Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

More teacher bashing, when will it ever end?

245

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 277 ✭✭UnLuckyAgain


    jh79 wrote: »
    According to the TUI website a teacher with an hons degree gets between 36 to 66k a year? Don't know how lucky you are. Even with possible cuts to come the payscale is very good for the qualifications needed

    How many teachers leave the profession due to the bad pay and conditions? Not many I reckon you'd have a tough time finding a job that pays that well for an Hons Degree in the private sector.

    The common misconception seems to be that all teachers get this magical and magnificent salary. In fact most teachers work on an hourly basis, scraping together part time hours for many years before gaining full time employment, if ever. Though this generalisation seems to be a common thread among warmongers from outside the profession.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 27,088 CMod ✭✭✭✭spurious


    The common misconception seems to be that all teachers get this magical and magnificent salary. In fact most teachers work on an hourly basis, scraping together part time hours for many years before gaining full time employment, if ever. Though this generalisation seems to be a common thread among warmongers from outside the profession.

    This.
    If memory serves me well, the last person in our school to get a 'full' job was about 5 years ago. All those since are on partial contracts. Our student numbers have risen every year. This year we will lose 3 and a half teachers, or the equivalent, which more than likely means about 6 or 8 of these contract people will go/be sacked/lose their job - yet another thing those outside teaching think doesn't happen in the public service.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,428 ✭✭✭Powerhouse


    [QUOTE=Godge;77856669

    the requirement to have a separate pay arrangement for S&S because the government of the time couldn't be seen to give a pay increase to teachers because of the ASTI dispute etc. etc. without mentioning a word about the payscales or the level of pay.

    [/QUOTE]

    I think this is an indignation too far on your part as it works both ways. I will bow to your knowledge of the industrial relations history of teaching as I am not sure of the origins of many of these allowances although your use of the elliptical and vague "etc. etc." suggests that I might be being generous in such bowing.

    However, the point you raise does work both ways as it suits the government fine to have this (S&S) and other aspects of teachers' pay allocated in the form of allowances rather than core pay as it means that the government can continue to chip away at de facto pay even though it cannot be seen to give a pay decrease per se because of the Croke Park agreement.

    Your view of the structure of teachers' pay is not new. Many teachers of my acquaintance would agree. You are presenting this view as if it has just been freshly discovered by your immutable logic. It hasn't. Although it suits the media/government/pissed-off-taxpayer to highlight allowances at this point, to all intents and purposes in normal life e.g. applying for a mortgage/loan, there has not been any practical distinction between a teachers' 'pay' and allowances. For the average teacher it merely means that there are a few extra items on their payslip - no more than that. And certainly the structure of a teacher's payslip should - on the face of it at least - be nothing for people like yourself to be worried about.

    As for your "why can't teachers debate this with me rationally?" view of things - well, it's not the L&H. People will have different views and not everyone will give the answer you expect/want them to give so that you can move seamlessly on to your next point. Comments about 'bunker mentality' of teachers also work both ways - if those who raise these issues are quickly accused of teacher-bashing, those who might defend teachers are equally quickly dubbed as having a bunker mentality. The latter is not very helpful either. Just because you are convinced of how sensible, clear-thinking, rational and fair-minded you are does not mean that people must conclude that you are both right and motiveless in your views. Such is life.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,182 ✭✭✭jh79


    jh79 wrote: »
    According to the TUI website a teacher with an hons degree gets between 36 to 66k a year? Don't know how lucky you are. Even with possible cuts to come the payscale is very good for the qualifications needed

    How many teachers leave the profession due to the bad pay and conditions? Not many I reckon you'd have a tough time finding a job that pays that well for an Hons Degree in the private sector.

    The common misconception seems to be that all teachers get this magical and magnificent salary. In fact most teachers work on an hourly basis, scraping together part time hours for many years before gaining full time employment, if ever. Though this generalisation seems to be a common thread among warmongers from outside the profession.

    Its a great payscale to be on and if the top end was lowered it could allow more student teachers to be made full time while keeping within the overall pay budget.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,428 ✭✭✭Powerhouse


    jh79 wrote: »
    Its a great payscale to be on and if the top end was lowered it could allow more student teachers to be made full time while keeping within the overall pay budget.


