More teacher bashing, when will it ever end?

mikemac1 · 31-03-2012 11:56pm

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

rainbowtrout · 01-04-2012 12:00am

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.

Powerhouse · 01-04-2012 12:04am

PhoenixParker wrote: »

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?

doc_17 · 01-04-2012 11:24am

PhoenixParker wrote: »

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

Seanchai · 01-04-2012 5:05pm

UnLuckyAgain wrote: »

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.

Godge · 02-04-2012 10:19am

UnLuckyAgain wrote: »

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.

Godge · 02-04-2012 10:22am

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.

Godge · 02-04-2012 10:28am

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.

rainbowtrout · 02-04-2012 10:55am

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.

spurious · 02-04-2012 11:12am

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.

Ambersky · 02-04-2012 11:58am

Three teachers in our very small school got contracts of indefinite duration last year.
Two of those have been working for something like 8 or 10 hours per week but have been working in the school for about eight years.
They both try to suppliment their income and get whatever work they can in other schools.
Now they think their hours are in question anyway as they tell me the contract doesnt state exactly how many hours per week they are contracted to work for and the principal has been dropping hints about cut backs.

Godge · 02-04-2012 2:07pm

rainbowtrout wrote: »

How do you know, do you have figures to back that up?

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.

You have 14 teachers not on full hours in your school. Does that include those who have volunteered for job-sharing? What is the total number of teachers in your school?

I would agree that there has been a trend in the last few years increasing the number of recently-recruited teachers who are not on full hours but the post I was replying to stated that the majority of all teachers are not on full hours which is incorrect.

rainbowtrout · 02-04-2012 2:30pm

Godge wrote: »

You have 14 teachers not on full hours in your school. Does that include those who have volunteered for job-sharing? What is the total number of teachers in your school?

I would agree that there has been a trend in the last few years increasing the number of recently-recruited teachers who are not on full hours but the post I was replying to stated that the majority of all teachers are not on full hours which is incorrect.

There are no teachers on job share in my school at the moment. I would say that we have (excluding principal and deputy principal) about 30 staff including all those people not on full hours. That's 30 bodies, not 30 whole time equivalents. So that's about half our staff and that's the way it's heading in many schools.

There are still a lot of teachers who are on full hours, but those that entered teaching in the 70s are now coming to the end of their careers. Give it another 5 years and between retirements, cutbacks and the division of full time jobs into multiple part time jobs there will be very few people on full hours in schools.

Godge · 03-04-2012 8:11pm

rainbowtrout wrote: »

There are no teachers on job share in my school at the moment. I would say that we have (excluding principal and deputy principal) about 30 staff including all those people not on full hours. That's 30 bodies, not 30 whole time equivalents. So that's about half our staff and that's the way it's heading in many schools.

There are still a lot of teachers who are on full hours, but those that entered teaching in the 70s are now coming to the end of their careers. Give it another 5 years and between retirements, cutbacks and the division of full time jobs into multiple part time jobs there will be very few people on full hours in schools.

That still means 32 teachers in the school, 18 on full hours, only 14 on less than full hours, which means the majority are on full hours. Of that 14, you haven't clarified whether any of them are by choice - women with young children etc. and in WTEs, the proportion on full-time hours is obviously higher.

There will always be a significant proportion on part-time hours in smaller second-level schools especially when schools are looking to offer the widest range of options to students rather than looking after the needs of teachers (which would have been the attitude thirty years ago).

The solution is amalgamations where possible of smaller second-level schools which means the school can look after both priorities - the students wide choices and the staff who want full-time contracts.

Consuelano · 03-04-2012 8:51pm

Godge wrote: »

That still means 32 teachers in the school, 18 on full hours, only 14 on less than full hours

What on earth do you mean only 14?

<snip>

rainbowtrout · 03-04-2012 9:06pm

Godge wrote: »

That still means 32 teachers in the school, 18 on full hours, only 14 on less than full hours, which means the majority are on full hours. Of that 14, you haven't clarified whether any of them are by choice - women with young children etc. and in WTEs, the proportion on full-time hours is obviously higher.

