How and why?

The Government is gradually integrating Children’s Centres into connected Primary Schools by ensuring that their budget and funding is now  accessed through the school.

Children’s Centres are being more closely scrutinised with respect to their value for money! This ignored the value that they provide to the community which they serve AND their value to schools in terms of identifying and implementing support for children and families before they even enter nursery.

Therefore when the Government is ready, it can cut the umbilical cord with ease. This will mean that their are systems in place already which will allow schools to take over the Children’s Centres, as well as, the funding for the necessary refurbishment. After refurbishments the funding will cease on the grounds that it was originally Sure Start funding.

What does this mean?

No Children’s Centres means no expense to the Government.

No Children’s Centres means no service provision for families.

Access to Educational Physiologists (E.P.s)

Access to E.P.s is becoming harder and research has shown that serious conditions, such as, Autism are increasing. Logic tells us that we would need better, more frequent access to E.P.s rather than less!

Early Years teachers and support staff are expected to continue to teach in a ‘Care in the Community’ type classroom. This makes the curriculum harder to deliver because teaching AND managing behaviour which is common to children of that age, as well as, behaviours caused by special needs and serious conditions is impossible without the right type of support .

Using Ofsted to force state schools to become Academies.

Ofsted criteria has just changed. AGAIN! The goal post has been moved. What would have been deemed a good before is now going to be closer to satisfactory. What was satisfactory will now be classed as a failing school! What happens to failing schools? They are FORCED to become academies!

Previously, the Local Authority had support systems in place to help failing schools. However, they are currently in a position where they can offer little or no support so the forced change shouldn’t be too hard!

What will this mean?

The result will be that more schools will fail Ofsted and be forced to link with, and then become, an academy! This will of course is in the name of raising standards.

Which schools will be affected?

Secondary schools have been in the news for restructuring along academic lines e.g. running vocational courses alongside GCSE and A’ Levels.

Eventually the Government’s aspiration is for local businesses to invest in the vocational courses and employ school leavers directly. An example of this may be that schools near Heathrow are supplied with the ICT to train students to use systems, such as, Galileo and DCI. This will put students are in a position where they can leave and be employed with the skill set that the employer needs. A ready made workforce. Sounds good doesn’t it?

The pros

Students are employed quickly.

Students go from school to employment without gaps in between the two.

Students will be skilled at the onset.

Airlines save money in terms of recruiting, employing staff who are not trained to their requirements.

Government has no expenses in this area.

The cons

Those who lose out are the students.

They are trained for one job only.

They will have little room for manoeuvre elsewhere in the job market.

The employers, for these reasons, are at an advantage because employees are less likely to change their job no matter how poor the pay or conditions are.

Some aspiration!

What will it mean for us?

There will be more stakeholders. These will include the Government, parents, governors, employers and local businesses.

Under academy status teachers are no longer protected by the Government set Pay and Conditions. Thus Unions will have less clout in negotiations.

What is to stop academies changing the school year so that schools are operational ALL year? They could give permission for children to take their holidays during any 2 weeks of the year. This could be the same for teaching and support staff. The parents would be happy as their holiday child minding problems would be taken care of. Thus school staff will be required to work for longer hours. Academies have been known to force staff to run clubs after school and during lunch time.

What’s wrong with any of this?

The change is justified as all other industries get 2 weeks of holidays per year. Thus why should school staff get more? Little do they know that school staff are NOT paid during the holidays! They are paid for the days they works but the wages are paid on a monthly basis. Thus although they physically get a wage each month, it is not earned for any of the time which is not classed as teaching time.

With these changes in mind, there may be a token amount given initially to remunerate staff and soften the blow. However, eventually that will be absorbed in the salary. Also any increases in wages will be kept low so that over time, these increases will vanish over time.

But hey…we can make it up because we will then be working until we are 66 years old!

Gold star

Do you know about this march?

I think it’s so exciting! Empowering. For me, it also shows that there’s hope. That people are willing to be honest, open and transparent about what they want and don’t want. All too often there seems to be an increasing pattern, a culture of not being transparent. This is a refreshing change!

So why are we marching?

