[Finance] What is 'rich' in 2023?

[Herr Tubthumper]

It does. But I reckon there could be big savings by losing a lot of the admin staffs, the education authorities, and going back to core principles of teachers and pupils. And massively cutting back on paperwork so that teachers can be teachers not administrators, which will surely improve the standard of their teaching as well as very much improving their quality of life.

What big savings? What excessive paperwork? You need to back this post up with some detail.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

That's my point. Why does parental wealth or "aspiration" dictate a child's education?

Parental wealth and aspiration are not one and the same. In some schools social work is needed more than teaching and parents vote with their feet to send their kids to private schools, grammar schools or simply better comprehensives. And so they should because they put their kids’ learning first. I just don’t think you will change anything by attempting to reduce parental choice as they will find what they want in other ways and you will exacerbate the ‘segregation’ we already have between comprehensive schools. It would be better to tackle some of the root issues like disengagement from the curriculum. Do that and the effects on behaviour might be enough to discourage some parental flight. Not all though.

 

[Bakero]

Parental wealth and aspiration are not one and the same. In some schools social work is needed more than teaching and parents vote with their feet to send their kids to private schools, grammar schools or simply better comprehensives. And so they should because they put their kids’ learning first. I just don’t think you will change anything by attempting to reduce parental choice as they will find what they want in other ways and you will exacerbate the ‘segregation’ we already have between comprehensive schools. It would be better to tackle some of the root issues like disengagement from the curriculum. Do that and the effects on behaviour might be enough to discourage some parental flight. Not all though.

Well, if there were no private or grammar schools they wouldn't have that option. Then the focus would be on ensuring the disparities between the good and not-so-good state schools are not too great. Of course, as you say, we'd also need to tackle the root issues, not just in education but society as a whole.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

It does. But I reckon there could be big savings by losing a lot of the admin staffs, the education authorities, and going back to core principles of teachers and pupils. And massively cutting back on paperwork so that teachers can be teachers not administrators, which will surely improve the standard of their teaching as well as very much improving their quality of life.

I don’t recognise these as problems in modern schools. Paperwork has reduced massively with marking done in class or self marked. Homework is also marked by online software (in Maths, my subject, at least) with teachers monitoring feedback from students, filling in gaps next lesson and checking hand in rates. There is certainly more data entry and analysis but that is a good thing. There may well be more admin staff but that reflects the greater level of service offered by schools with Attendance Officers and greater liasion with social services, mental health services etc. I never see any admin staff doing nothing and they certainly don’t negatively impact my effectiveness in class. Quite the opposite actually.

 

[dsr-burnley]

What big savings? What excessive paperwork? You need to back this post up with some detail.

Not being a teacher, I couldn't say how much of their workload is waste of time, or what specifically they're doing that doesn't need doing. But I have no reason to doubt the unions' assertion that the average teacher is working over 60 hours per week in termtime, and also working in the holidays; and I know the rules say they can't be in the classroom for more than 90% of the school hours, which means less than 30 hours per week actually teaching.

If teachers are spending less than half their time teaching, then the workload needs reassessing. And government policy being what it is, I am certain that paperwork is involved. If any teachers want to come on here and tell me that the paperwork is fine and necessary and they don't think it should be reduced, then I will listen and learn!

As for money savings, I know how much was spent on pointless paper pushing in the Education Offices 40 years ago, and I doubt it's improved. Fortunes were spent on ensuring that every £5 note was spent for a good purpose. The principle was that teachers and headteachers could not be trusted with finance at all and every penny had to be scrutinised. The supposed savings on bulk purchases over the whole county were fictional, and with Amazon and other internet sales will now be even more fictional, and so I would let schools run their own budgets and choose themselves how much to spend on admin and how much on teaching.

 

[beorhthelm]

Not being a teacher, I couldn't say how much of their workload is waste of time, or what specifically they're doing that doesn't need doing. But I have no reason to doubt the unions' assertion that the average teacher is working over 60 hours per week in termtime, and also working in the holidays; and I know the rules say they can't be in the classroom for more than 90% of the school hours, which means less than 30 hours per week actually teaching.