    The view which informs this reply is spectacularly out of line with reality. The point which was well made by the other poster (and ignored/misinterpreted by you) is there are loads of teachers (ostensibly in permanent/pensionable jobs with paid holidays etc. etc. as far as the average parent and begrudger in the street is concerned) who have no security and only part-time hours. The idea that paycuts would "allow more student teachers to be made full time" is laughable.

    Paycuts have failed to facilitate many working teachers to get 'full-time jobs' - as anyone who has noticed the coincidence of dropping pay and dropping job numbers in recent years would attest. In your Economics 101 scenario this should not happen but in reality it is happening. Any student teacher who thinks that paycuts will make a whit of difference to their prospects is delusional.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,182 ✭✭✭jh79


    Powerhouse wrote: »
    jh79 wrote: »
    Its a great payscale to be on and if the top end was lowered it could allow more student teachers to be made full time while keeping within the overall pay budget.


    The view which informs this reply is spectacularly out of line with reality. The point which was well made by the other poster (and ignored/misinterpreted by you) is there are loads of teachers (ostensibly in permanent/pensionable jobs with paid holidays etc. etc. as far as the average parent and begrudger in the street is concerned) who have no security and only part-time hours. The idea that paycuts would "allow more student teachers to be made full time" is laughable.

    Paycuts have failed to facilitate many working teachers to get 'full-time jobs' - as anyone who has noticed the coincidence of dropping pay and dropping job numbers in recent years would attest. In your Economics 101 scenario this should not happen but in reality it is happening. Any student teacher who thinks that paycuts will make a whit of difference to their prospects is delusional.

    Whats the solution so? Money isn't there so pay cuts are inevitable

    Roughly whats the ratio of full time to contract?

    Whether cutting full timers pay leads to more full time positions is irrelevant to whether it needs to be cut


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,433 ✭✭✭solerina


    jh79 wrote: »
    Roughly whats the ratio of full time to contract?

    In my school we have 27 teachers, only 6 are actually permanent !!!
    Approx 10 have CIDs the rest are on contract hours, i would say most schools are similar !!
    We have 2 'A' posts and 2 'B' posts, Id say many schools would have more, but that what we have.
    I have been there 11 years and no one has been made permanent in that length of time (all CIDs now)


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,182 ✭✭✭jh79


    solerina wrote: »
    jh79 wrote: »
    Roughly whats the ratio of full time to contract?

    In my school we have 27 teachers, only 6 are actually permanent !!!
    Approx 10 have CIDs the rest are on contract hours, i would say most schools are similar !!
    We have 2 'A' posts and 2 'B' posts, Id say many schools would have more, but that what we have.
    I have been there 11 years and no one has been made permanent in that length of time (all CIDs now)

    Didn't realize it was that bad but thats not gonna change if that pay scale remains in place


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3 doconnell


    jimbo28 wrote: »
    I am in complete agreement with you on unions. The old " BUT YOU HAVE TO BE IN ONE IN CASE SOMETHING HAPPENS". What a load of sh!te.Something is happening folks, were being cut left, right and centre,and there is being very little done by the unions.

    This is exactly how many union members feel at the moment.I was on the verge of dropping out of my own one but decided instead to actually get involved and challenge the corruption that my own apathy had allowed to flourish.Our union leaders are not doing a good job of representing us so lets challenge them,make them accountable to their real bosses...US! Go to your branch meetings and speak up.Check out the ASTI fightback group if you're as disillusioned with the union fat cats as I am.Their last meeting had members of ASTI;INTO and TUI in attendance.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭doc_17


    doconnell wrote: »
    jimbo28 wrote: »
    I am in complete agreement with you on unions. The old " BUT YOU HAVE TO BE IN ONE IN CASE SOMETHING HAPPENS". What a load of sh!te.Something is happening folks, were being cut left, right and centre,and there is being very little done by the unions.

    This is exactly how many union members feel at the moment.I was on the verge of dropping out of my own one but decided instead to actually get involved and challenge the corruption that my own apathy had allowed to flourish.Our union leaders are not doing a good job of representing us so lets challenge them,make them accountable to their real bosses...US! Go to your branch meetings and speak up.Check out the ASTI fightback group if you're as disillusioned with the union fat cats as I am.Their last meeting had members of ASTI;INTO and TUI in attendance.

