The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Those who are interested should google 'time-span of discretion'
Essentially how far ahead people think or can be trusted to think, in
terms of theoractions and decisions.

Problem is, society is set up to select against this. I've
spent the last 20 years pouring a quarter of my income into
my pension because I wish to be able to afford to stay alive
in forty years' time. But as soon as I'm unemployed the DWP
point at my pension and say: assets! f*** off! and explicitly
instruct me to somehow get my future self to pop some money
into a time machine and send it back to me.

I've currently got a form to fill out and it's impossible to
fill it out to reflect the reality that at this moment in
time my pension is an *outgoing*, it is only possible to fill
out the form to declare my pension as an asset.

Thank $DIETY that my next job starts in a couple of weeks and
I'll just wipe off four week's benefit as a lost cause.

JGH

On 09/09/2013 21:34 SteveW wrote:

On 09/09/2013 20:34, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 09:57:12 +0100, F wrote:

Seriously, put an arm round an upset primary school child and you're on
the way to the exit.

Our primary school took it into its head that any of the teaching
staff couldn't apply the sun creme that the parents had been asked to
send in with their children. Need less to say the Reception Class
classroom got covered... and a number of other children got in a
right mess.

It's not often I take issue with things but this one got my goat,
what happened to "in loco parentis" and "duty of care"? And if any of
the teaching staff are into kiddie fiddling what does that say about
the LEA's vetting procedures/policies? Just use the normal
procedures, never be alone with a child, have another adult present
etc.

I'm glad to say that the school my children attend does allow the staff
to give children a cuddle when they are upset. I'd hate for that to be
stopped.

That's how it should be but it only takes one bolshy parent with a
futile imagination and the brown stuff hits the fan in a big way.

--
F

GB wrote:
Hmmmm, when I got my first job as an apprentice I would probably have
floundered if asked why I wanted to become a heating engineer.

It's a daft question, really. Some jobs are a vocation - missionary,
(...)

At an interview last week I was asked about my last-but-two
job and I was struggling to answer something other than:
because being alive costs money, and that was the only thing
I could force anybody to pay me to do.

JGH

Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 21:17:30 +0100, GB wrote:

I did not fly into a rage in the morning when he did not put the
grommets on in a different flat, no bollockings or anything like
that. He knows to to use grommets. He deliberately chose not to.
And when he decided not to use grommets in the afternoon he got a
bollocking - and that was for saying he had fitted them even though
I gave him a second chance to fit them. He then got another
bollocking for only putting half the grommets on after the first
bollocking.

That's really weird. Did you get to the bottom of what he had against
fitting grommets?

Probably just the "remembering to do it" bit. Then the "summoning up
the effort to redo everything to retro-fit them" bit.

There is not a lot of work required to add the grommets. It's a first fix.
The cables are not attached to anything, they are sat unterminated inside
the back boxes.

--
Adam

On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 22:01:53 +0100, ARW wrote:

That's really weird. Did you get to the bottom of what he had against
fitting grommets?

Probably just the "remembering to do it" bit. Then the "summoning up
the effort to redo everything to retro-fit them" bit.

There is not a lot of work required to add the grommets. It's a first
fix.
The cables are not attached to anything, they are sat unterminated
inside the back boxes.

Still got to pull 'em out of the back boxes to retro-fit the grommets,
then shove 'em back through again. That's all extra effort, that is...

On 09/09/2013 22:01, ARW wrote:
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 21:17:30 +0100, GB wrote:

I did not fly into a rage in the morning when he did not put the
grommets on in a different flat, no bollockings or anything like
that. He knows to to use grommets. He deliberately chose not to.
And when he decided not to use grommets in the afternoon he got a
bollocking - and that was for saying he had fitted them even though
I gave him a second chance to fit them. He then got another
bollocking for only putting half the grommets on after the first
bollocking.

That's really weird. Did you get to the bottom of what he had against
fitting grommets?

Probably just the "remembering to do it" bit. Then the "summoning up
the effort to redo everything to retro-fit them" bit.

There is not a lot of work required to add the grommets. It's a first fix.
The cables are not attached to anything, they are sat unterminated inside
the back boxes.