There will always be a significant proportion on part-time hours in smaller second-level schools especially when schools are looking to offer the widest range of options to students rather than looking after the needs of teachers (which would have been the attitude thirty years ago).

The solution is amalgamations where possible of smaller second-level schools which means the school can look after both priorities - the students wide choices and the staff who want full-time contracts.

What exactly is your problem? The proportion is higher but not by much.

That's a huge number of people who are not in full time jobs.

I shouldn't need to clarify the status of any of those people. I have yet to meet a teacher who is on part time hours by choice, every part time teacher I know is striving to get more hours on their timetable not to get rid of them. It's hard enough to come by a teaching job of any type in the first place, and even harder to cling on to it for four years to get an evermore elusive CID. The more hours they have the stronger their position in the school. I already stated that none of the teachers in my school are on job share, a luxury only available to those on full hours.

I exclude the principal and deputy principal from my count because every school has one of each, and because of the nature of their positions regardless of the size of the school both are full time permanent positions.

Of course there will always be some part time teachers, but there is no need to split contracts like is happening in so many schools today. E.g. a teacher of French and Irish retired in my school last year. A common enough combination. The position could have easily been filled by one teacher but instead was split into two jobs. Irish is a core subject and French is a popular subject in most schools because of the language requirement in so many third level colleges. It's by far the most popular foreign language subject at Junior Cert and Leaving Cert. So hiring one teacher on full hours for the two subjects wouldn't have enhanced the subject choice in my school and it would have given one teacher a decent contract. Instead there are two teachers on 11-12 hours who will be waiting for the scraps in September, hoping they'll get thrown a CSPE, SPHE or computers class to bring their hours up.

E.T. · 03-04-2012 9:21pm

Consuelano wrote: »

<snip abusive post>

Unfortunately many people think that just having gone through the school system as a pupil makes them an expert on the entire system from all sides. Get used to it, it doesn't go away!

Godge · 04-04-2012 11:49pm

rainbowtrout wrote: »

What exactly is your problem? The proportion is higher but not by much.

That's a huge number of people who are not in full time jobs.

I shouldn't need to clarify the status of any of those people. I have yet to meet a teacher who is on part time hours by choice, every part time teacher I know is striving to get more hours on their timetable not to get rid of them. It's hard enough to come by a teaching job of any type in the first place, and even harder to cling on to it for four years to get an evermore elusive CID. The more hours they have the stronger their position in the school. I already stated that none of the teachers in my school are on job share, a luxury only available to those on full hours.

I exclude the principal and deputy principal from my count because every school has one of each, and because of the nature of their positions regardless of the size of the school both are full time permanent positions.

Of course there will always be some part time teachers, but there is no need to split contracts like is happening in so many schools today. E.g. a teacher of French and Irish retired in my school last year. A common enough combination. The position could have easily been filled by one teacher but instead was split into two jobs. Irish is a core subject and French is a popular subject in most schools because of the language requirement in so many third level colleges. It's by far the most popular foreign language subject at Junior Cert and Leaving Cert. So hiring one teacher on full hours for the two subjects wouldn't have enhanced the subject choice in my school and it would have given one teacher a decent contract. Instead there are two teachers on 11-12 hours who will be waiting for the scraps in September, hoping they'll get thrown a CSPE, SPHE or computers class to bring their hours up.

look, I don't doubt that you are annoyed by all of this but you already mentioned in a previous post that your principal has a particular policy of hiring part-time teachers.

I know, from my experience (not as a pupil - haven't been one for a very long time) that that is not the case across the education sector, though it is more prevalent at second-level than first-level.

It also is a temporary issue, school managements are trying to keep as many people in employment as possible, when the pupil numbers increase (school amalgamations anyone? economic recovery?) they will try and look after the part-timers and get them full hours. Much of the anger on forums like this will dissipate eventually.