If teachers are spending less than half their time teaching, then the workload needs reassessing. And government policy being what it is, I am certain that paperwork is involved. If any teachers want to come on here and tell me that the paperwork is fine and necessary and they don't think it should be reduced, then I will listen and learn!

As for money savings, I know how much was spent on pointless paper pushing in the Education Offices 40 years ago, and I doubt it's improved. Fortunes were spent on ensuring that every £5 note was spent for a good purpose. The principle was that teachers and headteachers could not be trusted with finance at all and every penny had to be scrutinised. The supposed savings on bulk purchases over the whole county were fictional, and with Amazon and other internet sales will now be even more fictional, and so I would let schools run their own budgets and choose themselves how much to spend on admin and how much on teaching.

nah, its just the unions making things up. knowing a couple of teachers they'd laugh at the notion of 60 hr weeks and through holidays. some will, there's always some, its not universal. my other half works admin in a school, the main cost saving seems to be either support staff (counter productive for teaching), or the bonuses for extra duties and "leadership" that seem to be doled out like sweeties for very little meaningful work, or long term ill wont leave but have not intention of coming back (pay them and cover). to be fair, these are all problems with any large organisation.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Not being a teacher, I couldn't say how much of their workload is waste of time, or what specifically they're doing that doesn't need doing. But I have no reason to doubt the unions' assertion that the average teacher is working over 60 hours per week in termtime, and also working in the holidays; and I know the rules say they can't be in the classroom for more than 90% of the school hours, which means less than 30 hours per week actually teaching.

If teachers are spending less than half their time teaching, then the workload needs reassessing. And government policy being what it is, I am certain that paperwork is involved. If any teachers want to come on here and tell me that the paperwork is fine and necessary and they don't think it should be reduced, then I will listen and learn!

As for money savings, I know how much was spent on pointless paper pushing in the Education Offices 40 years ago, and I doubt it's improved. Fortunes were spent on ensuring that every £5 note was spent for a good purpose. The principle was that teachers and headteachers could not be trusted with finance at all and every penny had to be scrutinised. The supposed savings on bulk purchases over the whole county were fictional, and with Amazon and other internet sales will now be even more fictional, and so I would let schools run their own budgets and choose themselves how much to spend on admin and how much on teaching.

The type of school determines those extra hours. I have at times spent a couple of hours at the end of every day dealing with issues from the day and following up with parents. If any of this constitutes a Safeguarding concern there is also follow up. Every incident is recorded. So yes, more paperwork but in the best interests of the students. Teachers are a lot more involved in pastoral care than they used to be because schools do not want children going under the radar. At times it is our responsibility to almost be social workers or at least to facilitate their work. Extra workload also comes from meetings and training which can admittedly be of variable quality and value. Overwhelmingly though teachers work long hours because they want to do a good job and have thoroughly prepared lessons catering to the ability groups they teach.
Your point about local authority spending is a little out of date because most schools are now a part of academy groups so do have autonomy over how they spend their money.

 

[Questions]

Dickens Mr Micawber quote sums it up

“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.”

Married Man earning £150k year can easily be poor if they have big mortgage other borrowings and children.
Whereas a single person no mortgage or ay other borrowings earning £50k a year will be rich.

If you are poor on 150k then I suggest you borrowed too much on your mortgage.

 

[Questions]

If you are poor on 150k then I suggest you borrowed too much on your mortgage.

It’s £7500 a month …. Jesus.

 

[Bakero]

It’s £7500 a month …. Jesus.

That's the thing. People adjust their expenditure as their salary increases and leave themselves a little stretched, hence people on 80-100k saying times are tough.

 

[KZNSeagull]

That's the thing. People adjust their expenditure as their salary increases and leave themselves a little stretched, hence people on 80-100k saying times are tough.

Equally, people on that salary should have more scope to cut down on their expenditure as necessary when times are tough.

 

[Bakero]

Equally, people on that salary should have more scope to cut down on their expenditure as necessary when times are tough.

I totally agree. To me it's laughable that people earning way, way above the average are struggling to make ends meet.

 

[Live by the sea]

Some people’s mortgages have gone up 30% so suddenly 4k a month on a big ish mortgage becomes nearer £5.5k that’s an issue for many people even those who could afford the normal 4k payments .

