Thoughts of an unapologetic teacher

nkl12xtw5goz70

ZV Yoda wrote: »

There may or may not be a “superhuman controlling power”. Who knows? But denying that religions exist is, well, wrong.

Where did I deny that religions exist?

Roman Catholics believe in God, Jesus, Mary, the resurrection etc.

There's still no denying that most of the concepts underpinning religious faith (God, angels, heaven, hell, the resurrection, etc.) are made up out of thin air. They have no basis in objective reality. Hence the poster's reference to religion as a "made-up" subject.

Just because somebody doesn’t believe in Communist principles, doesn’t mean students shouldn’t learn about Communism.

Communism should be taught as part of history, and religion should also be taught as part of history. There is no need for Religious Education as a separate subject.

The purpose of education is to educate & broaden the mind. It appears from this thread that a lot of people don’t grasp that basic concept.

Unfortunately, religion tends to narrow the mind rather than broaden it.

ZV Yoda

Bonnie Happy Eyebrow wrote: »

Where did I deny that religions exist?



There's still no denying that most of the concepts underpinning religious faith (God, angels, heaven, hell, the resurrection, etc.) are made up out of thin air. They have no basis in objective reality. Hence the poster's reference to religion as a "made-up" subject.



Communism should be taught as part of history, and religion should also be taught as part of history. There is no need for Religious Education as a separate subject.



Unfortunately, religion tends to narrow the mind rather than broaden it.

You're not a fan of religion. Good for you. But like I said, that really isn't the point. The fact is that billions of people all over the world follow different religions and have different beliefs - whether you personally agree with them or not.

Religion and Communism still exist today, so why should they be taught as part of history? Yes, their origins go back in time, but they are 2 of the most influential / polarising forces in the world today. It's useful to be educated and informed about such things... even if you fundamentally disagree with the concepts.

Communism is both a political and economic ideology - just like capitalism. Would you therefore suggest that capitalism should only be taught as part of history?

Ignoring things you don't agree with tends to narrow the mind, not broaden it

meeeeh

Is the religion thought from critical point of view? I was born into communist country and I know very well the teaching of communism was very different after the fall of the regime than before.

So are the sex scandals covered, religious wars, discrimination of different groups and so on? Abuse of power? Critical analysis of current religious practices? Or is it just religious teachings?

begsbyOnaTrain

A friend of mine is a teacher. He has the usual full time job. Teaches private grinds at the weekend (seemingly most of his class are in that too...), does some 1 on 1 tutorials in the lead up to exams, always gets in for the correcting and exam supervising and does a few weeks teaching languages courses in the Summer. He's making a fortune. I don't begrudge, fair play. He's tearing the arse of it.

ZV Yoda

meeeeh wrote: »

Is the religion thought from critical point of view? I was born into communist country and I know very well the teaching of communism was very different after the fall of the regime than before.

So are the sex scandals covered, religious wars, discrimination of different groups and so on? Abuse of power? Critical analysis of current religious practices? Or is it just religious teachings?

Junior cert religion syllabus

Leaving cert religion syllabus

nkl12xtw5goz70

ZV Yoda wrote: »

Religion and Communism still exist today, so why should they be taught as part of history? Yes, their origins go back in time, but they are 2 of the most influential / polarising forces in the world today. It's useful to be educated and informed about such things... even if you fundamentally disagree with the concepts.

I have already stated that both religion and communism should be taught as part of history.

I'm questioning the need for a separate subject — Religious Education —that is taught apart from history.

As part of the LC Religious Education curriculum, children are expected to study traditional proofs for the existence of God. Do you think this is a viable pursuit in the year 2019? Paying teachers such as the OP to stand in classrooms teaching "proofs" that a supernatural deity exists?

facehugger99

I don't think anyone begrudges decent teachers the generous pay and working conditions they enjoy. Most of the issues others have with them is the constant whining and moaning they do about how hard they have it.

My SIL is a teacher and she never stops moaning about the job. From what I can make out they spend all their time in the break room telling each other how bad they have it - it's a real echo-chamber and they've all bought into the union-spiels.

Funnily enough she never even wanted to be a teacher, but with an Arts degree, she hadn't many other options.

She'll probably be over at the weekend visiting the wife and I'll have to listen to more moaning about how tough her job is.

partyguinness

facehugger99 wrote: »

I don't think anyone begrudges decent teachers the generous pay and working conditions they enjoy. Most of the issues others have with them is the constant whining and moaning they do about how hard they have it.