Godge · 04-04-2012 11:54pm

E.T. wrote: »

Unfortunately many people think that just having gone through the school system as a pupil makes them an expert on the entire system from all sides. Get used to it, it doesn't go away!

A very glib comment.

If one wanted to be facetious, derogatory or equally glib, one could say that someone having gone through the school system as a pupil, continued on to a quasi-school system in St. Pats or an arts degree/H.Dip and returned to a school system as a teacher would have little experience of the real working world that so many of the population face each day and that that makes them an expert on nothing.

Thankfully, while I have heard that sentiment repeated a number of times, I do not share it. I have a lot of respect for teachers and what they do, many of them in difficult situations, but that doesn't mean they (and particularly those they send out to represent them or the bad ones that are defended) are not without serious flaws.

spurious · 05-04-2012 9:14am

Consuelano - of course debate can get heated, but please don't post abusive posts.
Attack the post, not the poster.
Thanks.

HellFireClub · 05-04-2012 9:28am

Powerhouse wrote: »

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.

Eh not reallly the same as in any industry in the private sector. These well established norms in the public sector such as:

(1) Automatic annual increments. In the private sector you typically have to make a case for these by way of a formal productivity, twice yearly review system, they are certainly not handed out automatically.

(2) Jobs for Life/Cannot be Fired. I can't think of any private sector industry where people cannot be dismissed if they are failing to do their job as described.

These norms are poisonous and allow disenfranchised employees (such as teachers who have had their pay cut), to sit back and do as little as they can in the full knowledge that they cannot be fired or have pay increments witheld for performance issues, no moreso than in an economic depression like what we are in now, when pay has been cut.

You have no idea how completely and utterly offensive these norms are now to the vast majority of people in the private sector who have suffered massive austerity, to see such highly paid people so utterly protected and cossetted from any real effect of this economic depression.

rainbowtrout · 05-04-2012 9:51am

Godge wrote: »

look, I don't doubt that you are annoyed by all of this but you already mentioned in a previous post that your principal has a particular policy of hiring part-time teachers.

I know, from my experience (not as a pupil - haven't been one for a very long time) that that is not the case across the education sector, though it is more prevalent at second-level than first-level.

It also is a temporary issue, school managements are trying to keep as many people in employment as possible, when the pupil numbers increase (school amalgamations anyone? economic recovery?) they will try and look after the part-timers and get them full hours. Much of the anger on forums like this will dissipate eventually.

Well what is your experience exactly? Because I'm not just speaking about my school. My school isn't the only place this is going on. A scan of the jobs in the paper over the summer should be enough to tell you that. This is the wrong time of year to look at job vacancies because it's too early for next years positions but if you looked at them a few months ago a lot of the jobs advertised are not on full hours.

Keeping teachers on low hours was happening before the arse fell out of the economy. It started when CIDs came in.

Godge · 05-04-2012 1:45pm

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Well what is your experience exactly? Because I'm not just speaking about my school. My school isn't the only place this is going on. A scan of the jobs in the paper over the summer should be enough to tell you that. This is the wrong time of year to look at job vacancies because it's too early for next years positions but if you looked at them a few months ago a lot of the jobs advertised are not on full hours.

Keeping teachers on low hours was happening before the arse fell out of the economy. It started when CIDs came in.

I don't want to go into detail on my experience as I am sure you wouldn't want to state which school you are from. However, while I have not worked as a teacher, I do have work experience in the education sector and I have been on more than one school board of management.

rainbowtrout · 05-04-2012 2:08pm

Godge wrote: »

I don't want to go into detail on my experience as I am sure you wouldn't want to state which school you are from. However, while I have not worked as a teacher, I do have work experience in the education sector and I have been on more than one school board of management.

Well that's fair enough, I wasn't asking you to name where you worked, but being on a BOM is not the same as being in a classroom.