    Can I ask what corruption you are referring to? Have you evidence of wrongdoing? If so you should present it to someone.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,428 ✭✭✭Powerhouse


    jh79 wrote: »

    Whether cutting full timers pay leads to more full time positions is irrelevant to whether it needs to be cut.


    Yes, but you were the one suggesting a correlation between teachers' pay and numbers employed - when you wrote "if the top end was lowered it could allow more student teachers to be made full time while keeping within the overall pay budget" - not me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,182 ✭✭✭jh79


    Powerhouse wrote: »
    jh79 wrote: »

    Whether cutting full timers pay leads to more full time positions is irrelevant to whether it needs to be cut.


    Yes, but you were the one suggesting a correlation between teachers' pay and numbers employed - when you wrote "if the top end was lowered it could allow more student teachers to be made full time while keeping within the overall pay budget" - not me.

    I understand that but I can only form an opinion on the information available to me, what should a teacher be paid? I suppose is the question i think a pay scale of E30 to 60 k is fair in total


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,671 ✭✭✭PhoenixParker


    For years when the teachers unions were asked what was the starting salary for a teacher, they quoted the figure of point 1 on the salary scale for teachers.

    Notwithstanding that to actually be a teacher, you needed a degree, a dip and that having both of those qualified you for point three on the scale and a range of extra allowances.

    Now Ruairi Quinn plans to actually have the teachers salaries start at point 1 on the scale, I have absolutely zero tolerance for the unions protesting about it.

    Teachers with pass degrees and pass diplomas should start on point one of the salary scale. A very small additional allowance should be available for better degrees and further qualifications, but nothing like the scale at the moment. The increments also need to be cut and the increment scale shortened considerably Posts of responsibility should attract more money too, but the whole system is in desperate need of reform.

    When I see a real plan from the teachers union that sensibly sets up a structure for fair teachers pay and that deals with the real problems in teaching like the inability to fire terrible teachers and the short term contracts new teachers get stuck on, I may start paying attention to them again. Right now all I ever see is a pack of whiny brats, who don't know how good they have it, and to be frank sound like they belong in kindergarten.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,428 ✭✭✭Powerhouse



    When I see a real plan from the teachers union that sensibly sets up a structure for fair teachers pay and that deals with the real problems in teaching like the inability to fire terrible teachers and the short term contracts new teachers get stuck on, I may start paying attention to them again.


    You appear to be confusing the role of an employer with that of a union. It is the employer's job to set the agenda regarding pay, security and tenure, and a union's job to represent the interests of their members in that context. Same as in any industry really.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,671 ✭✭✭PhoenixParker


    I'm not.

    I have no idea why the unions in this country seem to have the idea that representing their members interests is so narrowly defined and seems to centre on saying no to whatever their employer wants to do.

    The unions role is to further their members interests. So what's the ideal state? What are the unions aiming for? What is the optimum working situation for teachers? In a realistic situation, and a recessionary economy, how can wage cuts be best handled and implemented? There's no vision, there's no leadership, there's no clear route to a better life for their members.

    They're ridiculous and they're laughable.


  • Registered Users Posts: 277 ✭✭UnLuckyAgain



    "Teachers with pass degrees and pass diplomas should start on point one of the salary scale"

    "the whole system is in desperate need of reform."

    The only things I agree with, that you've said so far.

    Salaries should also be geographically-linked in some shape or form, like the way it is in England with higher pay for teachers (and others) in London. Obviously costs of living are higher in urban areas, so a teacher living in Dublin may be making ends meet while a teacher in a similar situation, all other things equal, living in rural areas may have a comfortable amount of disposable income. Again, desperate need of reform.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,371 ✭✭✭✭rainbowtrout


    The only things I agree with, that you've said so far.

    Salaries should also be geographically-linked in some shape or form, like the way it is in England with higher pay for teachers (and others) in London. Obviously costs of living are higher in urban areas, so a teacher living in Dublin may be making ends meet while a teacher in a similar situation, all other things equal, living in rural areas may have a comfortable amount of disposable income. Again, desperate need of reform.

