The result

A good school around here has had no applicants for the role of Headteacher ?. The current HT has agreed to defer her retirement until one is found and the post has been re-advertised.

My DD, SiL and DiL are all in education so I know how dreadful things have become since I left the classroom almost 20 years ago. My advice to people thinking about going into teaching is the same as Punch's advice to people contemplating marriage.

I would support increased personal taxes but not necessarily to pay teachers and additional 10k per year or give them that extra 5 weeks holiday and free lunches.

Freedom of choice GGm2 your DD has every right to leave or stay as she sees fit. I would not try to say otherwise. Lets not forget though that most private enterprise in the UK is small (we are not all huge corporations) and small business employees tend not to enjoy many of the benefits enjoyed by those in either the public sector or large companies.

Yes you absolutely DID misunderstand GGm2 I have never ever suggested that I did not think we should all pay into a public sector whether we use it or not.

The point I WAS TRYING to make is that the public sector is unique in that we all pay into it whether we use it or not whereas we only pay for what private services/products we want or need. This is why I do not think we can compare the two.

We none of us know if/when we may need to use the police, the fire service, the NHS etc. We all as far as I know went to school as did our children and grandchildren.

I take offense that anyone would suggest I thought otherwise.

The poor standard of teaching in failing schools could be because there aren't a queue of good teachers who want to teach in such schools? Its a self perpetuating problem - good teachers wont take jobs in poor schools - hence those schools get poor results and poor Ofsted reports - even more reason for teachers to leave and the difficulty such schools will have in recruiting staff of any quality. Quite often the head of a failing school has to appoint less well qualified teachers as they don't have a choice - its a poor teacher, who may hopefully with support improve, or no one. Even high performing schools find attracting teachers difficult. A local grammar school, which is always top of performance tables, recently advertised for a head of English - they got one applicant - from Canada.

How could a public sector teaching post ever compete with 18 weeks holiday and extra 10k per year etc. the country would be bankrupt.

The country cannot go bankrupt gillybob.

So, with your argument which would you choose - increase taxes so that the public sector can afford it (my goodness we may even increase them to the same level as Canada or the rest of Europe) or let the public sector die so that we all have to pay privately, for health, schools, etc.

People will not stay and be paid less - why should they. My daughter too is just about to leave the public sector and go into a job in the private sector and many more are planning to do so. Just why do you think they should live on less because you don't believe is small and specific increases in taxation.

gillybob you can't "promote" people if they don't want to be promoted and all the evidence is that good teachers, heads of departments, deputy heads don't want to be heads. The responsibility is too great and they prefer not to have it. That is one reason head teacher's salaries are so high and even so schools struggle to find replacements. Teachers leave the profession after a few years and don't stay. They are graduates with transferable skills so yes you can compare someone in teaching and a private company engineer, because the teacher may well decide that life is easier out of teaching and use their degree for other purposes.

When did I say I didn't want to pay for something I don't use?

When did anyone think that a job in the public sector should not be paid the same as the same job in the private sector - and why?

You said We all pay into this whether we use the service or not., which led me to believe - although I may have misunderstood - that you wanted the taxpayer (which includes you) to pay less for a service simply because it is paid for by the taxpayer. Perhaps you could explain it if that is not what you meant.

I have asked if you could do that previously so if you have been understood maybe it is because of the lack of clarity in the explanation you gave rather than anyone twisting the argument.

How could a public sector teaching post ever compete with 18 weeks holiday and extra 10k per year etc. the country would be bankrupt.

Ashcroft survey

35-40+ years olds

50% Labour. 30% Tory

I dare say there will be other similar examples suzied but there are not enough private schools for all teachers to work in or I dare say they would. Private schools are private businesses paid for by their customers. At the end of the day it is up to them what they pay. your DD must be a very good teacher as i could imagine there would be a few others after the job too.

Over the weekend I read 4 Ofsted reports (three from failing schools who need improvement and one from an excellent school) the three poor ones all mentioned the inadequate standard of teaching. what a shame for the poor children who have to go there.

Publec schools due to get a £560million tax break

gillybobBut maybe we can compare a public sector teaching job with a private sector one? My DD has just left the state sector to take a job in a top public school . She will be paid £10K more, gets 5 weeks extra holiday, no to mention smaller classes, free lunches etc. the state sector is haemorrhaging teachers who are leaving teaching altogether. Many schools are finding it impossible to replace teachers of maths, science, languages etc. Maybe the level of pay and the frozen pay increases may have something to do with this?