• Eliminating the deficit in just four years is a savage timetable that does not give economic growth the opportunity to raise the nation’s tax take. Indeed the deep cuts promised will depress the economy making deeper cuts necessary to meet this timetable.
• Raising four pounds through cuts for every pound raised through tax – and doing most of this through a rise in VAT that hits the poor and those on middle income the most – is deeply unfair. The recession was made in the finance sector, yet banks and those now enjoying gigantic bonuses once again, are not being asked to make a fair contribution.

Yet none of these policies were put to the British people at the election, indeed we were told that there was no need for cuts in front-line services.

People round the country are already campaigning against these deep, rapid cuts. Students have shown their opposition to cuts, the ends of EMAs and increases in fees. Parents and teachers have opposed cuts in school building. School sport, libraries and public woodlands all now have strong defenders. Few towns now don’t have their own campaign group.

The TUC’s March for the Alternative has two key aims.

1. First we want to give a national voice to all those affected by the cuts. This will be a huge event that in its breadth and support shows just how much opposition there is to the government’s programme. It will bring together public service workers and those who depend on good public services. Those involved in national campaigns, and those defending what is special in their own community.
2. Second we want to show that people reject the argument that there is no alternative. Of course the recession did damage to our economy. But these deep rapid cuts are not the best way to solve our problems, and may well make them worse.

That is why it is the March for the Alternative – an alternative in which rich individuals and big companies have to pay all their tax, that the banks pay a Robin Hood tax and on in which we strain every sinew to create jobs and boost the sustainable economic growth that will generate the prosperity which is the only long term way to close the deficit and reduce the nation’s debt.

Read here about why others are marching in their own words!

I’ve been meaning to write this post for a while now. Although I’ve had discussions about this ‘confusion’ before, I’ve not been enthused to write about it until now. Something’s different for me. Thus I’m sharing it with you and hoping that you will share your thoughts after reading this post.

From the horses mouth (the mouths of some men)

• Men are good at single tasking.
• They are skilled at focusing on one task and doing it well.
• Multi tasking is not for them.

Why is this an issue?

Well for many reasons women were introduced to work. Men went to war & women stepped up to take on previously, ‘non women’ roles. Equal rights for men and women meant women could expect equality in all its forms including pay. Increases in the standard of living and individual expectations has resulted in families ‘needing’ dual incomes. Mobility in work has had an impact on wages & what time workers leave and return home. I could go on but I wont! This post is about the ‘now’ not how we got here.

So we’re now in a position where many men and women assume, expect & demand an education that goes beyond 18. What’s the point of having the qualification if you can’t make a career of it, right? So everything else takes a back seat while we educate, build a career, aim for a promotion or two & get a higher, more ‘comfortable’ wage. Whilst all this is going on some people will be saving and possibly investing in property which they may rent out or live in. Thus having an extra income, a pad of their own. Independence perhaps.

THEN comes the idea of finding a partner, possibly getting married and/or having kids, buying a home together and so on.

However, the years of changes mean that women have been forced to become self sufficient as they are no longer ‘kept’ by their fathers or older brothers. I wont use this space to debate whether that was ever true, if that’s OK. For this post, can we just accept that someone ‘kept’ them until these changes took place? However, NOW their life is their own and they can and do make their own decisions. There’s much more freedom, expectations of women have changed, expectations of mothers and fathers have altered dramatically and the norm is no longer what it used to be!

As a result, ‘the woman’ has enjoyed and earned a life which has been rich with choice & independence; it’s been empowering and so much more.

When these women meet a man who fulfils their needs they will want to compromise without regressing. A partnership means you work at things jointly. You share. Right?

This would mean that, if the dual income is necessary, both partners will be working. Can you then expect the ‘woman’ to come home and cook, clean, maintain the home; any more than you expect the ‘man’ to?

This is where it gets interesting!

I know men who have ‘lived out’ but haven’t really!

They’ve gone to the family home for dinner each night, unless they’re going out!

Clothes to be washed are taken to the family home.

Their flat is not cleaned OR they pay a cleaner to do it.

Food shopping isn’t necessary as they don’t cook.

Are you seeing the picture? They’re not independent at all!

So what’s the actual point of having that property to live in then? Something else, I don’t think we can get into here!

So let’s get back to the scenario where a couple have moved in together. They both ‘need’ to work. Thus they both need to do the tasks in the home.