    Rent is higher in Dublin, but public transport is non existent in rural areas and teachers often have to travel a long distance for work. Many of the teachers I work with (Roscommon) spend an absolute fortune on petrol/diesel getting to and from work every week. A less populated area means less schools to choose from, a smaller number of job opportunities and long distances between schools, hence having to travel further for work.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,620 ✭✭✭seavill


    Right now all I ever see is a pack of whiny brats, who don't know how good they have it, and to be frank sound like they belong in kindergarten.

    Brilliant and so insightful. How great to be able to debate with people that make such logical rational arguments


  • Registered Users Posts: 277 ✭✭UnLuckyAgain


    Rent is higher in Dublin, but public transport is non existent in rural areas and teachers often have to travel a long distance for work. Many of the teachers I work with (Roscommon) spend an absolute fortune on petrol/diesel getting to and from work every week. A less populated area means less schools to choose from, a smaller number of job opportunities and long distances between schools, hence having to travel further for work.

    Definitely a valid point and without sounding cheeky, I just question to what extent petrol prices and extortionate rent can be compared?

    Maybe the government's solution will be for all teachers to chuck in houses and live in camper vans, that way we only have to worry about petrol. If we're lucky they may even create a "mobile teacher" allowance. Then cut it with all the rest :P


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,371 ✭✭✭✭rainbowtrout


    Definitely a valid point and without sounding cheeky, I just question to what extent petrol prices and extortionate rent can be compared?

    Maybe the government's solution will be for all teachers to chuck in houses and live in camper vans, that way we only have to worry about petrol. If we're lucky they may even create a "mobile teacher" allowance. Then cut it with all the rest :P

    Well petrol prices continue to rise while property prices continue to fall.

    It's common enough in rural areas for teachers to drive 50 miles to school and obviously home each day. Doing 500 miles a week just to get to work (possibly not on full hours) costs a fair bit in petrol, not to mind more wear and tear on the car. A teacher I'm working with got married two years ago. Husband is a farmer so she had to move to where he lives, 2 hours away. She hasn't been able to get anything closer to his place, so is commuting.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,395 ✭✭✭✭mikemac1


    Career breaks are fine

    But if you leave the job for a number of years you should not be able to keep your permanant post open.

    I'm thinking of our local TD who spent close over a decade in the Dáil and has gone back teaching.
    It would be sad if some young teacher lost their job when the ex-TD returned.

    The Dept should do something about that, it happens every election

    My post might look off-topic, just the last page has a lot of posts about temporary/permanent


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,371 ✭✭✭✭rainbowtrout


    mikemac1 wrote: »
    Career breaks are fine

    But if you leave the job for a number of years you should not be able to keep your permanant post open.

    I'm thinking of our local TD who spent close over a decade in the Dáil and has gone back teaching.
    It would be sad if some young teacher lost their job when the ex-TD returned.

    The Dept should do something about that, it happens every election

    My post might look off-topic, just the last page has a lot of posts about temporary/permanent

    That only applies to TDs and I think has since been changed. Teachers have a finite amount of time for career breaks and if they don't go back they give up the job and conditions of contract.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,428 ✭✭✭Powerhouse


    I'm not.

    I have no idea why the unions in this country seem to have the idea that representing their members interests is so narrowly defined and seems to centre on saying no to whatever their employer wants to do.

    The unions role is to further their members interests. So what's the ideal state? What are the unions aiming for? What is the optimum working situation for teachers? In a realistic situation, and a recessionary economy, how can wage cuts be best handled and implemented? There's no vision, there's no leadership, there's no clear route to a better life for their members.

    They're ridiculous and they're laughable.


    Stuff like "there's no vision" and/or "there's no leadership" is all terribly vague criticism almost for criticism's sake. What exactly does "no vision" mean in this context? And how do you measure things like vision and leadership?

    Unions' roles - - as you say - are to further their members' interests. Surely that answers your own question as to what unions are aiming for?

    And what is their members' interests? Well, obviously that differs depending on the context of whatever issue is at stake from time to time. That might explain the lack of a published ten-year plan with specific detail if that's what vision is supposed to be.

    You say that you "have no idea why the unions in this country seem to have the idea that representing their members interests is so narrowly defined and seems to centre on saying no to whatever their employer wants to do".