My SIL is a teacher and she never stops moaning about the job. From what I can make out they spend all their time in the break room telling each other how bad they have it - it's a real echo-chamber and they've all bought into the union-spiels.

Funnily enough she never even wanted to be a teacher, but with an Arts degree, she hadn't many other options.

She'll probably be over at the weekend visiting the wife and I'll have to listen to more moaning about how tough her job is.

Well that's it. Constant moaning. They have absolutely no idea how good they have it. No real world experience as a result of having spent all your life in school.

I alluded to the same point earlier- secondary school teachers are basically lazy BA graduates who took the easy option.

meeeeh

ZV Yoda wrote: »

Junior cert religion syllabus

Leaving cert religion syllabus

So the answer is 'no'.

ZV Yoda

Bonnie Happy Eyebrow wrote: »

I have already stated that both religion and communism should be taught as part of history.

I'm questioning the need for a separate subject — Religious Education —that is taught apart from history.

As part of the LC Religious Education curriculum, children are expected to study traditional proofs for the existence of God. Do you think this is a viable pursuit in the year 2019? Paying teachers such as the OP to stand in classrooms teaching "proofs" that a supernatural deity exists?

Your whole argument is based on your personal belief that deities don't exist - and that's perfectly fine... but billions of people do believe they exist, so of course there is educational value in teaching kids about this stuff.

Then let them make their own educated decisions about what religion / deity they choose to believe (or not, as the case may be). That's the whole point of education.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Bonnie Happy Eyebrow wrote: »

There's still no denying that most of the concepts underpinning religious faith (God, angels, heaven, hell, the resurrection, etc.) are made up out of thin air. They have no basis in objective reality. Hence the poster's reference to religion as a "made-up" subject.

Unfortunately, religion tends to narrow the mind rather than broaden it.

(Off topic a bit, I know but....)

I'm no fan of religion believe me, but to dismiss thousands of years of culture and theological philosophies across the world as "out of thin air" is not really an argument that implies that of a broad and open mind.

Communism should be taught as part of history, and religion should also be taught as part of history. There is no need for Religious Education as a separate subject.

Scrap the lot and bring in philosophy.

meeeeh

ZV Yoda wrote: »

Your whole argument is based on your personal belief that deities don't exist - and that's perfectly fine... but billions of people do believe they exist, so of course there is educational value in teaching kids about this stuff.

Then let them make their own educated decisions about what religion / deity they choose to believe (or not, as the case may be). That's the whole point of education.

Or maybe it should be to religious organisations to make their own bidding to attract more believers and not to get schools to do it for them.

ZV Yoda

meeeeh wrote: »

So the answer is 'no'.

I'm not a teacher, so I honestly don't know the details of how it's taught.

nkl12xtw5goz70

ZV Yoda wrote: »

Your whole argument is based on your personal belief that deities don't exist - and that's perfectly fine... but billions of people do believe they exist, so of course there is educational value in teaching kids about this stuff.

Yet again, you're missing my point.

Children should be taught about religion as part of the history curriculum.

Why teach an entirely separate curriculum — Religious Education — in which children are taught proofs for the existence of God and "the Resurrection as real experience", per the links you posted above?

ZV Yoda

meeeeh wrote: »

Or maybe it should be to religious organisations to make their own bidding to attract more believers and not to get schools to do it for them.

That's a very valid point - the Catholic church have a lot to answer for in this regard. Thankfully, that's changing.

My teenage son did a great religion project about Scientology last year. I found it fascinating. Apart from the fact that Tom Cruise & John Travolta were Scientologists, I knew nothing at all about it. Now I do. Neither of us have become Scientologists as result, so I don't think there was any underground Scientology recruiting going on in his school.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'm no fan of religion believe me, but to dismiss thousands of years of culture and theological philosophies across the world as "out of thin air" is not really an argument that implies that of a broad and open mind.

Theology, as the study of the nature of God, is entirely conjured out of thin air, given that nobody has ever been able to provide any proof or objective evidence that the object of study even exists. To quote Robert A. Heinlein, "Theology is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there."

History is filled with mysticism, superstition, and lore that we no longer teach and no longer believe. Religion is the last vestige of that. It simply doesn't merit standing alongside maths, physics, geography, or history as a Leaving Cert subject.

argolis

I used to be teed off that teachers have it so cushy but as has been pointed out, anyone's free to sign up to that gig and I didn't. I do hate the vocation/"you wouldn't do my job" argument, which is complete BS, because most teachers wouldn't sit staring all day at Java code, or accounting figures, etc, etc.

