I “stole” the headline from today’s CT article.
Honestly, I don’t see the problem in teaching an “extra” 2hrs 40mins (high school). It means that more can be covered in the curriculum. If classtimes are extended by an extra 10mins each lesson then there wouldn’t be a need for teachers to lose jobs – it’s scare tactics by the AEU. Nor would there be an “increased workload” – you’re still teaching the same students, just for a longer period.
“It would also lead to a greater workload for teachers, larger classes, less curriculum diversity and poorer educational outcomes for students.”
If that’s the case (which I don’t believe it to be) then we can get rid of the teachers who shouldn’t be in the job. Who needs colleagues (and I use the term loosely) who don’t do their jobs but are willing to take the money?
I don’t agree on strike action (I think everyone who reads RA would know this already). It’s like a child throwing a tantrum.
I also don’t believe those higher up on the pay scale need more than $68K to do the same job as teachers who earn $52K. I am not talking about executive teachers here. Is it more about the money than the conditions? I believe so.
I’d like to know what parents would think of extended class times and what impact it would have on the students learning. However, this hasn’t been researched and so it still becomes a scare tactic.
I await the strike action…..what a waste.