In that case, it's all a bit perplexing. It's fairly unusual for people
to be so ****ed off that they deliberately don't do something they are
told to and could easily do. It takes some doing to **** someone off
that much.

Had he by that stage figured that he was going to get sacked anyway?

Or did he have some manual dexterity problems so he couldn't actually do it?

Or ... ?

Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 22:01:53 +0100, ARW wrote:

That's really weird. Did you get to the bottom of what he had
against fitting grommets?

Probably just the "remembering to do it" bit. Then the "summoning up
the effort to redo everything to retro-fit them" bit.

There is not a lot of work required to add the grommets. It's a first
fix.
The cables are not attached to anything, they are sat unterminated
inside the back boxes.

Still got to pull 'em out of the back boxes to retro-fit the grommets,
then shove 'em back through again. That's all extra effort, that is...

In your dreams:-). That was the bext thing in the list. Not tucking the
cables into the back box.

--
Adam

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
F news@nowhere wrote:
On 09/09/2013 12:33 Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article , F
news@nowhere wrote:
On 08/09/2013 18:53 Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article , F
news@nowhere wrote:
On 08/09/2013 15:32 Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

The myth that all teachers work many hours in excess of actual
teaching ones is just that,

You're correct: *all* teachers don't. But the vast majority do. As
in all walks of life it's possible to find some dross.

Just putting in hours doesn't make someone good at their job.

I didn't say that it did. I was replying to your assertion that 'the
myth that all teachers work many hours in excess of actual teaching
ones is just that'.

Which part of 'all' did you find it impossible to understand?

Which part of my reply did you not understand?

Do you ever get any more than a few words into a thread without wanting
to start an argument?

What it is about the spouses of teachers?

Did it ever occur to you that those who have to spend ages extra to do a
job others manage just fine within the allotted hours might just *not* be
that good at their job?


Dave...

A friend of my wife's her husband teaches at the school which our
daughter goes to. He leaves home around 7-45, works all day and then
comes home at around 8-30 most all evenings of the week.

He has to work on Saturdays as well.

The stupid sod is an excellent science teacher and is very involved with
his work. He does a lot more than what he's contracted to do and this
seems to be the way of it these days, for a lot of teaching staff in
most schools especially senior ones.

Once home he's rarely to bed before 11 having to do a lot of marking and
prep for the next day..

I'd not call him lazy perhaps too bloody stupid to do what he does and
the hours he puts in but that it seems is the way of it and is the
teachers lot these days.

Yes of course they have those longer holidays but he's back at school a
while before the term starts sort out this and that etc.

A science teacher at my other daughters Sixth form college is virtually
no different, much the same for him too..

Perhaps its just the job these days?. Perhaps its not quite like how it
used to be perhaps more is expected of them?.

But in those two instances not good at their job isn't the phrase I'd
use at all;!.

Perhaps too dedicated to their jobs is the one I'd use.....
--
Tony Sayer

On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 22:12:25 +0100, ARW wrote:

That's really weird. Did you get to the bottom of what he had
against fitting grommets?

Probably just the "remembering to do it" bit. Then the "summoning up
the effort to redo everything to retro-fit them" bit.

There is not a lot of work required to add the grommets. It's a first
fix.
The cables are not attached to anything, they are sat unterminated
inside the back boxes.

Still got to pull 'em out of the back boxes to retro-fit the grommets,
then shove 'em back through again. That's all extra effort, that is...

In your dreams:-). That was the next thing in the list. Not tucking the
cables into the back box.

Bwahahahahahahaha...

In article , ARW
o.uk scribeth thus
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 21:17:30 +0100, GB wrote:

I did not fly into a rage in the morning when he did not put the
grommets on in a different flat, no bollockings or anything like
that. He knows to to use grommets. He deliberately chose not to.
And when he decided not to use grommets in the afternoon he got a
bollocking - and that was for saying he had fitted them even though
I gave him a second chance to fit them. He then got another
bollocking for only putting half the grommets on after the first
bollocking.

That's really weird. Did you get to the bottom of what he had against
fitting grommets?

Probably just the "remembering to do it" bit. Then the "summoning up
the effort to redo everything to retro-fit them" bit.