The men I know say that they’re no good at doing all that stuff. They can focus on bread winning and only that. If that’s the case; they now need to earn enough so that the ‘couple’ feel comfortable, rather than, restrained or trapped; so that the woman can reduce her hours or stop working. She, if willing, can then cook, clean, raise the kids if they choose to have any, maintain relationships with family and mutual friends, organise socials with them, keep track of what’s needed in the home, shop for it and so on.

If this isn’t possible and both of them need to work; surely it’s fair for both people in the relationship to look at the ‘tasks’ that need doing and split them between them. The key here is to make sure that what they take on plays on their strengths.

When the situation doesn’t favour either party; because we are so sure of what we want; people are quicker than before, to make changes and move on if it doesn’t pan out. Is that fair to say or do you disagree?

The knock on affect of this is that men and women alike are aware of this trend so the flat that they own becomes a place to go if things don’t work out. The income is needed in case their relationship doesn’t work out. One guy told me it’s all an insurance policy to make sure we don’t get left high and dry.

What do you think?

Are we more cynical and as a result, putting structures in place so that we have ‘an insurance policy’ in case things don’t work out? Are we more greedy? More demanding? Less giving? Less tolerant? More confident? More assertive?

What do you think of this?

To name a few, he touches on hard work, borrowing, risk taking.

I was talking to Bindi about this today. It’s not the first time I’ve thought or talked about it and I still don’t have an answer! Maybe you can help me?

I would say the most important jobs/roles in society fall into three categories. These are health, education and welfare.

Health encompasses nursing, doctors and so on.

Education includes teachers, learning assistants and more.

Welfare is about carers, staff who work in ‘homes’ or in a hospice and social workers.

If you think about it, the jobs are highly pressurised, they involve a lot of paperwork, they are bureaucratic and poorly paid! I mustn’t forget to mention that staff are accountable to the public as well!

Why then are they so poorly paid?

How does it make sense?

How can other jobs pay so much more?

I was talking to Suraj about this and he said it’s because most people are interested in making money. Thus if you make money for someone, you get paid more. That’s why so many other jobs are better paid.

Those of us in health, welfare and education don’t do that. We only look after what is the most precious thing to most people, at one point in their life or another. Usually ‘this thing’ becomes even more precious when they lose it or feel as if it’s slipping away. I guess this refers more directly to health and welfare. With regards to children, most people will tell you that their most precious possession is their children.

If you take all this into account why are people in these professions paid so little?

Yes, consultants are paid more because they have studied for so long and they know so much but do they really deserve to be paid so much more? Who does the daily caring for the patients? Remember this includes lifting them, helping them go to the toilet, changing bandages, administering medication, saving lives, counselling and more! One of my good friends is a nurse and she has a poor social life! Why? Well…she works unsociable hours and when she’s not working, she’s recovering from her shifts and her lack of sleep. Nurses aren’t in a job where they can say ‘I’m going to go and take my break now’. They have to make sure that patients wont be left vulnerable and without supervision. They often don’t finish when they’re supposed to and they don’t get paid for this so called ‘overtime’.

Yes head teachers are paid so much because they are responsible for the school but who teaches the children everyday, cares for them, checks for neglect, signs of abuse, helps them socialise, encourage them to be independent and so much more? Teachers are on the front line. Sometimes we play the role of being the parent of the parents, parent to the child, social worker, counsellor, child protection, academic educator, report writer and so much more. We don’t clock off at 3:15 p.m. and start at 9 a.m. We work before and after school hours. We work during the holidays completing assessments, marking, planning etc. Unlike being in an office, we often have to plan going to the toilet because we can’t just leave the class because we need to go. Some schools now have a sign in Reception saying that the staff have the right to come to work without being abused. This seems to be a situation that a lot of key workers are finding themselves in. What a shame!

I’m not sure if those who run ‘homes’ and those who manage social workers are paid lots more but generally they do not have enough funding, enough staff or enough power to do what they need to do. Of course when this reality is in the face of the public; there’s uproar, outrage and demands are made but the issue and the risks are not new! They were there before, it’s just that something horrid happened, got well publicised and suddenly everyone’s interested! How does that work?

Where does more money need to be placed?

Where does funding really need to go?

Any ideas?