However, our country is thriving the last number of years with FDI (property crash aside) and one of the reasons for that is an educated workforce. We have a high standard of teaching to thank for that. You can argue it can be way better in X, Y and Z ways but relative to most countries, including our nearest neighbour, it is higher quality.

Not all teachers are created equal but most Irish people have experience of a couple of excellent teachers during the time they spent in school that they will always remember. We're not awash with excellent teachers, so the current pay and conditions are just enough to have a decent average standard of teacher.

If you continuously drive down the pay and conditions for teachers, as America has done and the UK has followed suit, our country will eventually also follow them down that path of discouraging excellent teachers into the profession and we'll end up in a national death spiral of stupidity.

The type of widespread ignorance that votes in a Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Brexit, or has Boards.ie eventually descend into the quality of comments below a YouTube video.

As irritating as it is to listen to *some* teachers complaining, the benefits of a well-paid teaching profession are huge. We all have access to higher level services jobs from being well educated, myself included. I don't think people appreciate enough these long-term indirect consequences, which is why politicians react in short-term, knee-jerk responses to public opinion arising from rabble-rousing newspaper headlines.

So I hope all the teachers on here enjoyed their summer! :pac:

ZV Yoda

Bonnie Happy Eyebrow wrote: »

Yet again, you're missing my point.

Children should be taught about religion as part of the history curriculum.

Why teach an entirely separate curriculum — Religious Education — in which children are taught proofs for the existence of God and "the Resurrection as real experience", per the links you posted above?

I've already explained why. You're letting your own (perfectly valid) view of religion get in the way. Billions of people have a different view of religion - so schoolkids learn about those beliefs / views.

I'm not advocating for religion, I'm advocating the value of teachers & education - whether the subject is religion, politics, trigonometry - whatever.

irishguy1983

JizzBeans wrote: »

Having read the predictable anti-teacher comments stemming from 99problems1 silly teacher post, "Advice:Become a teacher" one thing has become clear to me. Not one of you have a single objective argument to justify anti teacher sentiment. Its always the same sound bites from the usual vessels. Its just so lame.

Let me share.....
I am a 36yo and I teach religion and geography. I am on point 9 on the pay scale, which is 47k a year. I am not married. Most terms, I work approx at least 18 hours a week, but some times more depending on how many exam classes I have. Most days I finish in the afternoon or else I have a large portion of the morning off. The only work I choose to do over the summer is invigilate exams to collect a nice lump sum. Other than that, the summer is mine to relish as I see fit. Most days I go to cafes for breakfast, morning gym sessions, day trips etc, etc. I am well off AND I FREAKING LOVE IT! I worked hard to get where I am and as the title suggests, I'm not the least bit sorry.

Now, of course this attracts all sorts of judgement. From friendly slagging by family and mates to heated discussions with friends of friends in social settings. But very occasionally, I will meet some barfly or tosser in the smoking room who apparently knows better. He/She will then proceed to explain why teachers are a "joke", like I was missing this information all along. Their rants are usually composed of one or more of the following;

1. "Your a teacher? Ah you have it handy so"
2. "You lot are always looking for more money, sure your off for the summer ffs wasters"
3. "You wouldn't last in the private sector let me tell ya, we have to work for a living"
4. "Automatic wage increase is a joke,you don't deserve it"
5. "Always f**king going on strike"
6. "I cant believe my taxes are paying for this bullsh*t"
7. "Sure ya cant fired, lazy b*stards"

Soooooooooooooo unoriginal.

Yes,
I am off for the summer, its great. Of course I want more money. Why the F would I want to be in the private sector?? Its awful. Wage increases are the best. Striking is a day off. My tax pays for sh*t too.


I have often made the point that If you want those perks then become a teacher. If you fundamentally disagree with how teaching is conducted in Ireland then make a complaint to the dept. of education/local TD  or get elected and change the system. Otherwise I don't want to hear your dull commoner opinions. However my comebacks are usually always met with "yeah well teachers are a still joke" or some such muttering.

Unless someone can provide a solid, objective reason to justify anti-teacher sentiment, I can only assume the root cause of this agitation is (1.) Jealousy, (2.) Hate their own job and are miserable in it (3.) Not the brightest.

So, that is the perspective of an unapologetic teacher. For those of you who still have a problem with my profession I will leave you with two thoughts:

1. Not my fault you picked an unsatisfying career
2. I just don't give a Fu*k

No issues with any of the above - I think people only have an issue when teachers start complaining about pay/stress/etc....

