Signed Off for Stress in the UK: What's That About?

[wrldtrvlr123]

As it says. I often read on TES about teachers (mainly) getting so stressed out by the job that their doctors sign them off from work due to stress (before giving them a hearty goodbye, based on the other thread).

How common is this and how long can you be signed out of work due to stress and still be paid? It sounded like many months. This was very surprising to me as it is virtually unheard of in the US. Someone would literally have to suffer a major psychotic break or nervous breakdown to be able to have that type of paid time off (and even then I'm not sure they would keep their job, although that may vary from state to state).

Is teaching in the UK that much more stressful than the US? Are teachers in the US made of sterner stuff (I doubt this)? Is it done in the UK just because it is culturally acceptable and an available option?

Not taking the p1ss, just trying to learn more about this phenomenom.

[fragglerock]

Probably because the UK system of App grids / levels etc are driving them to it. That and the threat of Ofsted and the Ed. Minister suggesting 'bad' (who says?) teachers should be fired with a term's notice for the first offence. I don't know what it's like in the US...

[stellalocal]

I know a couple of people that have been signed off for stress, both primary teachers, both getting paid. One seemed to be off for the best part of a year before then getting a v cushy early retirement deal, the other it was only a couple of weeks.

I don't understand it either, not when it's just day to day stuff, fair enough when there's been some major incident. Do people in all professions do it?

Also, according to some of the UK papers it's just too easy for people in the UK to get away with doing nothing but still have a very nice life.

[stellalocal]

[quote="fragglerock"] That and the threat of Ofsted and the Ed. Minister suggesting 'bad' (who says?) teachers should be fired with a term's notice for the first offence. [/quote]

But shouldn't bad teachers be taken out of the system? Sure you should give them support, but for some maybe it's just not the right career. If they can't do it why keep them employed? In any other job you'd be let go.

[PsyGuy]

I see the performance point, if you cant hack the job, the system fixes itself by removing you. Work environments and systems in that aspect are self repairing. Education isnt like that (at least not in international schools). You can fire teachers, but you cant fire students. If I have a poor performing student I cant fix the problem and repair the system by replacing the student, the expectation (and rightly so) is that Ill spend more time and work harder to grow and improve that student. Thats a stress you dont have in the corporate sector.

[stellalocal]

[quote="PsyGuy"]You can fire teachers, but you cant fire students. If I have a poor performing student I cant fix the problem and repair the system by replacing the student, the expectation (and rightly so) is that Ill spend more time and work harder to grow and improve that student. Thats a stress you dont have in the corporate sector.[/quote]

But it's not about having poor students. The expectations are based on what you've got. I teach according to the needs of my kids, and the expectations are clear for all: the SMT, parents and children. Surely no-one in education expects all students to come out at the end with top grades in everything. You just expect them to achieve the best that they can and are willing to.

[fragglerock]

Of course bad teachers should be removed from schools. My point was who decides who is 'bad' and how are you going to measure it? The method they're suggesting is if a child doesn't go up by a sub-level a term (one whole level per year) then the teacher has failed to ensure adequate progression. General learning theory would tell you that children's learning isn't that linear and that is a bad idea. Plus, in primary, these are all teacher assessments anyway.

I read somewhere the professions most at risk from burnout are the ones where your success is dependent on somebody else's performance (however that is defined). The examples they gave were teaching and social work (with drug addicts etc). I see the reasoning behind it.

[PsyGuy]

I have to disagree with that assumption, as a lot of people in education (mainly the parent component of education), expect students to come out at the end with top grades in everything. The corollary to that is that at what ever level they went into the classroom with, if they dont come out with A's its some failure on the teachers part.

In the classroom grades drive everything, there are parents in parts of the world that expect high grades based solely on the fact that they are paying high tuition. To an owner of a school enrollment dictates tuition, and thats their everything.

I read the same burnout claim in several places, most recently on slate jobs, it dates back to a study done in 2001/2002 in the Journal of Organizational Behavior.

[stellalocal]

[quote="PsyGuy"]

In the classroom grades drive everything, there are parents in parts of the world that expect high grades based solely on the fact that they are paying high tuition. To an owner of a school enrollment dictates tuition, and thats their everything.
[/quote]

Yes, parents can have completely unrealistic expectations. But after being in school for over 13 years, having had numerous parents meetings and reports each year, they should have some idea of what their child is capable of. If parents don't/can't accept it then they should go elsewhere, any good Head/Principal would support teachers in this. Certainly the decent schools I've worked in have always been honest with parents and told them that teachers aren't miracle workers.