Here's an example of the reality of contracted hours for a typical teacher:

Before CIDs came in a few years back, a friend of mine had her hours cut from 22 to 14 due to cutbacks in the school. The attitude she had from many non teacher friends was 'aren't you lucky to have a job etc.' The reality for her was a 33% pay cut, in a job where she was still in 5 days a week and while she had more classes off, because of the nature of teaching, it doesn't allow you go off and get part time work during those hours, so she was down a considerable amount of money in her wages.

That is the reality today for many teachers getting contracts on low hours. Classes are spread across the week, they can't avail of other part time work because their hours for the most part are spread right across the school day (I know they might get subbing in school, but this varies from place to place and is not guaranteed), and don't have many real opportunities to improve their lot so to speak.

Every now and again there are threads on here from new teachers inquiring if they can sign on because they are only on 7 or 8 hours. If you worked in a private sector job and could only get work 2 days a week you would be allowed sign on for the other three days. If you work 7 or 8 hours a week in teaching across 5 days you can't. Nor are you in a position to take up other work between 9-4 for the most part.

Ms.M · 12-04-2012 8:36am

Originally Posted by Hellfire Club

(1) Automatic annual increments. In the private sector you typically have to make a case for these by way of a formal productivity, twice yearly review system, they are certainly not handed out automatically.

(2) Jobs for Life/Cannot be Fired. I can't think of any private sector industry where people cannot be dismissed if they are failing to do their job as described.

You have no idea how completely and utterly offensive these norms are now to the vast majority of people in the private sector who have suffered massive austerity, to see such highly paid people so utterly protected and cossetted from any real effect of this economic depression.

Hi there Hellfire,
I'm a teacher of seven years in my thirties, and I'm still looking for a permanent job. To put this in private sector language, I've been fired from seven jobs. Not for any incompetency on my part. I haven't a single friend or sibling in the private sector who has received similar treatment or anywhere near it.

In this time, despite working my arse off and being held in high-regard by pupils, my wage has barely changed since I started. In fact, there is nothing in terms of increasing productivity I can do to increase my chances of getting a job or increasing my salary. Meanwhile my sisters and brothers who have the same work ethic as me are getting promoted. Their salaries are and will always be far higher than mine. (even taking into account my holidays)

My only point is that there are plenty of advantages to working in the private sector over teaching. And I don't resent my friends for them. I don't think my friends and family will resent me when I eventually get to work and live in the one place for more than a year.

And I don't think you're entitled to either.

Ms.M · 12-04-2012 8:58am

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Well that's fair enough, I wasn't asking you to name where you worked, but being on a BOM is not the same as being in a classroom.

Here's an example of the reality of contracted hours for a typical teacher:

Before CIDs came in a few years back, a friend of mine had her hours cut from 22 to 14 due to cutbacks in the school. The attitude she had from many non teacher friends was 'aren't you lucky to have a job etc.' The reality for her was a 33% pay cut, in a job where she was still in 5 days a week and while she had more classes off, because of the nature of teaching, it doesn't allow you go off and get part time work during those hours, so she was down a considerable amount of money in her wages.

That is the reality today for many teachers getting contracts on low hours. Classes are spread across the week, they can't avail of other part time work because their hours for the most part are spread right across the school day (I know they might get subbing in school, but this varies from place to place and is not guaranteed), and don't have many real opportunities to improve their lot so to speak.

Every now and again there are threads on here from new teachers inquiring if they can sign on because they are only on 7 or 8 hours. If you worked in a private sector job and could only get work 2 days a week you would be allowed sign on for the other three days. If you work 7 or 8 hours a week in teaching across 5 days you can't. Nor are you in a position to take up other work between 9-4 for the most part.

I probably should have read this before I posted! Here here rainbowtrout!