Anyway is 47 at your age standard? How long are you teaching? Also is 18 hours standard enough for a primary school teacher? Or maybe you are secondary?

gibgodsman

47k for 18 hours a week???? Why am I wasting my life, as for not smart enough, your joking right? Its not hard to be a teacher these days, just with the amount of crying about pay by teachers no one does it, if we all had known you could be on 47k a year while working 18 hours a week I think everyone would have been a teacher.

spurious

I welcome all these people who are going to join teaching. Please get back here to report on how easy it is generally, but specifically to find a job.

nkl12xtw5goz70

ZV Yoda wrote: »

I'm not advocating for religion, I'm advocating the value of teachers & education - whether the subject is religion, politics, trigonometry - whatever.

You don't seem to recognize any distinction between teaching trigonometric proofs and teaching proofs of God's existence.

These are not endeavors of equivalent educational value.

partyguinness

Look at all the faith based secondary schools in Ireland (all the boarding schools and fee paying schools). They were founded all around the same time in the mid 1800s and all within a generation or so of the Famine- the CC circled like vultures and swooped in when Ireland was on its knees and took control.

Fintan O'Toole wrote a very interesting piece of this years ago on how the CC hijacked education in this country. It was the CC that insisted on segregation from other faiths. Education was not split along religious lines up to the mid 1800.

Some CC apologists like to spin a yarn that the CC stepped into educate the Irish as the Brits would not do it. Total BS.

The CC had an aggressive and concerted campaign to take over education in Ireland. Fertile ground for new recruits to send overseas to the Missions.

meeeeh

ZV Yoda wrote: »

That's a very valid point - the Catholic church have a lot to answer for in this regard. Thankfully, that's changing.

My teenage son did a great religion project about Scientology last year. I found it fascinating. Apart from the fact that Tom Cruise & John Travolta were Scientologists, I knew nothing at all about it. Now I do. Neither of us have become Scientologists as result, so I don't think there was any underground Scientology recruiting going on in his school.

A school friend of mine did that as part of Sociology assignment for Leaving Cert type exam in high school. Religions don't need to be covered only by Religion as a subject.

Insect Overlord

Bonnie Happy Eyebrow wrote: »

You don't seem to recognize any distinction between teaching trigonometric proofs and teaching proofs of God's existence.

These are not endeavors of equivalent educational value.

I'm about as atheist as it gets, and even I can see that you're posting nonsense. Some of the greatest minds in history have devoted time to theology alongside their scientific and mathematical studies.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Bonnie Happy Eyebrow wrote: »

Yet again, you're missing my point.

Children should be taught about religion as part of the history curriculum.

Why teach an entirely separate curriculum — Religious Education — in which children are taught proofs for the existence of God and "the Resurrection as real experience", per the links you posted above?

My point isn't that you are right or wrong, my point is that your mind is not as broad as you think it is if you think this dismissively.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

My point isn't that you are right or wrong, my point is that your mind is not as broad as you think it is if you think this dismissively.

Hence the philosophy idea.

I have no issue with teaching philosophy in schools -- in fact, I'd be strongly supportive of that idea.

It's hardly dismissive to propose that Religious Education should not be a school subject. Teach students about religion as part of history class, sure, but awarding CAO points for so-called "proofs" for the existence of an imaginary deity, or for writing about the Resurrection?

It's time to move beyond this.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Bonnie Happy Eyebrow wrote: »

I have no issue with teaching philosophy in schools -- in fact, I'd be strongly supportive of that idea.

It's hardly dismissive to propose that Religious Education should not be a school subject. Teach students about religion as part of history class, sure, but awarding CAO points for so-called "proofs" for the existence of an imaginary deity, or for writing about the Resurrection?

Again, not what I'm arguing.

It's time to move beyond this.

I agree.

poisonated

Treppen wrote: »

You feel threatened because I showed you that your position was weak?

But nice attempt at a sidestep...

Feel free to address the point when you gather your thoughts.

It wasn’t me you threatened but another poster. Thanks for your reply though. I hope you have a great day. Sure ye must be finished work by now. Nice for some.

nullzero

People are right to be jealous of somebody who works 18 hours per week, has three months summer holidays and looks down on people who take issue with it.

Ultimately the terms of employment outlined in the OP are extremely generous and when measured against the majority of the workforce, including people in the public sector carrying out demanding and low paying roles (emergency services for example) the idea of somebody in the OP's position attempting to talk down to people in different employment situations to themselves whilst simultaneously attempting to take the moral high ground is something that would rightly lead to "anti teacher sentiment".