There is not a lot of work required to add the grommets. It's a first fix.
The cables are not attached to anything, they are sat unterminated inside
the back boxes.


Can you tell 'im if he's still "working" for u that we'd all like to
know "why" it is he doesn't fit these please;!...

--
Tony Sayer

On 09/09/2013 22:12, ARW wrote:

In your dreams:-). That was the bext thing in the list. Not tucking the
cables into the back box.


I have more sympathy with you since my popping into Homebase this
afternoon.

Me: "I've looked but I can't find any 2 by 1 planed all round. Do you
know where you have it please?"
Kid: "Umm, is that plastic, and how long a roll do you want?"
Me: "It's okay. I'll go to another store."
Kid: "There's no need to be rude."

Homebase really are the pits, but as I was just passing..... Won't make
that mistake again.

On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 21:05:30 +0000 (UTC), Adrian wrote:

Still got to pull 'em out of the back boxes to retro-fit the grommets,
then shove 'em back through again. That's all extra effort, that is...

You are forgetting that 2 x 2.5's are nasty heavy stiff cables with
sharp pointy ends where they have been cut and there'll be a bit of
dust from the wall fixing in the box...

--
Cheers
Dave.

GB wrote:
On 09/09/2013 18:25, ARW wrote:

I did not fly into a rage in the morning when he did not put the
grommets on in a different flat, no bollockings or anything like
that. He knows to to use grommets. He deliberately chose not to. And
when he decided not to use grommets in the afternoon he got a
bollocking - and that was for saying he had fitted them even though
I gave him a second chance to fit them. He then got another
bollocking for only putting half the grommets on after the first
bollocking.

That's really weird. Did you get to the bottom of what he had against
fitting grommets?

Bone idle spoilt lazy **** IMHO. Without getting a large free amount of
money from the the government to allow further research on the subject then
my opinion stands as a fact;-).


Do you see? I gave him a nice chance to sort out the grommets and he
chose to take the ****.

I do see, but I'm no nearer understanding why? If he just wanted to
quit the job, he could have done that, ie not turned up in the
morning.

Now that is the odd thing. Why didn't he quit? He did a perfect job 3 months
ago when I last worked with him (smaller challenges but he did meet them and
that included the grommets).

As one of the other lads said "he started well and then went downhill".


--
Adam

Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 15:46:39 +0100, Bill wrote:

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 15:08:03 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Plenty of teachers just fall into the job because it's one they
think they understand -

When I was at school, many years ago the teachers that came straight
out of the education system into teaching were, in the main, quite
useless. Those that had spent time in the outside world first were,
in the main, quite good.





after all everyone goes to school. That, and the
short hours, holidays and pension.

I'm not sure what short hours they would be.

The myth that all teachers work many hours in excess of actual
teaching ones is just that,


I really hope that you are trolling Dave.

My wife is a teacher and has had a couple of days to herself during
the "long summer holiday". The rest of the time she has been
working, either in school or at home. Any teacher that does not
work long hours is not going to either do a good job, or last long.

The myth that teachers enjoy long holidays is just that.

Quite. SWTNFI is a teacher. She has been working 11 hour days for the
past three weeks preparing for start of term tomorrow, then coming
home and working in the evenings.

That will be tidying up the school after the mess the workmen left inside
the school following the rewire/new heating/new roof that happenend during
in the school holidays:-)

--
Adam

adam wrote:
There are too many do gooders these days. And you sound like one of them.
FFS treating them for doing what they should already be doing. It's no
wonder the country is going downhill.

What they want is my grandma and grandad. He was ex-RAF, she
was ex-listening service, they were both head teachers. If
you misbehaved in their schools, you knew about it, and your
parents would back them up.

JGH

Dave Liquorice wrote:
This is very true but TBH the "workings of life", budgeting,
mortages/loans, credit/debit cards, pensions, investments, etc have
never been taught in school.

They were taught in my school in the 1980s. It was called "Design
for Living" back then. It's supposedly part of some alphabet
soup nowadays.

JGH

In article ,
scribeth thus
Dave Liquorice wrote:
This is very true but TBH the "workings of life", budgeting,
mortages/loans, credit/debit cards, pensions, investments, etc have
never been taught in school.