    What then do you think - in specific terms - unions should do as opposed the caricatural version you present in that last comment I just quoted? How do unions define their members' interests currently? And how should unions define their members' interest in a broader way than they are currently doing?

    Finally, your question as to "how can wage cuts be best handled and implemented" seems superfluous. This government and the last one have savaged teachers' salaries by one means or another so the employer seems not to have problems in this area. What do you think the unions should do to "best handle" and "implement" wage cuts?


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭doc_17


    For years when the teachers unions were asked what was the starting salary for a teacher, they quoted the figure of point 1 on the salary scale for teachers.

    Notwithstanding that to actually be a teacher, you needed a degree, a dip and that having both of those qualified you for point three on the scale and a range of extra allowances.

    Now Ruairi Quinn plans to actually have the teachers salaries start at point 1 on the scale, I have absolutely zero tolerance for the unions protesting about it.

    Teachers with pass degrees and pass diplomas should start on point one of the salary scale. A very small additional allowance should be available for better degrees and further qualifications, but nothing like the scale at the moment. The increments also need to be cut and the increment scale shortened considerably Posts of responsibility should attract more money too, but the whole system is in desperate need of reform.

    When I see a real plan from the teachers union that sensibly sets up a structure for fair teachers pay and that deals with the real problems in teaching like the inability to fire terrible teachers and the short term contracts new teachers get stuck on, I may start paying attention to them again. Right now all I ever see is a pack of whiny brats, who don't know how good they have it, and to be frank sound like they belong in kindergarten.

    Of all the incorrect things you posted there I'll focus on the highlighted bit. You did not always need a dip to be a teacher. In VECs a degree was acceptable as not all subjects that were taught in vocational schools were facilitated in the colleges of education. But that is the type of nuances and subtleties that are overlooked by people who look in from the outside and think they are experts.

    As for the the rest of the post you should read the charter of this forum before posting again


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,401 ✭✭✭Seanchai


    The only things I agree with, that you've said so far.

    Salaries should also be geographically-linked in some shape or form, like the way it is in England with higher pay for teachers (and others) in London. Obviously costs of living are higher in urban areas, so a teacher living in Dublin may be making ends meet while a teacher in a similar situation, all other things equal, living in rural areas may have a comfortable amount of disposable income. Again, desperate need of reform.

    You have a point on the geographically-linked, but I think it would be more important to have it socio-economically linked. For instance, a teacher in Ballymun Community College deserves to be paid more than a teacher in one of these ultra selective fee-paying schools - Blackrock, Belvedere, St Michaels, Rockwell, etc - which have the money for enormous supports for weaker students who slip through the fee-paying net, something which makes a teacher's job in those school much easier. I've taught in both types of school, to the children of multi-millionaires and to the children of drug addicts.

    Meanwhile in public schools in socially deprived areas across the state teachers are being told they should embrace "mixed ability teaching" for classrooms where the range in "mixed ability" is so enormous it's something far beyond "mixed ability", that current God of the textbooks and theorists who never set foot inside classrooms in such areas.

    While school management often has much of the blame, and while mixed ability teaching is the way to go and it rightly challenges teachers, this packaging up of 2 or 3 ADHD kids with 4 dyslexic kids and 1 asperger kid along with 22 "ordinary" students of genuine mixed ability as "mixed ability" is disgustingly offensive. For the first six months after my dip I was made to feel like a failure for not managing a class with that precise make-up because the people who think and teach these things in university courses never qualify the "range" of mixed ability. The range. I feel like writing to every one of my lecturers and telling them to qualify their lectures by a discussion on the range which constitutes genuinely "mixed ability" teaching.

    Even a single ADHD kid in a class poses an enormous challenge to the dynamics of "mixed ability" teaching. It can be overcome, but then you realise that his pattern is repeated in other students, but they don't officially have ADHD. Because the school doesn't have the money for the educational psychologist!

    In fee-paying schools such a child can be removed with far greater ease than in one where the funding is not available to supervise such students. And if the principal suspects a child has ADHD she/he can use the far greater school funds to ascertain that and then the newly-diagnosed ADHD student has access to extra DoE resources.

    On this point of course, the true number of diagnosed students in poorer socio-economic areas is much higher than officially recorded because the funds have been cut back for the educational psychologists to make the initial assessments as those assessments would cost the state much more in supports after the child has been diagnosed. But also, it must be said, the likelihood of children having extra problems in socio-economically deprived areas is greater. Controversial, perhaps, but true as far as my experience has gone anyway.