Essentially, 47k per annum for 18 hours per week and almost one third of the calender year off work is not something that seems like good value for money from the perspective of the average tax payer. It would appear that your rate of pay is extremely excessive when the money being used to finance it is coming from all quarters in the workforce, including those driving the economy, being innovative and providing essential public services to pay somebody who contributes very little to society at large (geography is useful, but religious studies are hardly an essential subject).

It seems perplexing that the OP wouldn't be able to rationalise these points themselves. Surely an educated person could reach these conclusions with relative ease, unless of course this thread is an exercise in egomania.

The idea of "anti teacher" sentiment is not really at the nub of the issue, a natural unwillingness to allow poor allocation of public funding to go unaccounted for is the issue albeit focused on the wrong direction. As the OP stated, perhaps its time we started to petition our elected representatives to change the system that allows for the type of situations outlined by the OP to exist in the first place, having a go at individual teachers isn't particularly constructive.

ZV Yoda

nullzero wrote: »

People are right to be jealous of somebody who works 18 hours per week, has three months summer holidays and looks down on people who take issue with it.

Ultimately the terms of employment outlined in the OP are extremely generous and when measured against the majority of the workforce, including people in the public sector carrying out demanding and low paying roles (emergency services for example) the idea of somebody in the OP's position attempting to talk down to people in different employment situations to themselves whilst simultaneously attempting to take the moral high ground is something that would rightly lead to "anti teacher sentiment".

Essentially, 47k per annum for 18 hours per week and almost one third of the calender year off work is not something that seems like good value for money from the perspective of the average tax payer. It would appear that your rate of pay is extremely excessive when the money being used to finance it is coming from all quarters in the workforce, including those driving the economy, being innovative and providing essential public services to pay somebody who contributes very little to society at large (geography is useful, but religious studies are hardly an essential subject).

It seems perplexing that the OP wouldn't be able to rationalise these points themselves. Surely an educated person could reach these conclusions with relative ease, unless of course this thread is an exercise in egomania.

The idea of "anti teacher" sentiment is not really at the nub of the issue, a natural unwillingness to allow poor allocation of public funding to go unaccounted for is the issue albeit focused on the wrong direction. As the OP stated, perhaps its time we started to petition our elected representatives to change the system that allows for the type of situations outlined by the OP to exist in the first place, having a go at individual teachers isn't particularly constructive.

Ah here, let's not get too carried away. Suggesting a teacher is "somebody who contributes very little to society at large" is ridiculous. Do you think there should be no teachers? How would kids get an education? Do you think doctors, nurses, scientists arrive fully formed? You think 13-14 years of primary & secondary education is "of little value"? :eek:

The OP's point was that a lot of people give teachers a hard time - without knowing the the first thing about teaching themselves. Your post does a stellar job of proving the OP's original point

I have kids in school. I have no problem whatsoever with the money teachers are paid. Running a class of 20-30 kids / teenagers and dealing with all of the associated social baggage, behavioural problems (not to mention the parents) is no walk in the park. Surely you can see that?

I dunno... I give up!

meeeeh

ZV Yoda wrote: »

I have kids in school. I have no problem whatsoever with the money teachers are paid. Running a class of 20-30 kids / teenagers and dealing with all of the associated social baggage, behavioural problems (not to mention the parents) is no walk in the park. Surely you can see that?

I dunno... I give up!

I don't think it's walk in the park and never did. However I think the level of pay is perfect adequate, in fact generous for those living in rural areas. There might be issues in some high rent zones.

That being said anything good unions ever did through the history is squandered by protection offer to those underperforming, no initiative for better and more ambitious teachers and promotion of dinosaurs who are just counting down days to retirement. Almost nobody can be fired and sub par teachers do exist

weldoninhio

JizzBeans wrote: »

Having read the predictable anti-teacher comments stemming from 99problems1 silly teacher post, "Advice:Become a teacher" one thing has become clear to me. Not one of you have a single objective argument to justify anti teacher sentiment. Its always the same sound bites from the usual vessels. Its just so lame.

Let me share.....
I am a 36yo and I teach religion and geography. I am on point 9 on the pay scale, which is 47k a year. I am not married. Most terms, I work approx at least 18 hours a week, but some times more depending on how many exam classes I have. Most days I finish in the afternoon or else I have a large portion of the morning off. The only work I choose to do over the summer is invigilate exams to collect a nice lump sum. Other than that, the summer is mine to relish as I see fit. Most days I go to cafes for breakfast, morning gym sessions, day trips etc, etc. I am well off AND I FREAKING LOVE IT! I worked hard to get where I am and as the title suggests, I'm not the least bit sorry.

