OT. Schools...normality and Coronavirus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

Firstly...if you read back you’ve begrudgingly come round to the region by region aspect that I initially advocated.

As regards the ‘show us yer money’ comment. Yet again you’ve deliberately misinterpreted my comment.

The serious part of my response was...teachers have been working...parents are not going to all send their children to school...teachers and families may be going on holiday (probably not abroad)...such conditions are not conducive to teaching or class learning.

The less serious part was...in my final year of teaching...admittedly a decade ago...I spent half the year as Acting Head and half the year as Deputy Head. Even then my salary only just reached £50k.

Now I’m going to do some sums...your favourite, my nightmare.
The average hourly rate for a child minder in this country is, I believe, £6.90.
The average class size in this country is 27.
Children are usually in school for between 6-7 hours.
£6.90 x 27 x 6.5 = £1210,95 per class per day or £6054.75 per week.
Over 39 term time weeks that would cost £236,135.25 per class of 27 per academic year.
Now I can’t be specific, but I do remember from my school management days of ‘splitting the budget’, that a very high percentage is spent on salaries.
So if the ‘child minding’ cost equivalent would be as above and my salary for heading up the whole shabang was a fraction of that, then you can see where I’m going...and no...I’m not complaining, don’t feel hard done by, am not making a point about downtrodden teachers or saying ‘show us yer money’. I’m just providing a little food for thought and suggesting you might be a little more appreciative of people who possibly contribute more than you might think to the well being of society.

---

Apart from failing to halve your class size to account for non attendances by kids whose parents do not want them to go, that may be right. However, what is the value of this costing - to quote your past observations. None. teachers are already being paid, whether handsomely or not depends on your perspective ;D. The teachers in their role as childminders don't have to pay for the facilities, they are there for free as would a lot of resources such as books, films, computers, TV and AV, toys etc. So you cannot compare a childminders fee structure to that of someone with a (virtually) zero cost base.

So lets take your 236k, halve it for only half class size, thats 118k. Halve it again as all facilities and resources are more or less already in place (Ive done flat rate tax returns for childminders, so know the allowances for these costs) and we get to 59k. Now lets consider that the average commercial childminder takes kids out on trips several times so they have fuel and vehicle operating costs, admission tickets and so on to pay out of their prices.

Well I reckon thats got me down below 50k a year being a reasonable pay

Oh yes and the childminder has to pay to feed the little cherubs too, so te schools must also provide that for free

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone

Apart from failing to halve your class size to account for non attendances by kids whose parents do not want them to go, that may be right. However, what is the value of this costing - to quote your past observations. None. teachers are already being paid, whether handsomely or not depends on your perspective ;D. The teachers in their role as childminders don't have to pay for the facilities, they are there for free as would a lot of resources such as books, films, computers, TV and AV, toys etc. So you cannot compare a childminders fee structure to that of someone with a (virtually) zero cost base.

So lets take your 236k, halve it for only half class size, thats 118k. Halve it again as all facilities and resources are more or less already in place (Ive done flat rate tax returns for childminders, so know the allowances for these costs) and we get to 59k. Now lets consider that the average commercial childminder takes kids out on trips several times so they have fuel and vehicle operating costs, admission tickets and so on to pay out of their prices.

Well I reckon thats got me down below 50k a year being a reasonable pay

Oh yes and the childminder has to pay to feed the little cherubs too, so te schools must also provide that for free

---

I was attempting to illustrate, in a relatively light hearted way, that the school/teaching facility that society depends on is relatively cheap when set next to the cost of childminding, and none of the childminders I’ve come across in recent years have provided food. The children have taken their own lunches.

Anyway, have it your own way...but never forget again, according to the fuss you’ve made for the last two or three days, how much the economy appears to rely on the teaching profession. ;D

I don't doubt that teachers are an important part of society, and not in the obvious way of teaching. They are surrogate parents in a society where many families now have two working parents as a financial necessity or preference. Take your pick which.

I just hope that the teaching profession don't get disillusioned with that role, which probably isn't what many of them will have signed up for.

The childminder I used for many years always provided food, much to my children's annoyance. The food was far from great but most of the kids tolerated it, although it wasnt great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone

I don't doubt that teachers are an important part of society, and not in the obvious way of teaching. They are surrogate parents in a society where many families now have two working parents as a financial necessity or preference. Take your pick which.

I just hope that the teaching profession don't get disillusioned with that role, which probably isn't what many of them will have signed up for.

---

Difficult to see how it’s not important in ‘the most obvious way of teaching’.

In addition I’m glad you now recognise they also provide a child minding facility which enables the nation to work.

They are only surrogate parents where the natural parents - very easy to become, rather harder to be good at - are inadequate or absent.

Hopefully, as was suggested much earlier in this crisis, there will be some re-evaluation of how society values various occupations once the pandemic is over, and I say that just as much about ‘bin men’ and shop workers as about teachers and medical staff.
Not so sure about the ‘bean counters’ though. ;D

I don't care if bean counters are downgraded in value. I know my clients well enough to overcome that and don't have long to go.... **** em

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ram59

I think you're both right, I've seen that the average age is around 60 on more than one occasion, yet you look the individual age groups and it appears much higher.

---

NHS fugures of deaths in hospital. I think that makes it clear it is a pensioners nightmare not a late fifties average killer.

Gender
Age group Female Male Unknown gender Total
Total 9,705 15,374 1 25,080

0 - 19 yrs 6 8 0 14
20 - 39 79 103 0 182
40 - 59 660 1,334 0 1,994
60 - 79 3,273 6,393 0 9,666
80+ 5,687 7,536 1 13,224
Unknown age 0 0 0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trickytreesreds

NHS fugures of deaths in hospital. I think that makes it clear it is a pensioners nightmare not a late fifties average killer.

Gender
Age group Female Male Unknown gender Total
Total 9,705 15,374 1 25,080

0 - 19 yrs 6 8 0 14
20 - 39 79 103 0 182
40 - 59 660 1,334 0 1,994
60 - 79 3,273 6,393 0 9,666
80+ 5,687 7,536 1 13,224
Unknown age 0 0 0

---

I think you’ve just made the case for accountants, Tricky. ;D

That’s about as clear as a Priti Patel explanation, but I agree...the over sixties are most at risk, although having age groups differentiated by almost twenty years is next to useless.

Of greater concern are some of the graphs relating to the decrease in cases of Covid-19 according to different countries. We really aren’t coming out of that very well even compared with Italy and Spain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

I think you’ve just made the case for accountants, Tricky. ;D

That’s about as clear as a Priti Patel explanation, but I agree...the over sixties are most at risk, although having age groups differentiated by almost twenty years is next to useless.

Of greater concern are some of the graphs relating to the decrease in cases of Covid-19 according to different countries. We really aren’t coming out of that very well even compared with Italy and Spain.

---

Probably not RA.
I have been looking at figures from quite a few countries.
Italy average death age is 78, (over 99% of them over 60)
USA is 75

It definitely isn't late 50's but I'm not an accountant.

I think Swale has said before, the virus is really the final nail for lots with current ailments.
It isn't a plague like the black death, which didn't give a **** how old you was.
The older you are, the more fragile you are.

My arithmatic is fine, last time I was in Alvaston, it was till 6 fingers per hand.

Perfectly clear rA, but those who probably don't follow it should get back to school ASAP for additional maths lessons.

Or the poster needs to understand the problems of posting unformatted data vua cut n paste