How many teachers are unemployed??

gollem_1975 · 27-10-2010 9:55pm

1) I didn't realise there were so many NQT teachers unemployed , I thought during the boom times the unions were complaining that they couldn't get people to become teachers -however during the same period I noted several women leaving IT jobs to do the PGDE.

2) in addition to the retired teachers getting the subbing roles would you agree that part of the problem with new teachers entering the profession is that the incumbents are getting paid too much relative to what their equivalents in the other OECD countries and relative to the budget schools have to pay teachers ( i.e. same budget + lower pay = more teaching jobs )

3) I'm on a WPP i.e. I don't get paid by the provider of the "work experience" but I get to keep my Job seekers benefit.
Is there a demand among schools and teachers to have placements / jobs fo voluntary teachers ? I am sure that there are some teachers that might want assistants to help out with their classes. better for aspiring teachers to be getting some experience than none at all and i'm sure the kids would benefit from the extra support and tuition ?

dambarude · 27-10-2010 9:59pm

Wow rainbowtrout... It really tells how bad things are when measures as drastic as that are being considered.

Depressing isn't really strong enough a word.

starre · 27-10-2010 11:29pm

gollem_1975 wrote: »

1) I didn't realise there were so many NQT teachers unemployed , I thought during the boom times the unions were complaining that they couldn't get people to become teachers -however during the same period I noted several women leaving IT jobs to do the PGDE.

2) in addition to the retired teachers getting the subbing roles would you agree that part of the problem with new teachers entering the profession is that the incumbents are getting paid too much relative to what their equivalents in the other OECD countries and relative to the budget schools have to pay teachers ( i.e. same budget + lower pay = more teaching jobs )

3) I'm on a WPP i.e. I don't get paid by the provider of the "work experience" but I get to keep my Job seekers benefit.
Is there a demand among schools and teachers to have placements / jobs fo voluntary teachers ? I am sure that there are some teachers that might want assistants to help out with their classes. better for aspiring teachers to be getting some experience than none at all and i'm sure the kids would benefit from the extra support and tuition ?

I don't think the level of pay is really an issue any more due to the economy. If pay was slashed the government would consider that a saving in general, not as a way to give more teachers jobs - the budget will be that tight.

Volunteers in schools = more excuses to cut staff numbers, so staff would be unhappy with this. There would also be a huge turnover in staff, as far as I understand these are short term contracts, which can be quite disruptive. While it might look good on paper, I don't see how much sense it would make in giving teachers experience in a field where there will not be jobs for a long, long while. It might be more beneficial to provide unemployed teachers with other skills.

Rosita · 27-10-2010 11:54pm

gollem_1975 wrote: »

2) in addition to the retired teachers getting the subbing roles would you agree that part of the problem with new teachers entering the profession is that the incumbents are getting paid too much relative to what their equivalents in the other OECD countries and relative to the budget schools have to pay teachers ( i.e. same budget + lower pay = more teaching jobs )

In theory this is not unreasonable but as we are continually - if not continuously - reminded these days; "we are where we are". The time when this argument might have held sway is a foreign country.

Shellhegs · 28-10-2010 1:29am

chunli_boom wrote: »

Im a secondary teacher with History and C.S.P.E. I might as well just have History I guess! I'm willing to work in Dublin. Partner needs to stay in Dublin. I'm down with certain schools as a sub but have heard nothing since September. I'v handed out so many CVs to so many schools but I'm barely even getting any replies.
God if teachers with so much experience can't even get anything I don't know how NQTs have a chance. I'm just so worried that without some real classroom experience this year that I'm going to lose everything I'v learnt and my confidence with students.

You'd be suprised, I have heard of a couple of people from the Dip (UCD) last year picking up a bit of work. I was very lucky, had one interview and got the job (15hours). I have heard of two girls getting jobs this week over the midterm so keep looking away, a subbing contract might turn up. The other option is to apply for SEN positions. I know its not a teaching job but keeps in the school environment anyway and it wont leave year gap on the CV!

Capt'n Midnight · 28-10-2010 1:55am

rainbowtrout wrote: »

If the veiled comments about the budget being detrimental to education are anything to go by there aren't going to be many for a long time. I was talking to someone in the last few days who had heard (from someone in Dept) that Transition Year could be for the chop nationally in the budget. I thought about it for a few minutes and realised that it's totally possible.
It's essentially an independent program run within schools.

