think for a second that we are actually anymore intelligent than the Ancient Egyptions - we merely have the accrual of knowledge that arose from the contribution highly intelligent people over generations. Newton was genius in his time and would be a genius now.

[Saintandy666]

Let's put emotions aside and apply cold hard reason. The FACTS are that the the number of candidates passing GCSE and A Level and the grades that they get have increased year on year for the last 15 or 20 years to the point that employers and univerities find the results unhelpful in selecting candidates for employment of admission. That is the fact. The REASONs for this are what are up for debate. The reasons could be any combination of the following:

a) Kids are much brighter now than they were 20 or more years ago. If that were so then evolution has worked faster in the last 20 years than it has in the previous several million

b) Kids work much harder today than they did 20 years ago. Personally I have not seen a shred of evidence to support that idea. They appear no better or no worse than we were at doing their homework

c) Teachers are much better than they used to be. H'mmm not at all convinced by that. I am quite sure that they are no worse than they used to be but I am not convinced they are better.

d) The standards accepted by examiner's are less that they once were. I know someone who marks exams and there is certainly an element of this in it but not enough to account for increase

e) They are now measuring something different than they did 20 years ago.

My money is mostly on e) but unfortunately, what they are measuring now does not seem to discriminate sufficiently. If everyone has an A what value is the A? If everyone has a degree what value has the degree? If 50% of young people get degrees then they are being fed the expectation that they will walk into Graduate jobs but, as they are currently discovering, the law of supply and demand works and there are simply not enough graduate jobs for them to walk into - nor is there ever likely to be.

My own view is that, in light of the £9k a year, if I were a young person starting out I would seriously look at other ways of getting to where you want to go.

 

Educating as many people as possible for as long as possible is a good thing. It doesn't have to be the university route though, I agree with you there.

 

Also, on the GCSE 'pass rate'(to clarify for people in general): if you class a G grade as a pass(which it isn't really, D-G grades are generally seen as 'fail grades')... then yes pass rate is 99.7% or something along those lines. But generally, it is a C grade which is considered a pass these days. In fact, GCSE results as a whole are put into bands and the so called bench mark is 5A*-C grades including maths and english and I can assure that this is not as high. In fact, at my school while I was there it has been as low as in the low 30%'s...

 

Look at 7A*-B grades and higher and you really start to see what is what.

 

And education IS a lot better than it was 20 years ago... funding has ensured that.

[trousers]

And education IS a lot better than it was 20 years ago... funding has ensured that.

 

Assuming 'funding' = 'money well spent' of course...

[Saintandy666]

Assuming 'funding' = 'money well spent' of course...

 

Standards rose. Exam results and other statistics such as CVA etc show this! And just the extra resources available to children helps.

[Winnersaint]

In a nutshell. Academies also mean the Headteacher can set their own pay scale, which is very much in Gove's interest.

 

Indeed. However, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) will apply for existing employees. What that means is that existing school employees will switch from being employed by the Local Authority to the academy and that the statutory School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) will be included in contracts. It does not however apply to new employees where academies will be able to determine pay and conditions of employment

[ecuk268]

Me too - Barton Peveril 1961-68 - was a good school and not at all elitist.

 

I started in 61. We must have been in the same year.

[View From The Top]

In a nutshell. Academies also mean the Headteacher can set their own pay scale, which is very much in Gove's interest.

 

That excludes teachers pay.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

I wouldn't have said anything if I knew you were going to react like this.

 

What a reposte! You took my argument, obviously studied it carefully and failed to respond. How novel.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

Indeed. However, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) will apply for existing employees. What that means is that existing school employees will switch from being employed by the Local Authority to the academy and that the statutory School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) will be included in contracts. It does not however apply to new employees where academies will be able to determine pay and conditions of employment

 

As is what we were told in the academy 'consultation' process. All well and good, yet in 2014 the school can turn around to us and say "we've had enough of the TP&C, here is what WE want to pay you".

[View From The Top]

Indeed. However, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) will apply for existing employees. What that means is that existing school employees will switch from being employed by the Local Authority to the academy and that the statutory School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) will be included in contracts. It does not however apply to new employees where academies will be able to determine pay and conditions of employment

 

 

All staff are TUPE'd over and then, usually, after term 1 are required to accept changes to T&Cs and effectively start new jobs. This excludes MS teachers but often includes HoD, SMT etc. My wife's school is going through that now.

 

The academies bill included that teaching staff remain under the same pay agreement as LEA schools and the tories won't touch that element, yet.

[View From The Top]

As is what we were told in the academy 'consultation' process. All well and good, yet in 2014 the school can turn around to us and say "we've had enough of the TP&C, here is what WE want to pay you".

 

Not teaching staff, only support staff. Teaching staff are protected by law.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

Not teaching staff, only support staff. Teaching staff are protected by law.

 

Are you sure about this VFTT? If this is the case, the guy brought on from EssexCC to explain this to us certainly didn't make himself very clear: he categorically stated that after three years TUPE expires for all staff and the school can decide what course of action they want to take. Surely if our T&Cs were protected ad infinitum there would not be half as much fuss?

[View From The Top]

Are you sure about this VFTT? If this is the case, the guy brought on from EssexCC to explain this to us certainly didn't make himself very clear: he categorically stated that after three years TUPE expires for all staff and the school can decide what course of action they want to take. Surely if our T&Cs were protected ad infinitum there would not be half as much fuss?

 

I'm quite sure that Main Scale are protected as the national pay scales still apply and that was in the act. Everything above and beyond that can be changed.

 

My wife's school is going through the process now, as is the school to which by dept is attached and this is what has been expained to my missus and their teaching staff and the teaching staff where I work.

[Trader]

I started in 61. We must have been in the same year.

 

Spooky - I probably know you then.

 

I wonder who you are.

[Ludwig]

What the hell happened to A level maths and further maths - that was all that used to be needed. Step this and C4 that - no wonder teacher complain about the hours.

 

C4 is a module contributing to Maths A Level.

STEP is an extra paper - equivalent to S Levels, barely any schools have the resources to teach for them, barely any students take them, self-study is required (and it's based on the Maths/Further syllabus).