[stellalocal]

[quote="fragglerock"]Of course bad teachers should be removed from schools. My point was who decides who is 'bad' and how are you going to measure it? The method they're suggesting is if a child doesn't go up by a sub-level a term (one whole level per year) then the teacher has failed to ensure adequate progression. General learning theory would tell you that children's learning isn't that linear and that is a bad idea. Plus, in primary, these are all teacher assessments anyway.

I read somewhere the professions most at risk from burnout are the ones where your success is dependent on somebody else's performance (however that is defined). The examples they gave were teaching and social work (with drug addicts etc). I see the reasoning behind it.[/quote]

I see your point now, it's ridiculous to decide a bad teacher based on that, complete nonsense.

Interesting about the burnout, maybe they need to think of ways to help teachers avoid/deal with it, not signing people off for long periods and hoping the issue goes away.

[BookshelfAmy]

Here's my experience, for what it's worth:

I teach in Texas, in the US, where standardized tests are the ultimate standard for judging schools and teachers, and there's no allowance for differences in students' abilities or interest levels. Every student is tested "at grade level." There are some modified tests for special ed students, but there's a limit to how many students are allowed on the SPED rosters. Plus, the state just released a whole new set of tests that are, in my opinion, developmentally inappropriate, and that were judged by an independent expert to be written at a high-school reading level (I teach fifth grade).

I teach in a very low-income, rural area, where many students have disabilities caused by prenatal neglect, abuse, and poor home environment, not to mention the simple fact that low-income students perform at lower levels than their wealthier peers. So when my school had too many students in the Special Ed program, and too many students failing the test, the entire campus was wiped clean, the administration was replaced, and every teacher had to reapply for their jobs.

Our students are still poor, they're still disabled at a much higher rate than the national average, and it doesn't matter if they improve by three grade levels in a single year if they don't pass that test in a few weeks.

I don't mean to sound cynical or like I'm trying to win a bad schools contest; I really love my job. But if doctors could put us on paid leave for stress, I think the entire building would be empty!

[stellalocal]

[quote="BookshelfAmy"]

I don't mean to sound cynical or like I'm trying to win a bad schools contest; I really love my job. But if doctors could put us on paid leave for stress, I think the entire building would be empty![/quote]

I know what you mean. I also think that some people are just prone to coming it. It's like the teachers that are always off sick when reports have to be done.

[bigfatgit]

Stress, and especially work related stress, is a recognised medical condition that is covered by the Health and Safety rules in the UK. This means that large compensation can be paid out if the employer does not follow quite rigid rules and guidelines

While the teacher's doctor can sign them off, this is only for a certain length of time before the HR department of the education department becomes involved

Check out

http://www.hse.gov.uk/stress/

[wrldtrvlr123]

[quote="bigfatgit"]Stress, and especially work related stress, is a recognised medical condition that is covered by the Health and Safety rules in the UK. This means that large compensation can be paid out if the employer does not follow quite rigid rules and guidelines

While the teacher's doctor can sign them off, this is only for a certain length of time before the HR department of the education department becomes involved

Check out

----://www.hse.gov.uk/stress/[/quote]
-----------------------------------------------------

Thanks for that. That is the crux of my question and confusion. Work related stress is NOT a recognized medical condition (or at least is virtually impossible to qualify for) in the US.

Any opinions or insights into how US teachers manage to survive without that type of benefit/possible relief?

Is teaching in the UK THAT much more stressful?

[bigfatgit]

There is a lot more paperwork and a lot more bullying / perceived bullying by Senior Management than there used to be. Targets have to be met, pressure from board onto headteacher onto teachers

Students are far more vocal when it comes to demanding "their rights" and parents aggressively standing up for them

I also think that there are far more "teachers' being allowed to graduate who should not be allowed to. I "failed" a student teacher on teaching practice and she then consequently failed her re-sit one at another school. A year later, I was offered her as a teacher. When I queried with her university how she could be graduating when she had obviously failed her previous year, I was told that they were not allowed to fail her due to the amount of money invested in her by the government!

She is currently off with stress. I could have told them that she would not be able to cope just based on what I saw of her on TP