It doesn't effect the 2 year cycle to Leaving Cert.

It will reduce (over 2 years) the number of teachers employed because the numbers will drop in each school, particularly in schools where it is compulsory. According to http://ty.slss.ie/aboutus.html 27000 students do TY each year, take that number of students out of the education system 27000/20 = 1350 teaching jobs.

getting rid of TY would mean 27,000 more people on the dole in three years time because there won't any extra jobs/ 3rd level places for them

even our government aren't quite that stupid to believe that huge additional costs are worth the savings ( though they did screw up the figues on the tax relief on public service pension )

keeping them in school is the cheapest option and IMHO one of the reasons why TY was started in the first place

gollem_1975 · 28-10-2010 10:12am

starre wrote: »

I don't think the level of pay is really an issue any more due to the economy. If pay was slashed the government would consider that a saving in general, not as a way to give more teachers jobs - the budget will be that tight.

surely level of pay is an even bigger issue now due to the economy. my understanding is that a huge proportion of the expenditure on education (and health) goes on salaries.

there seems to be a baby boom going on at the moment(the popes children are now starting to have their own kids) so there is going to be increased demand for more teachers in the future.. unfortunately the pot from which to pay these teachers is going in the opposite direction.

All government's throughout history have an interest in creating jobs. and jobs for new teachers is no different.

starre wrote: »

Volunteers in schools = more excuses to cut staff numbers, so staff would be unhappy with this. There would also be a huge turnover in staff, as far as I understand these are short term contracts, which can be quite disruptive. While it might look good on paper, I don't see how much sense it would make in giving teachers experience in a field where there will not be jobs for a long, long while. It might be more beneficial to provide unemployed teachers with other skills.

Surely the schools are not run for the benefit of the staff though. voluntary staff would be good for the end users i.e. the children. even if it was to have volunteers monitoring lunch breaks. instead of one teacher going around helping students in a class you could have 2 or 3. classes of 30 could be broken up into "breakout sessions". there is a lot of good that could be provided by "volunteers"

the work placements on the WPP scheme are 9 months long. a 9 month placement would cover most of the school year ( they are not contracts )

as to providing unemployed teachers with other skills. the country has already funded the education of these teachers. there is a demand for teaching staff, there just isn't the money to pay them unfortunately.

Rosita · 28-10-2010 10:50am

gollem_1975 wrote: »

surely level of pay is an even bigger issue now due to the economy. my understanding is that a huge proportion of the expenditure on education (and health) goes on salaries.

Surely the schools are not run for the benefit of the staff though. voluntary staff would be good for the end users i.e. the children. even if it was to have volunteers monitoring lunch breaks. instead of one teacher going around helping students in a class you could have 2 or 3. classes of 30 could be broken up into "breakout sessions". there is a lot of good that could be provided by "volunteers"

the work placements on the WPP scheme are 9 months long. a 9 month placement would cover most of the school year ( they are not contracts )

as to providing unemployed teachers with other skills. the country has already funded the education of these teachers. there is a demand for teaching staff, there just isn't the money to pay them unfortunately.

You are missing the point on salaries. The point being made is that a reduction in salaries will not lead to more teachers being employed (which is what had been claimed here) because contrary to your remarkable claim that the government wishes to create teaching jobs the practcial policy is to cut positions in school rather than add to them.

It is also naive to disregard the signifiance of disruption in schools. Many students have little enough regard for their regular teacher supervising around the school yard but imagine how someone temporary who might be gone the following week would be treated? Pointing to this sort of reality is not to suggest schools are run for the benefit of staff. It just implies that the nature and appearance of staffing is actually quite important in a school. Telling us that schools are not run for the benefit of staff is quite unhelpful especially when it hasn't been suggested.

starre · 28-10-2010 11:36am

Rosita wrote: »

You are missing the point on salaries. The point being made is that a reduction in salaries will not lead to more teachers being employed (which is what had been claimed here) because contrary to your remarkable claim that the government wishes to create teaching jobs the practcial policy is to cut positions in school rather than add to them.