They were taught in my school in the 1980s. It was called "Design
for Living" back then. It's supposedly part of some alphabet
soup nowadays.

JGH

Its referred to as "Well-being" in these parts;!.
--
Tony Sayer

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
If an early start is essential and something they often have trouble
with, you could at least do the interviews at the earliest start time.
That might weed out a few who can't get up that early.

Some people - like me - just are physically not morning people.
I can a solid 12+ hours, but not if I'm starting at oh-god-o'clock.
If I'm forced into work at crack of dawn I'm useless unless I'm
sitting drinking tea gradually waking up. Whenever I've had input
into my hours I organise things to start at about 10am, and aim to
get into work for about 9-ish and "potter" and have a couple of
cups of tea. If I'm fixed into an earlier start it means I spend
most of Saturday asleep catching up.

In the worst job I had my manager was a lark, and insisted all her
staff get into work at 7:30am because she did.

JGH

Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 21:40:24 +0100, bert wrote:

Teachers don't think so; they're planning to go on strike.

Some teachers union leaders might be intent on going on strike but
the majority won't even bother to vote.

Tacit acceptance of a strike.

Don't want to strike? Vote no. It's not hard.

Depends if you can manage to get the time off work to be allowed to vote:-)


--
Adam

On Monday 09 September 2013 22:36 Tim Streater wrote in uk.d-i-y:

In article ,
Vir Campestris wrote:

On 09/09/2013 20:21, Dave Liquorice wrote:
These days? With everything coming with moulded on plugs for the last
20+ years.

Well, quite. My son is a hardware engineer in a data centre; he'll have
put lots of things together, but I'm pretty sure he's never had to put a
plug on a flex.

So I guess he doesn't shorten mains cables so that they fit properly in
the cable management system then.


Why would you do that when you can buy a mixed length load of leads from CPC
and choose as you go. The extra 20-30cm is easily lost as a neat loop or
drop at one end or the other. What I do anyway

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On Monday, September 9, 2013 11:17:13 PM UTC+1, wrote:
Some people - like me - just are physically not morning people.

I used not to be, but 0615 starts on the railway cured me of that.

Owain

On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 15:00:33 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

This is very true but TBH the "workings of life", budgeting,
mortages/loans, credit/debit cards, pensions, investments, etc
have
never been taught in school.

They were taught in my school in the 1980s. It was called "Design
for Living" back then. It's supposedly part of some alphabet
soup nowadays.

PSHE (Personal, Social and Health Education) in England, PSE in
Wales, and several other combinations, as you say alphabet soup...

My two certainly did PSHE up to 13, but after that with GSCE's
kicking in, it goes well onto the back burner. AFAICT it really only
covered social, health and moral issues, ie "how to be a good
citizen" rather than the down to earth nitty gritty of banks, tax,
employment, pensions, investments, loans, morgages etc.

--
Cheers
Dave.

En el artículo o.uk,
Dave Liquorice escribió:

These days? With everything coming with moulded on plugs for the last
20+ years.

Heh. Was thinking earlier today about the days when you had to pay
extra for a plug to go with the appliance you'd just bought.

The modern-day version is buying a printer and getting home only to find
the cable wasn't included in the box.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

En el artículo ,
Tim Streater escribió:

So I guess he doesn't shorten mains cables so that they fit properly in
the cable management system then.

instead of wasting time shortening cables and rewiring them, the answer
is to fit IEC strips in the rack and buy in a load of IEC-IEC cables of
differing lengths and use the most appropriate for the equipment you are
connecting.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

En el artículo ,
escribió:

In the worst job I had my manager was a lark, and insisted all her
staff get into work at 7:30am because she did.

I would have told her to **** off.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:40:24 AM UTC+1, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
The modern-day version is buying a printer and getting home only to find
the cable wasn't included in the box.

And even Dixons never charged £10 for a 13A plug

Owain

On 09/09/2013 23:17, wrote:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
If an early start is essential and something they often have trouble
with, you could at least do the interviews at the earliest start time.
That might weed out a few who can't get up that early.