Now, of course this attracts all sorts of judgement. From friendly slagging by family and mates to heated discussions with friends of friends in social settings. But very occasionally, I will meet some barfly or tosser in the smoking room who apparently knows better. He/She will then proceed to explain why teachers are a "joke", like I was missing this information all along. Their rants are usually composed of one or more of the following;

1. "Your a teacher? Ah you have it handy so"
2. "You lot are always looking for more money, sure your off for the summer ffs wasters"
3. "You wouldn't last in the private sector let me tell ya, we have to work for a living"
4. "Automatic wage increase is a joke,you don't deserve it"
5. "Always f**king going on strike"
6. "I cant believe my taxes are paying for this bullsh*t"
7. "Sure ya cant fired, lazy b*stards"

Soooooooooooooo unoriginal.

Yes,
I am off for the summer, its great. Of course I want more money. Why the F would I want to be in the private sector?? Its awful. Wage increases are the best. Striking is a day off. My tax pays for sh*t too.


I have often made the point that If you want those perks then become a teacher. If you fundamentally disagree with how teaching is conducted in Ireland then make a complaint to the dept. of education/local TD  or get elected and change the system. Otherwise I don't want to hear your dull commoner opinions. However my comebacks are usually always met with "yeah well teachers are a still joke" or some such muttering.

Unless someone can provide a solid, objective reason to justify anti-teacher sentiment, I can only assume the root cause of this agitation is (1.) Jealousy, (2.) Hate their own job and are miserable in it (3.) Not the brightest.

So, that is the perspective of an unapologetic teacher. For those of you who still have a problem with my profession I will leave you with two thoughts:

1. Not my fault you picked an unsatisfying career
2. I just don't give a Fu*k

Single? I can't think why.

nullzero

ZV Yoda wrote: »

Ah here, let's not get too carried away. Suggesting a teacher is "somebody who contributes very little to society at large" is ridiculous. Do you think there should be no teachers? How would kids get an education? Do you think doctors, nurses, scientists arrive fully formed? You think 13-14 years of primary & secondary education is "of little value"? :eek:

The OP's point was that a lot of people give teachers a hard time - without knowing the the first thing about teaching themselves. Your post does a stellar job of proving the OP's original point

I have kids in school. I have no problem whatsoever with the money teachers are paid. Running a class of 20-30 kids / teenagers and dealing with all of the associated social baggage, behavioural problems (not to mention the parents) is no walk in the park. Surely you can see that?

I dunno... I give up!

You managed to get up on your soap box without reading what I said properly, maybe your teachers weren't providing good value for money but I digress.

My point is that 47k per annum for the hours outlined when emergency services personnel are making less then half that amount (at entry level) isn't a good return for the money being given to this particular teacher.

It was a fair point and comparing the challenges faced by teachers to those faced by emergency services personnel isn't reasonable.

Sure teachers are valuable in society, but not as valuable as others and it doesn't take much to understand what their job entails seeing we all went through the educational system ourselves we all have an experience of being in that environment.

The wages outlined by the OP married to their holier than thou attitude rightly leads people to question what value this individual is providing at the expense of the tax payer.

Shefwedfan

weldoninhio wrote: »

Single? I can't think why.

Ahh they confirmed later they are not ;););)

ToddyDoody

Don't we spend more now on national debt interest repayments than on education?

ZV Yoda

nullzero wrote: »

You managed to get up on your soap box without reading what I said properly, maybe your teachers weren't providing good value for money but I digress.

No soapbox here - I'm not even a teacher.

nullzero wrote: »

It was a fair point and comparing the challenges faced by teachers to those faced by emergency services personnel isn't reasonable.

Who mentioned the emergency services? Teachers face plenty of challenges in the class room - up to and including being assaulted by students - and parents of students.

nullzero wrote: »

Sure teachers are valuable in society, but not as valuable as others and it doesn't take much to understand what their job entails seeing we all went through the educational system ourselves we all have an experience of being in that environment.

You're confirming the OP's original point again. The fact that somebody spent 13 years (as a student) in school, doesn't qualify them to actually BE a teacher. I've watched loads of movies, but I don't the first thing about acting.

JizzBeans

nullzero wrote: »

People are right to be jealous of somebody who works 18 hours per week, has three months summer holidays and looks down on people who take issue with it.

