Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Scotland - education news' started by aypi, Oct 5, 2019.
Not a comment on bullying but on a different subject am totally amazed that no supply jobs available at all in GCC since start of term. Was told things are quiet. So different from previous years and wondered why?
It's my understanding that GCC can't get supply teachers for love nor money. Wonder what's going on then?
Forcing staff to cover to save money?
Don't see how it will save them much unless they have a lot of Point 1 & 2 teachers with a load of free periods. What I see coming down the line to save even more money is averaging contact time over the month or even the year, to include exam leave, as some LAs have proposed. This has so far been resisted by the unions but they can only hold out so long, especially when LAs are desperate to cut supply costs. The weekly maximum contact time should be a sacred cow that cannot be touched.
The cost increase comes from having to hire new, albeit temporary, staff to cover the absentees. Councils must save a fortune by getting colleagues to cover.
The maximum weekly contact time is sacrosanct, should be reduced.
Back to bullying in the workplace.
This should be a criminal offence. Psychological terrorism of individuals in public would carry custodial sentences and, having seen a woman die after years of alcoholism brought on by having to cope with a bully, bullying in the workplace should be treated as gravely.
I once had a professional officer tell me that it's in order for a school to average non-contact time over a couple of weeks or so. (I'd phoned for advice.) Have to admit that I wasn't happy with that answer.
Don't think it is, M.
It's not. It's based on your weekly contact which makes up you 35 hours per week.
Not just GCC. Lots of LA's have pulled job adverts. Councils in the west are not even asking for supply. I am back in school as I was directly asked to cover a period. There are 4 off long term. They are not trying to get cover, the are asking people to work longer hours, asking PT's to plan lessons for multiple classes. Money is being saved at the cost of teacher health, I see this as a form of bullying.
This is something that the Unions should be watching carefully. I do wonder if agreements are being adhered to.
There is a facility within the SNCT in Appendix 2.17 that schools can average contact time out over more than a week (It says "usually 2, but not exceeding 4 weeks"), but this needs to be collegiately agreed, planned prior to the start of the year and they need to say how they're going to ensure that the working week still averages out at 35 hours. It should also "not normally [be] used to deal with short term cover situations".
I suspect this appendix was put in to accommodate the possibility of schools having a 2-week timetable, because I can't really see how this would benefit a school week-to-week. They'd just be robbing Peter to pay Paul. (Assuming they paid back the cover correctly, of course...)