FANCY volunteering or would you rather not be remunerated for actually 'working'?
Our local library has an advertisement placed for recruiting unpaid workers, sorry, I should say volunteers, to 'work' in local primary schools helping, or could it not be interpreted as actually teaching, with young children's reading.
Apparently several hours per week are envisaged as part of this help during term time.
Pardon me, but I always thought that we employed paid teachers to do just that, i.e. 'teaching reading', or perhaps not, it seems.
The taxpayers' cash already spent to teach teachers to 'teach' is obviously wasted as unpaid staff are required to fulfill some need in schools.
Why is this necessary? Are the teachers inefficient, overworked or both?
Judging from the actual time schoolchildren spend in the classroom, which is considerably less than in my schooldays, this, it seems, is very far from the truth.
Are local authorities endeavouring to save some money by not employing more paid employees?
Some children benefit greatly from the help of voluntary staff, perhaps more so than from the paid staff! Therein lies the conundrum.
If paid staff are overworked, why are so many outdoor activities arranged during term time, such as attending race meetings, or is this a way of improving mathematics, ie being able to calculate winnings from bets?
I Walker Dalgarno North Kensington