Though I have to say none of my buddies say to me "Aren't you lucky you have a job?". They know how hard I work and are supportive of my pursuit of a permanent post.
I actually think that the vast majority of people working in the private sector do understand the teaching profession. I don't want my above post to be seen as a dig at the private sector. I have plenty of buddies who work hard and deserve promotions in my opinion.
I think the public versus private thing is spin and bait for not particularly smart people from all walks to be honest, but thought I might need to take one step back to take two paces forward.

average_runner · 12-04-2012 9:11am

I dont think what the goverment doing is a teacher bashing, i think the goverment are preparing everyone in the PS for big wage decrease or a cull in numbers.

The cost of the PS is too much to the tax payer and you cant expect the non PS tax payer to take a further hit for PS while the PS keeps all its benefits.

The goverment needs to cut 10-15% of the salaries there.
Stop automatic promotions and salary increase base on years of service, but do it on how good they are. Reward the good workers.

Dont cut the education finances, yes cut their salaries but the not the funds for schools.

I heard a good comment from the ASTI Union leader, Teachers are responsible for the boom, we encourage the kids to work in building trade etc.

When asked are they responsible for the recession because they encourage kids to leave school early and be untrained and hence on the dole, they had no answer for that.

Teachers do a very important job, but sadly half of them in my experience arent up to it but are never fired, this has to changed.

dg647 · 12-04-2012 11:38am

average_runner wrote: »

I dont think what the goverment doing is a teacher bashing, i think the goverment are preparing everyone in the PS for big wage decrease or a cull in numbers.

The cost of the PS is too much to the tax payer and you cant expect the non PS tax payer to take a further hit for PS while the PS keeps all its benefits.

The goverment needs to cut 10-15% of the salaries there.
Stop automatic promotions and salary increase base on years of service, but do it on how good they are. Reward the good workers.

Dont cut the education finances, yes cut their salaries but the not the funds for schools.

I heard a good comment from the ASTI Union leader, Teachers are responsible for the boom, we encourage the kids to work in building trade etc.

When asked are they responsible for the recession because they encourage kids to leave school early and be untrained and hence on the dole, they had no answer for that.

Teachers do a very important job, but sadly half of them in my experience arent up to it but are never fired, this has to changed.

This is one question that I would really like answered. How do people propose that you reward the good teachers, what criteria do you propose be used?

12-04-2012 11:42am

Ms.M wrote: »

...............

Hi there Hellfire,
I'm a teacher of seven years in my thirties, and I'm still looking for a permanent job. To put this in private sector language, I've been fired from seven jobs. Not for any incompetency on my part. I haven't a single friend or sibling in the private sector who has received similar treatment or anywhere near it.

......................

To put that in private sector language you've has 7 contracts that ended

Plenty of folks working in the private sector are contract workers, many by choice, many more due to head count limitations in companies.

chippers · 12-04-2012 1:53pm

The following is a good read on the realities of teaching in Ireland today from the perspective of a teacher. Apologies if it's been posted all ready:

http://www.morestresslesssuccess.ie/2012/04/want-to-be-teacher-why-bother.html?spref=fb&m=1

Toto Wolfcastle · 12-04-2012 3:22pm

average_runner wrote: »

Teachers do a very important job, but sadly half of them in my experience arent up to it but are never fired, this has to changed.

Hi average_runner. Can I ask you to clarify what you mean by the bit in bold? I presume you mean from your experience of teachers in school rather than teachers as a whole? Thanks.

average_runner · 12-04-2012 4:09pm

Bobblehead Panda wrote: »

Hi average_runner. Can I ask you to clarify what you mean by the bit in bold? I presume you mean from your experience of teachers in school rather than teachers as a whole? Thanks.

Basically what i meant was the following:

There are teachers in schools who cant teach, cant express themselves to the students or explain something clearly to them. Some teachers rely too much on answer books and when a student challenges the teacher, the teacher lacks what to do.

But there is alot of great teachers out there also.

average_runner · 12-04-2012 4:11pm

dg647 wrote: »

This is one question that I would really like answered. How do people propose that you reward the good teachers, what criteria do you propose be used?