Some people - like me - just are physically not morning people.
I can a solid 12+ hours, but not if I'm starting at oh-god-o'clock.
If I'm forced into work at crack of dawn I'm useless unless I'm
sitting drinking tea gradually waking up. Whenever I've had input
into my hours I organise things to start at about 10am, and aim to
get into work for about 9-ish and "potter" and have a couple of
cups of tea. If I'm fixed into an earlier start it means I spend
most of Saturday asleep catching up.
+1

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

In article ,
scribeth thus
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
If an early start is essential and something they often have trouble
with, you could at least do the interviews at the earliest start time.
That might weed out a few who can't get up that early.

Some people - like me - just are physically not morning people.
I can a solid 12+ hours, but not if I'm starting at oh-god-o'clock.

Yep me too!, work much better later on in the day..


If I'm forced into work at crack of dawn I'm useless unless I'm
sitting drinking tea gradually waking up. Whenever I've had input
into my hours I organise things to start at about 10am, and aim to
get into work for about 9-ish and "potter" and have a couple of
cups of tea. If I'm fixed into an earlier start it means I spend
most of Saturday asleep catching up.



In the worst job I had my manager was a lark, and insisted all her
staff get into work at 7:30am because she did.

JGH

Eh!, th'as luxury, why my mum used to be up and about at half bloody
four and worse thought that we should be as well Christ knows why!....

--
Tony Sayer

In article o.uk, Dave
Liquorice scribeth thus
On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 15:00:33 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

This is very true but TBH the "workings of life", budgeting,
mortages/loans, credit/debit cards, pensions, investments, etc
have
never been taught in school.

They were taught in my school in the 1980s. It was called "Design
for Living" back then. It's supposedly part of some alphabet
soup nowadays.

PSHE (Personal, Social and Health Education) in England, PSE in
Wales, and several other combinations, as you say alphabet soup...

My two certainly did PSHE up to 13, but after that with GSCE's
kicking in, it goes well onto the back burner. AFAICT it really only
covered social, health and moral issues, ie "how to be a good
citizen" rather than the down to earth nitty gritty of banks, tax,
employment, pensions, investments, loans, morgages etc.


Totally agree .. despite a very good school neither of the sprogs have
sod all idea re mortgages apart from they exist and banks and how to
deal with that spawn of Satan, or taxation, its very poor really;(...
--
Tony Sayer

On 10/09/2013 00:40, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo o.uk,
Dave Liquorice escribió:

These days? With everything coming with moulded on plugs for the last
20+ years.

Heh. Was thinking earlier today about the days when you had to pay
extra for a plug to go with the appliance you'd just bought.

The modern-day version is buying a printer and getting home only to find
the cable wasn't included in the box.


Buy a wireless one, they usually come with a cable.

In article ,
charles wrote:
What it is about the spouses of teachers?

Did it ever occur to you that those who have to spend ages extra to do
a job others manage just fine within the allotted hours might just
*not* be that good at their job?

or it might be that the "allotted hours don't exist."

Then just how many hours per week does the average teacher work? How many
weeks in the year?

If it really is as high as some here suggest, what is their union doing
about it?

And how come teachers once managed with much larger class sizes, no
assistants or IT etc support? Yet most kids seemed to be able to read.
write and count ok - which doesn't seem the case today.

--
*Would a fly without wings be called a walk?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article o.uk,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 17:49:49 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And if you think they only work 8 hours a day during term time -

think again.

Certainly. School hours are generally 6 per day.

Staff hours aren't. Arrive at 8, lucky to leave by 4. Compulsory
staff
briefing at 0815.

That's still only 7 hours.

Assuming an hour for lunch. Many schools only have 45 min lunch
breaks these days. A teacher will be lucky to get 30 mins by the time
they have sorted out the classroom and prepared it the work for the
next lesson.

With this 45 minute lunch break, what time do the kids start and leave?

7 working hours is same as a normal 9-5er and still longer than the 6
quoted above.

How many people have a 35 hour week? And it was 8 which was quoted. Which
leaves 2 hours a day for preparation, etc.

--
*Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 12:27:37 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Balls. Who has a "vocation" to be an accountant or an IT consultant or
a TV sound bloke or whatever?

Balls to you.