Ultimately the terms of employment outlined in the OP are extremely generous and when measured against the majority of the workforce, including people in the public sector carrying out demanding and low paying roles (emergency services for example) the idea of somebody in the OP's position attempting to talk down to people in different employment situations to themselves whilst simultaneously attempting to take the moral high ground is something that would rightly lead to "anti teacher sentiment".

Essentially, 47k per annum for 18 hours per week and almost one third of the calender year off work is not something that seems like good value for money from the perspective of the average tax payer. It would appear that your rate of pay is extremely excessive when the money being used to finance it is coming from all quarters in the workforce, including those driving the economy, being innovative and providing essential public services to pay somebody who contributes very little to society at large (geography is useful, but religious studies are hardly an essential subject).

It seems perplexing that the OP wouldn't be able to rationalise these points themselves. Surely an educated person could reach these conclusions with relative ease, unless of course this thread is an exercise in egomania.

The idea of "anti teacher" sentiment is not really at the nub of the issue, a natural unwillingness to allow poor allocation of public funding to go unaccounted for is the issue albeit focused on the wrong direction. As the OP stated, perhaps its time we started to petition our elected representatives to change the system that allows for the type of situations outlined by the OP to exist in the first place, having a go at individual teachers isn't particularly constructive.

Slightly hypocritical post don't you think?

JizzBeans

ToddyDoody wrote: »

Don't we spend more now on national debt interest repayments than on education?

Correct my friend, approx 5.5 bn on national debt this year compared to 1.3 bn on teachers salaries.

nullzero

JizzBeans wrote: »

Slightly hypocritical post don't you think?

How so?

nullzero

ZV Yoda wrote: »

No soapbox here - I'm not even a teacher.



Who mentioned the emergency services? Teachers face plenty of challenges in the class room - up to and including being assaulted by students - and parents of students.



You're confirming the OP's original point again. The fact that somebody spent 13 years (as a student) in school, doesn't qualify them to actually BE a teacher. I've watched loads of movies, but I don't the first thing about acting.

You don't have to be a teacher to get up on a soapbox.

I raised the emergency services as a comparison as they also receive public money for the services they provide,its a reasonable comparison. Teachers aren't being assaulted en masse, where as emergency service ls personnel earning much less money are in those situations regularly. You aren't making any reasonable argument here at all.

Your last point is nonsensical also, I merely stated that we all have experience of the teachers workplace, I never claimed people are qualified to teach by virtue of having been I school, again another weak argument.

ToddyDoody

JizzBeans wrote: »

Correct my friend, approx 5.5 bn on national debt this year compared to 1.3 bn on teachers salaries.

Don't you think the nay sayers should shut up so?

Treppen

facehugger99 wrote: »

I don't think anyone begrudges decent teachers the generous pay and working conditions they enjoy. Most of the issues others have with them is the constant whining and moaning they do about how hard they have it.

My SIL is a teacher and she never stops moaning about the job. From what I can make out they spend all their time in the break room telling each other how bad they have it - it's a real echo-chamber and they've all bought into the union-spiels.

Funnily enough she never even wanted to be a teacher, but with an Arts degree, she hadn't many other options.

She'll probably be over at the weekend visiting the wife and I'll have to listen to more moaning about how tough her job is.

I sincerely doubt she spends all their time in the break room. Unless she's not on full hours, in which case she has a right to moan about temp contract and pro rata salary.

But maybe she is a moany pants. Have it out with her and see what she has to say.

Treppen

poisonated wrote: »

It wasn’t me you threatened but another poster. Thanks for your reply though. I hope you have a great day. Sure ye must be finished work by now. Nice for some.

Home now. Feed kids, put to bed, then back to work.

What's your job btw?

JizzBeans

nullzero wrote: »

How so?

After you claimed I "talk down" and "look down" to people you went on to say i contribute very little to society and inferred I was uneducated...

You are another example of a long list of posters that prove my point.

ZV Yoda

nullzero wrote: »

You don't have to be a teacher to get up on a soapbox.

Indeed. How's the view from up there?

nullzero wrote: »

I raised the emergency services as a comparison as they also receive public money for the services they provide,its a reasonable comparison. Teachers aren't being assaulted en masse, where as emergency service ls personnel earning much less money are in those situations regularly. You aren't making any reasonable argument here at all.

You're arguing with yourself - you're the one who brought up the emergency services, not me.

nullzero wrote: »

I never claimed people are qualified to teach by virtue of having been I school, again another weak argument.