    Brilliant. At least somebody in the DofE is earning his/her pay.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    The common misconception seems to be that all teachers get this magical and magnificent salary. In fact most teachers work on an hourly basis, scraping together part time hours for many years before gaining full time employment, if ever. Though this generalisation seems to be a common thread among warmongers from outside the profession.

    The bit in bold is incorrect. The vast majority of teachers work on a full-time basis.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    doc_17 wrote: »
    Of all the incorrect things you posted there I'll focus on the highlighted bit. You did not always need a dip to be a teacher. In VECs a degree was acceptable as not all subjects that were taught in vocational schools were facilitated in the colleges of education. But that is the type of nuances and subtleties that are overlooked by people who look in from the outside and think they are experts.

    As for the the rest of the post you should read the charter of this forum before posting again

    Yes, but those in the VECs with only a degree started on the second point of the scale.

    The general point s/he made was true - the vast majority of teachers started on the third point of the scale with qualification allowances and the unions did gloss over this point for years.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    spurious wrote: »
    This.
    If memory serves me well, the last person in our school to get a 'full' job was about 5 years ago. All those since are on partial contracts. Our student numbers have risen every year. This year we will lose 3 and a half teachers, or the equivalent, which more than likely means about 6 or 8 of these contract people will go/be sacked/lose their job - yet another thing those outside teaching think doesn't happen in the public service.

    There are no fixed-term, temporary, part-time staff left in the local authorities or in the civil service. They were all let go at the start of the crisis.

    Even though the last person in your school to get a "full" job was about 5 years ago, the majority of the staff are on full-time contracts.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,371 ✭✭✭✭rainbowtrout


    Godge wrote: »
    The bit in bold is incorrect. The vast majority of teachers work on a full-time basis.

    How do you know, do you have figures to back that up?
    Godge wrote: »
    There are no fixed-term, temporary, part-time staff left in the local authorities or in the civil service. They were all let go at the start of the crisis.

    Even though the last person in your school to get a "full" job was about 5 years ago, the majority of the staff are on full-time contracts.

    Again, how do you know?

    I've just done a quick tally in my head and we have about 14 people who are not on full hours in my school. A few of them are on CIDs for less than 18 hours, so while they have some security they won't have full hours in the long run. But I'm sure if I had posted that you would have said the same about my school.

    As permanent staff are retiring and many have in the last few years, they are not being replaced by teachers who are given full hours, they are being replaced by 2 teachers given half hours. You might argue that this employs 2 people instead of one and it does and I'm sure those people are delighted to get hours because they are so hard to come by, but the reality is that a lot of teachers find that their hours aren't increasing and they are not brought up to full hours in the four year run up to CID, they are being kept on low hours, usually about 14-16, enough to keep them interested in the job, with perhaps the implied incentive of full hours if they stay, but not enough to bring them up to the magical 18 that will get them a full contract in the long run.

    I've seen more than 20 new staff start in my school over the last 6-7 years and only 3 of them are now on full hours. One, because she has a subject that no one else has, so she had to get the hours and the other two because they were on 18 hours in their fourth year and were entitled to get CIDs for full hours in their fifth year - the principal did try to get out of it, but the fact of the matter is that he slipped up in giving them more than 18 hours in their fourth year without realising so he had to give them full contracts legally - not that he wanted to. He's made sure not to do that since to any other teacher following on.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 27,088 CMod ✭✭✭✭spurious


    Godge wrote: »
    spurious wrote: »
    This.
    If memory serves me well, the last person in our school to get a 'full' job was about 5 years ago. All those since are on partial contracts. Our student numbers have risen every year. This year we will lose 3 and a half teachers, or the equivalent, which more than likely means about 6 or 8 of these contract people will go/be sacked/lose their job - yet another thing those outside teaching think doesn't happen in the public service.

    snip


    Even though the last person in your school to get a "full" job was about 5 years ago, the majority of the staff are on full-time contracts.

    No they are not. Most of the older staff who were full time have retired or left. For the last five years the new staff have all been put on contracts varying between 12 and 16 hours.


Advertisement