Collins GEM English Dictionary vocation n. occupation that someone
feels called to; profession or trade.

Exactly.

Who ever felt "called" to be an accountant? Nobody.

I'm not in a position to say what others feel is a vocation. How are you
in such a place?


˜vocational adj. directed towards a particular profession or trade.

And that's vocational. As in "vocational qualification". Different thing.

So it could equally apply to an engine driver. Or astronaut.

Yes, it could.

It was at one time applied to those who chose a 'noble' job above
material reward.

Exactly.

But both teachers and doctors are well paid these days.

And that correlates with fish prices how?

Material reward?

--
*Life is hard; then you nap

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 21:54:33 +0100 F wrote :
That's how it should be but it only takes one bolshy parent with a
futile imagination and the brown stuff hits the fan in a big way.

Been listening to King Street Junior ?

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
I can see teaching or medicine as being a vocation, along with being a
vet or a priest or similar. But that's about it. To associate "not a
vocation" with manual work only is just strange.

Would you like to try that again? I don't understand what you mean.

We noticed.

Where was it said or implied a vocation could *only* be applied to manual
work?

--
*Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 17:49:49 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 12:52:37 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
And if you think they only work 8 hours a day during term time -
think again.

Certainly. School hours are generally 6 per day.

Staff hours aren't. Arrive at 8, lucky to leave by 4. Compulsory staff
briefing at 0815.

That's still only 7 hours.

But not the 6 you claimed.

Anyway, 8 hours. You think there's time for lunch breaks?

Then you should take it up with H&S. Everyone is entitled to a lunch break
under EU legislation. There is also a limit to the number of hours worked
in a day and per week.

You seem to have been nicely brainwashed like most of the spouses of
teachers. ;-)

--
*If you must choose between two evils, pick the one you've never tried before

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 10/09/2013 11:11 Tony Bryer wrote:

On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 21:54:33 +0100 F wrote :
That's how it should be but it only takes one bolshy parent with a
futile imagination and the brown stuff hits the fan in a big way.

Been listening to King Street Junior ?

No. What's that?

--
F

In article ,
F news@nowhere wrote:
Still looking to argue...

I'd call it discussion. You are the one who wants to argue that your
opinion is correct and other wrong.

What is it about you that you make wholly inaccurate assumptions?

I taught for 35 years, my 'spouse' taught for 20 years. I know what I'm
talking about from first-hand experience.

So how many hours per week did you work on average, and how many weeks
holiday - where you did no school work did you have per year?

Did it ever occur to you that those who have to spend ages extra to do
a job others manage just fine within the allotted hours might just
*not* be that good at their job?

Did it ever occur to you that those who manage just fine within the
allotted time only appear to do so? Did it ever occur to you that they
may be doing a lousy job? Did it ever occur to you that those who spend
ages extra do so to provide an excellent education for pupils who only
get one chance? Screw up one day for them and they'll never get that day
back.

Such figures would be very nice to know. There certainly appears to be a
problem with basic literacy etc with many who go through education today.

--
*Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
A friend of my wife's her husband teaches at the school which our
daughter goes to. He leaves home around 7-45, works all day and then
comes home at around 8-30 most all evenings of the week.

He has to work on Saturdays as well.

Has to?

I'd love to know just how much of that time is spent in productive work.
I'd guess about a half.

--
*Filthy stinking rich -- well, two out of three ain't bad

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
wrote:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
If an early start is essential and something they often have trouble
with, you could at least do the interviews at the earliest start time.
That might weed out a few who can't get up that early.

Some people - like me - just are physically not morning people.
I can a solid 12+ hours, but not if I'm starting at oh-god-o'clock.
If I'm forced into work at crack of dawn I'm useless unless I'm
sitting drinking tea gradually waking up. Whenever I've had input
into my hours I organise things to start at about 10am, and aim to
get into work for about 9-ish and "potter" and have a couple of
cups of tea. If I'm fixed into an earlier start it means I spend
most of Saturday asleep catching up.

In the worst job I had my manager was a lark, and insisted all her
staff get into work at 7:30am because she did.

Do you drink a lot? ;-)

--
*I started out with nothing, and I still have most of it*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.