Same way you do in private sector, have appraisal forms where targets are met, continous assessment of the teacher. On spot class checks.
All these things will help.

Toto Wolfcastle · 12-04-2012 4:15pm

Thanks for that. You're right, of course. Can I just ask though in future that you put it that way rather than just saying 'half of them.' It's against the charter to generalise and while I realise it's just a difference in language, it ensures that you don't get infracted needlessly. Thanks.

gaeilgebeo · 12-04-2012 5:01pm

average_runner wrote: »

Same way you do in private sector, have appraisal forms where targets are met, continous assessment of the teacher. On spot class checks.
All these things will help.

So do you think a "spot check" on a really difficult class with serious learning and behavioural difficulties is going to be the same as a "spot check" on a class of straight A high achievers?

If I can get my really weak class through a Junior Cert exam and they receive Cs and Ds(which is an excellent achievement for them) as opposed to my colleague who had a much stronger class who got As and Bs, is my "appraisal" going to be worse than my colleagues? As on paper my results won't be as high?

How do you set the criteria for this "appraisal"?
How do you set the "targets" you refer to?
How will "continually assessing" a teacher work?

byhookorbycrook · 12-04-2012 5:07pm

average_runner wrote: »

Same way you do in private sector, have appraisal forms where targets are met, continous assessment of the teacher. On spot class checks.
All these things will help.

Define targets. I teach in a reasonably affluent school.More of our children would have some parental support and read/be read to at home than some other schools I know of. So, my children will probably perform better in tests, does that make me a better teacher?

Ditto to assessments.On the spot checks are known as incidentals and are common in primary level, as are whole school evaluations. Our principal reviews all the results of the standardised maths and literacy tests each year. One class have had weaker results most of the way up, which to someone not involved in education would seem like a failure. However, on reviewing their IQ tests, the class in general are weaker academically and many of the kids are performing as would be expected, while some are actually above what the IQ tests would indicate.

Powerhouse · 12-04-2012 5:08pm

HellFireClub wrote: »

Eh not reallly the same as in any industry in the private sector.

Eh, yes, really the same as in any industry in the private sector. You should have read the post to which I replied. I was not talking about working conditions - I was referring to the respective roles of employers and unions in relation to pay.

In the private sector (and in the public too) employers ultimately decide pay and conditions while unions argue the toss over various aspects of pay and conditions exerting whatever influence they can. But the employer has to deal with the unions (where this applies) in whatever way best benefits the employer and eventually take responsibility for its decisions. (This is largely the same type of mutual pressure relationship as between retailers and consumers in relation to price.)

There are lots of examples in both public and more especially the private sector where exmployers took their eyes off the ball in this respect and badly misjudged their business but ultimately it is their responsibility to run their affairs in a viable manner. Unfortunately with regard to teh private sector (and this is an opinion which should be voiced a lot more) the rest of us now have to bear the enormous brunt of the inability of many in the private sector to organise a p*ss up in a brewery adequately.

Our tax revenues have gone to pot because the private sector was simply not very good at running its affairs. What good really did targets and appraisals forms do it? Talk is cheap but by their deeds shall you know them.

I know a school Principal whose sister (private sector worker) once got a bonus the size of the Principal's annual salary. That business is now gone belly up. Why wouldn't it be? What a joke! What a farce it is to have to read constant implications that the private sector is some kind of utopia of organisation and invigilation when the reality was for many of them that when handy money came in the front door sensible business practice slipped out the back and they were completely vulnerable when the gravy train shuddered to a halt.

If you want to give a rant about how tough everyone's lot is in the private sector that's fine. But please say it as a general comment rather than a reply to me about something I did not say.

And incidentally, I worked in the private sector, so I know there are people there who wouldn't work to warm themselves. People who wouldn't last a week in a classroom. People who wouldn't have the intelligence and education levels to get there in the first place. And they think they are superior? I also saw phenomenal waste - £220 on a lunch for three people at a restaurant in Dame Street in 1992! People drinking wine like water.