It is also naive to disregard the signifiance of disruption in schools. Many students have little enough regard for their regular teacher supervising around the school yard but imagine how someone temporary who might be gone the following week would be treated? Pointing to this sort of reality is not to suggest schools are run for the benefit of staff. It just implies that the nature and appearance of staffing is actually quite important in a school. Telling us that schools are not run for the benefit of staff is quite unhelpful especially when it hasn't been suggested.

yes, I meant that cutting salaries won't create new teaching posts. I remember my primary classroom of 40+ students, (1980s) so baby boom kids will probably have this to look forward to. I have seen LCA, TY and some non-traditional subjects being removed/reduced from local schools already. For example where there were once places for everyone who wanted to do TY it is now an interview for 20 spots.

Also, re volunteer teachers - no demand in schools for the reasons Rosita mentioned. Also it would lead to a loss of expertise in the schools. Someone who has 10 years of experience, but no permanent or cid, might find themselves out of a job and their workload picked up by someone doing volunteer work or WPP, who would in turn be replaced the following year. The students would be at a disadvantage. The government might like the number crunching, but the demand would not be coming from the schools, which is what I thought was originally being asked.

I think the government would prefer teachers to leave for the UK/Oz so they wouldn't have to pay them anything.

As for TY - by the time these kids do the leaving, the dole available to them will probably be a pittance so emigration will be the only real option - much cheaper for the government again.

Rosita · 28-10-2010 12:00pm

starre wrote: »

yes, I meant that cutting salaries won't create new teaching posts. I remember my primary classroom of 40+ students, (1980s) so baby boom kids will probably have this to look forward to.

Indeed. Not sure it's much down the road either. I know a girl with 43 in her second year Irish class whch I thought was incredible until I met another person at an in-service recently who has 46 (!) in a Leaving Cert Irish class.

gollem_1975 · 28-10-2010 12:10pm

Rosita wrote: »

You are missing the point on salaries. The point being made is that a reduction in salaries will not lead to more teachers being employed (which is what had been claimed here) because contrary to your remarkable claim that the government wishes to create teaching jobs the practcial policy is to cut positions in school rather than add to them.

It is also naive to disregard the signifiance of disruption in schools. Many students have little enough regard for their regular teacher supervising around the school yard but imagine how someone temporary who might be gone the following week would be treated? Pointing to this sort of reality is not to suggest schools are run for the benefit of staff. It just implies that the nature and appearance of staffing is actually quite important in a school. Telling us that schools are not run for the benefit of staff is quite unhelpful especially when it hasn't been suggested.

I agree with your point - its highly unlikely that the department will hire more teachers when the salary bill is reduced. it is unlikely that there will be any redundancies either.

disruption - perhaps.

however am I really that naieve in thinking that additional teaching resources ( and I'm suggesting placements of 9 months - not that volunteers can come and go as they please - there would need to be some rules ) would not provide a NET benefit for the end-users (i.e. the kids ) ? considering also that these placement teachers would most likely be highly motivated and straight out of college.

i'm not even suggesting that there is a government scheme put in place to manage the volunteers. I'm suggesting that these NQTs go to their local schools and offer their services voluntarily. just a suggestion....

gollem_1975 · 28-10-2010 12:19pm

starre wrote: »

Also, re volunteer teachers - no demand in schools for the reasons Rosita mentioned. Also it would lead to a loss of expertise in the schools. Someone who has 10 years of experience, but no permanent or cid, might find themselves out of a job and their workload picked up by someone doing volunteer work or WPP, who would in turn be replaced the following year. The students would be at a disadvantage. The government might like the number crunching, but the demand would not be coming from the schools, which is what I thought was originally being asked.

but if the NET benefit to the children is better then wouldn't it make the initiative worthwhile ?

I'm suggesting that placement person is an assistant to the teachers and provides (whatever)assistance is required by the school.. not that they will displace a good teacher already working in the school. tbh if they are a good teacher with 10 years experience is it really likely that a principal will let them go in favour of a recent unexperienced graduate ??

Rosita · 28-10-2010 1:31pm

gollem_1975 wrote: »

however am I really that naieve in thinking that additional teaching resources ( and I'm suggesting placements of 9 months - not that volunteers can come and go as they please - there would need to be some rules ) would not provide a NET benefit for the end-users (i.e. the kids ) ? considering also that these placement teachers would most likely be highly motivated and straight out of college.

i'm not even suggesting that there is a government scheme put in place to manage the volunteers. I'm suggesting that these NQTs go to their local schools and offer their services voluntarily. just a suggestion....