I would like to ask where the money comes from to pay headteachers significantly more money than they already get? (I don't count academies in this as it seems money is no object there).

A potential head teacher would not be working as a shop assistant while they waited for the right job to come along would they? Could it be that there are no existing heads that are waiting in the wings and that we should be promoting good teachers/heads of department who already have leader ship skills to become head teachers?

Agreed. My house has never burnt down and I've never been in prison, but I'm happy to pay for fire and prison officers. The list goes on

Really daphnedill ?

Can anyone tell me exactly where and when I have ever said we should not all pay into these services?

When did I say I didn't want to pay for something I don't use?

Talk about twisting an argument.

Exactly trisher you have made my point for me. I don't use certain services (your example was the roads) but we all pay for them because of the general good of the country and if you read my post properly you will see I was NEVER trying to say otherwise!

For that very reason we cannot compare the pubic sector with private companies (whom we all have free choice whether to use and/or pay for).

People choose to work in the public sector or not. Often their chosen speciality dictates this as there are far more public sector teaching and nursing jobs (to use these as examples)than there are private.

This is a silly argument as I still say we cannot and should not try to compare a public sector teaching job with an private company engineer.

Trisher.I I have reported yesterday's log in aberration and await a reply.Thank you for pointing that out.

at are

Agreed. My house has never burnt down and I've never been in prison, but I'm happy to pay for fire and prison officers. The list goes on.

Ok gillybob I don't drive and have never owned a car, can I then demand back any of my council tax which is used to repair roads- of course I can't! GGMk2 has already explained the benefits of education to you so I will repeat my question. There are currently 109 vacancies for head teachers, that is 109 schools which will not have heads in September, how will you fill those if you don't pay enough? Head teachers don't just need to be competent bosses they need heaps of other skills and it is a job few people want. The perks are irrelevant. Few heads take all the holidays and many work 18 hour days. The comparison is that the people you want to be heads can move into other less stressful, better paid jobs if they wish.

There is no comparison to be made between private and public sectors. As I tried to explain, we all pay into the public sector (schools, nhs etc.) whether we use the services or not. We do not all pay into a private company. Therefore no comparison to be made.

Why would anyone work in the public sector if this was the case? It is because private sector incomes have been held down people at leaving in droves. The lack of logic in this belief is astounding. Doctors, nurses, teachers, etc., to not make a vow of obedience to the state for heavens sake. They will go where the terms and conditions are best. The NHS and schools are not charities they are paid for though our taxes so that we all have access to things we otherwise would not necessarily be able to afford when we need them.

I didn't say that at all trisher. There is no comparison to be made between private and public sectors. As I tried to explain, we all pay into the public sector (schools, nhs etc.) whether we use the services or not. We do not all pay into a private company. Therefore no comparison to be made.

Also let us not forget that most companies in the UK are small businesses. Would someone working in a school or the nhs really want to have their "perks" reduced to the level of many SME's? (lower pensions, basic sick pay, reduced holidays etc.)

According to yougov something like 30% Tory voters defected to Labour because they votedremain and do not want a hard Brexit.

Bring it on I say!! Let the Tories make a complete pigs ear of the Brexit negotiations - guaranteed after the last two efforts, and they will be unelectable for years to come.

So why do you think there are so many vacancies gillybob and what would you do to fill them?
The comparison between a company and a school was to provide some sort of scale that might be applied. What you seem to be saying is that if people are in public service they should be paid less no matter how great the responsibility

Why should someone be paid less because they work in a public service than in a similar position in a private organisation gillybob. Please tell me why that should be an accepted way of doing things.

You seem to be saying with We all pay into this whether we use the service or not. that teachers, etc., should take a lower salary so that people do not pay proper taxes for the service. Someone complained yesterday about my view of Tories (although I was actually only talking about Tory MPs) but your whether we use the service or not is a really good example of "what I have I keep" while expecting the advantages of social democracy.

You may not have children in education and may never use this "service" but you will certainly, in many walks of life, make use of those who were educated by it. From discoveries by scientists, doctors in the NHS, a vet for your pet, a bank clerk able to help you with your money, and on, and on, we all invest in our future or do you believe these people were all educated in privately funded schools or that they do not help society as a whole.

You say^We all pay into this whether we use the service or not.^ with your conclusion that therefore people should be paid less is just thoughtless as in both senses, without thought and selfish.