A favourite story of mine is of one guy I worked with who did a Civil Service exam about ten years ago and was offered a job (a high level job in fairness) in the Department of the Taoiseach. He turned it down when he realised the hours he'd be expected to work. You won't read that in the letters to newspapers or on discussion boards but it's true. His private-sector routine was of too much value to him. That company is staring down the toilet too as it happens!

The Black Oil · 12-04-2012 5:14pm

The auld "teachers should be graded based on their students' results" routine/private sector comparisons concern me a lot. It's no good to offer soundbite solutions without any details.

This discussion on Media Matters, on the US system, might interest some here. The one with Diane Ravitch. Media Matters has a leftward bent, but Ravitch worked for Bush.

Kaner2004 · 12-04-2012 5:30pm

Where I work the salary is 75k + pension + living in Dublin allowance + travel allowance + a couple of other allowances.

That brings the total to 88k.

Now I could work for another company for 88k salary with no allowances.

Its all the same thing. Allowances are part or your salary...

I have a friend who works for a company where he gets 14 pay checks a year instead of 12. One extra in August and one extra in December.
Now this is his yearly salary paid in 14 payments instead of 12.

But when others hear about it they start complaining that he gets 14 months salary a year.

People will never understand anything that is not set up like their own setup.

Teachers are going to get pulled here there and everywhere until they bite back.

Imagine the government sitting in there doing their dirty work.
"Lets charge them a pension levy." - Ok they complained a bit, but didnt strike so it wasnt too bad on them.

"Lets take away something else." - OK, more complaining, but no strike. They obviousl still have too much money.

"Lets take their allowances." - If there is a strike then we'll stop, but if not, what else can we take.

If teachers went on an all out strike for 2 days a week, then people and the government might sit up and take notice of what they do. Or they could just keep talking about how unfairly they are being treated. That wont get them any respect though.

byhookorbycrook · 12-04-2012 5:35pm

Kaner, I agree that it is time to shout "stop."People seem to detest teachers anyhow so to hell with it, one good all-out few days would work wonders.

dambarude · 12-04-2012 5:37pm

We've already had payment by results in Ireland (the end of the C19th).

If you think that there is a lot of rote learning and teaching to the test now, you can multiply that tenfold if teachers' salaries were to depend on exam results. If students are being assessed by an exam, and a teacher's pay is riding on that exam, it's only natural that any means possible will be used to boost results.

Linking increments or allowances to student results would be so unworkable (and unethical) that it just makes me cringe any time I hear it suggested.

byhookorbycrook · 12-04-2012 5:42pm

dambarude wrote: »

We've already had payment by results in Ireland (the end of the C19th).

If you think that there is a lot of rote learning and teaching to the test now, you can multiply that tenfold if teachers' salaries were to depend on exam results. If students are being assessed by an exam, and a teacher's pay is riding on that exam, it's only natural that any means possible will be used to boost results.

Linking increments or allowances to student results would be so unworkable (and unethical) that it just makes me cringe any time I hear it suggested.

I know of a school where a now thankfully ex-teacher "taught to the test"for the standardised tests. Parents took the results at face value,principal knew something was up and had it out with the teacher.Now, imagine you are going to be paid for those results,how much temptation would be there to do the same?

E.T. · 12-04-2012 5:50pm

How would such a scheme work at primary level? Are people talking about bringing in standardised tests from infants up? I have pupils starting in Junior Infants with a 15 month age range from youngest to oldest most years. My aim is to get each of these children working to the best of their own ability, but there's always going to be a huge range of abilities, which doesn't count for much on a standardised test

What about pupils with Special Needs? What about pupils with dyslexia/dyscalculia etc (they no longer count for resource hours, so are not guaranteed any extra help, so wouldn't be counted under SEN).

dambarude · 12-04-2012 6:16pm

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

I know of a school where a now thankfully ex-teacher "taught to the test"for the standardised tests. Parents took the results at face value,principal knew something was up and had it out with the teacher.Now, imagine you are going to be paid for those results,how much temptation would be there to do the same?