It’s not that unusual, even in Brighton and hove ( not London ) I’ve seen buyers approved for and taking on mortgages to buy houses and borrowing sums like £750 k .that’s huge amount to borrow .

 

[dsr-burnley]

Some people’s mortgages have gone up 30% so suddenly 4k a month on a big ish mortgage becomes nearer £5.5k that’s an issue for many people even those who could afford the normal 4k payments .

It’s not that unusual, even in Brighton and hove ( not London ) I’ve seen buyers approved for and taking on mortgages to buy houses and borrowing sums like £750 k .that’s huge amount to borrow .

Few people will be in negative equity at present because house prices haven't crashed, which means they do still have the unpleasant but possibly necessary option of selling up and buying somewhere cheaper. (Especially if their income is on the £80k region, they can't reasonably expect people with less money to subsidise them buying a house they can no longer afford.)

 

[Live by the sea]

Few people will be in negative equity at present because house prices haven't crashed, which means they do still have the unpleasant but possibly necessary option of selling up and buying somewhere cheaper. (Especially if their income is on the £80k region, they can't reasonably expect people with less money to subsidise them buying a house they can no longer afford.)

I guess if you have a spare bedroom , you have the option to rent it out .

 

[raymondo]

I don’t recognise these as problems in modern schools. Paperwork has reduced massively with marking done in class or self marked. Homework is also marked by online software (in Maths, my subject, at least) with teachers monitoring feedback from students, filling in gaps next lesson and checking hand in rates. There is certainly more data entry and analysis but that is a good thing. There may well be more admin staff but that reflects the greater level of service offered by schools with Attendance Officers and greater liasion with social services, mental health services etc. I never see any admin staff doing nothing and they certainly don’t negatively impact my effectiveness in class. Quite the opposite actually.

This is also my experience as a parent to my son's senior school.

 

[luge]

I totally agree. To me it's laughable that people earning way, way above the average are struggling to make ends meet.

Agree for those on whopper salaries, but those are very few and far between. I too find the Times style I earn 150k a year but am skint articles a bit much.

More likely is that one partner is a higher earner, and the other is not, or earns nothing as there are kids to bring up. Cost of childcare is insane these days, and in the UK the cost of doing anything is ridiculous.

I'd find the idea of borrowing 750k for a house frightening and to be avoided, whatever your income. Nothing in this world is secure.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Anyone borrowing 750k to buy a house will also be driving around in a top end car as will their spouse. They can get rid of them for a start to save some money. Perhaps their poor children might have to catch the bus to school for a while or, god forbid, walk. If they're not at boarding school of course.

 

[Weststander]

Agree for those on whopper salaries, but those are very few and far between. I too find the Times style I earn 150k a year but am skint articles a bit much.

More likely is that one partner is a higher earner, and the other is not, or earns nothing as there are kids to bring up. Cost of childcare is insane these days, and in the UK the cost of doing anything is ridiculous.

I'd find the idea of borrowing 750k for a house frightening and to be avoided, whatever your income. Nothing in this world is secure.

Going to be harsh here. Anyone earning £150k and whinging/angry about their plight, should put their house on the market or let it out, moving down the ladder for a period. They’re not lifers stuck with the dwelling.

There was NO guarantee that mortgage rates would remain at 2% forever. I reserve my sympathy for the millions really suffering.

 

[luge]

Few people will be in negative equity at present because house prices haven't crashed, which means they do still have the unpleasant but possibly necessary option of selling up and buying somewhere cheaper. (Especially if their income is on the £80k region, they can't reasonably expect people with less money to subsidise them buying a house they can no longer afford.)

Prices went up rapidly post lockdowns - 2021-2022. A housing price correction should bring us back to around pandemic levels - unless interest rates contunue to be sticky.

Depends where you are in the country. In Mid Sussex, there is still a boom. Zoopla says we are only worth slightly more than what we bought for 2 years now - but an estate agent came round and promised they could sell for a ridiculous profit - and they duly did for a house in the street next for us.

Their argument, and it is a winning one, is that there are alot of properties that can sell in london for reduced prices that still buy you something mega in Sussex.

They basically said that they could only target people selling their 3 bed semis in London, and they'd still sell for more than they'd market something bigger here for.