Mongo states that 'A hardy perennial, with arguments for and against often citing long leave, short periods in class, stress, marking papers at home etc.'
Does this comment that these arguments are 'hardy perennials' make them any less relevant to the teachers constant whinging for 'more' from taxpayers' funds? Let them prove to the taxpayer that:
(a) they value a child's education above their over generous fringe benefits; and
(b) they are willing to be subject to an external review of their performance, a practice which has been accepted for some considerable in most medium to large enterprises.
Then, and only then, can a subtansive review of their remuneration be justified.
Whilst there is no doubt that dedicated teachers do exist, the system is too lenient with those who do not perform and have only joined because of the fringe benenfits. I feel sorry for those dedicated teachers who see their workmates bludge on the system and the taxpayer.