What "weak argument"? My only point is that teachers get a hard time from people who don't actually know what's involved in teaching. A point that you keep confirming!

nullzero wrote: »

it doesn't take much to understand what their job entails seeing we all went through the educational system ourselves we all have an experience of being in that environment.

nullzero

ZV Yoda wrote: »

Indeed. How's the view from up there?



You're arguing with yourself - you're the one who brought up the emergency services, not me.



What "weak argument"? My only point is that teachers get a hard time from people who don't actually know what's involved in teaching. A point that you keep confirming!

I'm struggling to understand what your point is here.
I brought up the emergency services because its a reasonable comparison as they AND teachers are paid through tax payers money.
I contrasted the service provided to society by these two groups and concluded that emergency services are doing tougher jobs for less pay.

Teachers get a hard time from non teacher because (on the evidence of this thread) teachers are being disproportionately rewarded when compared to more valuable contributions from other harder working public servants.

Greentopia

nullzero wrote: »

People are right to be jealous of somebody who works 18 hours per week, has three months summer holidays and looks down on people who take issue with it.

I'm not jealous...and no I'm not a teacher myself There's too much of this attitude of "he/she/they have something better/more than me so therefore they must be reviled and punished for it" in this country.

What about the hours of work they do outside the classroom? marking papers, preparing classes for the next day. I shared a house many years ago with a teacher and she always had stacks of notebooks with her she had to mark in her own time in the evening.


If they were people who gave nothing of any value to society I'd say you might have a point, but they're educators! they have a big responsibility for how our country is shaped and how competitive we are as a nation. They should be well rewarded and I don't begrudge them a cent of their salary.

nullzero wrote: »

Ultimately the terms of employment outlined in the OP are extremely generous and when measured against the majority of the workforce, including people in the public sector carrying out demanding and low paying roles (emergency services for example)...

But the problem there is jobs being paid too little, not that teachers are paid too much. Taking money from teachers won't give it to paramedics.
And I believe the reason teachers are paid a bit more is because there are higher entry requirements. You need a level 8 degree plus Masters now to teach.

nullzero wrote: »

...to pay somebody who contributes very little to society at large (geography is useful, but religious studies are hardly an essential subject).

You've gone off the deep end there! "contributes very little to society at large"?? are you serious?? teachers are one of the most important groups in society, being responsible for the education of our young people.

I don't know whether that comment comes from bitterness, begrudgery or anti-intellectualism, but whichever it is it's noxious.

nullzero

JizzBeans wrote: »

After you claimed I "talk down" and "look down" to people you went on to say i contribute very little to society and inferred I was uneducated...

You are another example of a long list of posters that prove my point.

I never stated that you were uneducated at any point. Try reading my post again and you'll see that.

I stated that the contribution you make as a public servant when compared to that made by other public servants doing tougher jobs with much more demanding working environments is not as valuable to society and does not deserve the type of over the top remuneration you are receiving for your admittedly easy job.

I would assume a teacher would have achieved a high enough standard of education to be capable of basic written comprehension and would be capable of not jumping to conclusions based on their own misplaced sense of injustice.

nullzero

Greentopia wrote: »

I'm not jealous...and no I'm not a teacher myself There's too much of this attitude of "he/she/they have something better/more than me so therefore they must be reviled and punished for it" in this country.

What about the hours of work they do outside the classroom? marking papers, preparing classes for the next day. I shared a house many years ago with a teacher and she always had stacks of notebooks with her she had to mark in her own time in the evening.


If they were people who gave nothing of any value to society I'd say you might have a point, but they're educators! they have a big responsibility for how our country is shaped and how competitive we are as a nation. They should be well rewarded and I don't begrudge them a cent of their salary.



But the problem there is jobs being paid too little, not that teachers are paid too much. Taking money from teachers won't give it to paramedics.
And I believe the reason teachers are paid a bit more is because there are higher entry requirements. You need a level 8 degree plus Masters now to teach.




You've gone off the deep end there! "contributes very little to society at large"?? are you serious?? teachers are one of the most important groups in society, being responsible for the education of our young people.

I don't know whether that comment comes from bitterness, begrudgery or anti-intellectualism, but whichever it is it's noxious.

This is yet another nonsensical post.

Surely the money allocated to teachers on these over inflated wages should and could be redistributed elsewhere.

I also stated that religious studies in isolation are not of any great importance to society at large whilst also stating that geography is a worthwhile subject, but don't allow that fact to cloud your moral indignation.