Which is why the DES shouldn't be putting as much emphasis on standardised test results in the Num & Lit drive as it is. It's dangerous. People who don't understand how they work will, as you said, take results at face value. It's already happening with State exams to a certain extent.

delta_bravo · 12-04-2012 6:27pm

There's a very interesting chapter in Freakonomics about this which essentially says that when teachers are given financial incentive based goals to achieve they cheat. Often not intentionally but generally they skew the results either to make them or the student look better.

Its certainly not a great alternative that people are spouting.

Victor · 12-04-2012 7:03pm

rainbowtrout wrote: »

More teacher bashing, when will it ever end?

What makes teachers so precious that they can't be bashed? Pretty much everyone else gets a bashing at some time or another.

dambarude · 12-04-2012 7:06pm

Victor wrote: »

What makes teachers so precious that they can't be bashed? Pretty much everyone else gets a bashing at some time or another.

If it's at some time or another, fair enough. But it's almost constant with teachers. Any time discussion of teachers comes up on boards, for example, you can nearly guarantee that discussion of holidays and pay will follow soon after.

And if teachers are precious they won't survive in the job very long.

E.T. · 12-04-2012 7:10pm

Victor wrote: »

What makes teachers so precious that they can't be bashed? Pretty much everyone else gets a bashing at some time or another.

I don't think any of us said that teachers can't be bashed. We're all just fed up with not being able to have a rational debate on anything, or look for advice on professional queries in the T&L forum without trolls ranting on about how crap teachers are ad nauseum.

There's a constant stream of teacher threads in AH and Politics, is it too much to ask for a place where we can ask questions of others in our profession?

Does it happen on other sections of the site where people post professional queries? Do engineers/hairdressers/plumbers etc have to put up with constant trolling? Just wondering?

And thanks dambarude - precious doesn't get you very far when the vomiting and diarrhoea bug is doing the rounds of your class or any of the other unmentioned joys of teaching!

dg647 · 12-04-2012 7:10pm

average_runner wrote: »

Same way you do in private sector, have appraisal forms where targets are met, continous assessment of the teacher. On spot class checks.
All these things will help.

What targets would you set for a teacher? How would you assess a teacher teaching the foundation level class and the teacher who has the 1st Honours class?

What criteria would you use for the continuous assessment of teachers? That they turn up?
That they give/check homework?
That they have loads of paperwork and plans?
That they have enough IEP's?
The list could go on...

I would have no problem with on the spot checks. They would give an opportunity for the majority of teachers who are doing a good job to have that recognised. But my fear with these inspections is that they will come in and just look for paperwork. No interaction with the teacher, with the inspector having no understanding of the realities of the classroom in respect to areas such as the pupils' home situation, SEN, mixed ability classes etc.

byhookorbycrook · 12-04-2012 7:12pm

E.T. wrote: »

How would such a scheme work at primary level? Are people talking about bringing in standardised tests from infants up? I have pupils starting in Junior Infants with a 15 month age range from youngest to oldest most years. My aim is to get each of these children working to the best of their own ability, but there's always going to be a huge range of abilities, which doesn't count for much on a standardised test

What about pupils with Special Needs? What about pupils with dyslexia/dyscalculia etc (they no longer count for resource hours, so are not guaranteed any extra help, so wouldn't be counted under SEN).

We always count any child with a diagnosis of a special need on our DES returns. We have a number of exceptionally able children who are 2E (twice exceptional, maybe dyslexia + EA or whatever.)They might not be on or under the 10th percentile but do get support of some form if needed.I wonder if there is another PISA will those children who might skew the bell curve doing the equivalent of counting cattle down the bog the day the inspector was due to call as happened long ago. Self esteem eh??

More teacher bashing, when will it ever end?

Comments