Do you agree or disagree? Please do share your thoughts with me. It’s something I’ve struggled to understand for a very long time!

I guess the title poses a funny question.

Well is it ever going to go away? No! For one reason or another; men and women like to have sex with strangers. Maybe they do not find their partner attractive any more, perhaps they want to be more or less controlling or they do not have anyone to be intimate with.

Who cares? It happens, there is a demand and there are people willing to meet the need! So should there be a move to help legalise it? Organise it? Protect it?

There are so many men who beat, rape and kill prostitutes and if you do not think it matters; I urge you to think again! They are people and they have human rights whatever their occupation.

So how can we stop the beatings, rapes and murders? Should we follow what they have done in other parts of Europe? Why not legalise, organise and protect prostitution? The system would ensure that the prostitutes have regular health checks which will prevent the spread of Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI’s). It would mean that an area/areas are organised to provide this service and that it remains constant, rather than, an underground service that keeps moving from place to place as they are discovered or people complain. It would avoid becoming a ‘seedy’ area which nobody wants to walk through. Also the people that work there would be protected so that they are not abused!

Do you have any arguments against this?

Agreeing does not mean that you condone the occupation or the people who use the service; but it DOES mean that you are realistic, humane and logical.

I don’t get it! Many members of this union keep everything going! They support children in schools, clean the parks, empty the bins, they open, close and maintain public buildings which WE use and so much more!

Most of these workers can’t afford to strike and lose 2 days worth of pay but how can they not? Their pay is so low they have to do something! Right? The wage increase is so minimal yet they do so much! The consultants, sales men and women and marketing staff, for example, do so little for us! So little for YOU! But then why are they are paid so much?

When will we wake up and pay those who we can’t do without, those who nurture the future a fair wage? How frustrated are you when your refuse isn’t collected? How hard is it knowing that your child needs support in class but the learning assistant who helps them so much isn’t it, for whatever reason. We need these members of staff! The same argument applies to NUT members who went on strike recently! We work so hard. Education and society has changed so much yet is this taken into account when our wages are debated?

A few members of staff in the school I work in are striking tomorrow and Thursday. They have been torn apart with the guilt of knowing the children, the school, the teachers need them. They have debated how they can manage without an income for those two days. They’ve tried to be objective and fair when thinking about how quickly they’d jump up to receive a pay increase but if they don’t do anything to get it how can that be fair? They’ve also considered how fair it would be to be in a union and use them when they need them but not support the Union when they need the help of their members. They’ve also discussed how the managerial staff may replace them with other members of staff, in which case, is the strike pointless or not?

It’s funny! I am a teacher and a NUT Rep. Thus I am aware that all schools, reps and members have been advised that we should be expected to do anything over and above our usual duties. We should not be asked to do the duties of a member who’s on strike. For this reason, when we striked recently, the managerial staff did not employ supply teachers to take their place, nor did they ask learning assistants or any ‘out of class’ staff to take our place. As a result the children in a few classes were told that they could not come in on the day of the strike but the rest of the school ran as usual.

For some reason it’s different this time. There are some children who need one to one support. Due to the strike they will be unsupported. So you’d think that the managerial staff would follow what they did when the teachers striked right? They’d say those children couldn’t come to school until Friday. No. I’ve been asked to abandon my timetable, I can do this because I’m out of class, and I’ve been asked to cover a child with special needs all day tomorrow.

Of course this goes against everything I mentioned above! Anyway I guess this is a side issue but it also highlights how managerial staff try and get around these inconvenient strikes.

The point of the strike is to disrupt. To show how needed the members of these unions are. To highlight the fact that we need a fair wage!

What do you think? Can you see where I’m coming from? Do you think it’s fair? Any ideas? Alternatives?

The text below is taken from the UNISON website.

UNISON members in local government in England, Northern Ireland and Wales have voted to take strike action on 16 and 17 July over the employers’ insulting pay “offer”.

They have been offered a pay rise of just 2.45%. Take inflation into account and it’s a pay CUT.

Add in 10 years of below-inflation pay rises and average household bills rocketing £1,300 in the last year alone, it’s no wonder we think this is the last straw.

It doesn’t add up.

We need YOU and all your workmates to join the action. This will send a clear message to your employers that they must improve their offer and show you the respect you deserve.