There is an inherent contradiction in what you suggest. On the one hand you are calling these arrangements 'placements' which implies some kind of broadly organised 'work experience' system for which you say 'there would need to be some rules'. Yet, on the other hand you are 'not even suggesting that there is a government scheme put in place to manage the volunteers' (who makes the rules then?) just that 'these NQTs go to their local schools and offer their services voluntarily' which implies a much looser less predictable arrangement.

Now either it's a voluntary thing where people can by definition come and go as they please if they are fortunate enough to get a paid opportunity elsewhere, or it's a formally organised arrangement where they are essentially bound to it for the duration.

The former is reasonable enough up to a point but potentially would be of a very fluid and disruptive nature for schools I would think with 'volunteers' coming and going and maybe getting quickly tried of being exploited as some might see it. The latter -where NQTs are put into a government scheme to work for nothing for nine months - sounds suspiciously like some kind of holding pen for dole recipients. It does surely have some political attraction - no work payments/dole payments to the people involved for a year while being capable of being dressed up as 'additional teaching resources'.

I would say in all sincerity that it is not without merit but whether enough people would be willing to put all potential income on hold for a year only to find themselves in the very same boat a year down the road and a further year down the road again is another matter. Personally I would love to have some of the brilliant and enthusiastic NQTs I trained with available to work with me. Whether it is reasonable that they should have to do it for nothing while other people can work and still draw all manner of supplementary income from the state is another matter.

gaeilgebeo · 28-10-2010 1:57pm

Rosita wrote: »

Indeed. Not sure it's much down the road either. I know a girl with 43 in her second year Irish class whch I thought was incredible until I met another person at an in-service recently who has 46 (!) in a Leaving Cert Irish class.

How is this possible? It's going against union policy of 30 students per class. Yes, this situation has cropped up in our own school but under no circumstances will we go against the union on it. If the Dept. see this kind of thing happening, they'll take the attitude of " ah sure they're managing fine with 45 in a class as it is, let us up the teacher/pupil ratio".

Rosita · 28-10-2010 2:15pm

gaeilgebeo wrote: »

How is this possible? It's going against union policy of 30 students per class. Yes, this situation has cropped up in our own school but under no circumstances will we go against the union on it. If the Dept. see this kind of thing happening, they'll take the attitude of " ah sure they're managing fine with 45 in a class as it is, let us up the teacher/pupil ratio".

Not sure of the circumstances of one of the people but in the case of the other it is an Honours Irish class where there is an assumption many will drop down and they will not countenance Honours and Pass in the same class. Obviously the ASTI holds less sway in some schools.

gollem_1975 · 28-10-2010 2:43pm

Rosita wrote: »

There is an inherent contradiction in what you suggest. On the one hand you are calling these arrangements 'placements' which implies some kind of broadly organised 'work experience' system for which you say 'there would need to be some rules'. Yet, on the other hand you are 'not even suggesting that there is a government scheme put in place to manage the volunteers' (who makes the rules then?) just that 'these NQTs go to their local schools and offer their services voluntarily' which implies a much looser less predictable arrangement.

Now either it's a voluntary thing where people can by definition come and go as they please if they are fortunate enough to get a paid opportunity elsewhere, or it's a formally organised arrangement where they are essentially bound to it for the duration.

The former is reasonable enough up to a point but potentially would be of a very fluid and disruptive nature for schools I would think with 'volunteers' coming and going and maybe getting quickly tried of being exploited as some might see it. The latter -where NQTs are put into a government scheme to work for nothing for nine months - sounds suspiciously like some kind of holding pen for dole recipients. It does surely have some political attraction - no work payments/dole payments to the people involved for a year while being capable of being dressed up as 'additional teaching resources'.

I would say in all sincerity that it is not without merit but whether enough people would be willing to put all potential income on hold for a year only to find themselves in the very same boat a year down the road and a further year down the road again is another matter. Personally I would love to have some of the brilliant and enthusiastic NQTs I trained with available to work with me. Whether it is reasonable that they should have to do it for nothing while other people can work and still draw all manner of supplementary income from the state is another matter.

I am not contradicting myself . I am laying out 2 different approaches (thought not coherently perhaps.. i'm supposed to be working at the moment

)

option 1 is the placement route - which would be like a WPP for teachers
- the WPP means you can "work" while still claiming whatever state benefits apply to you. this would be self-regulated - i.e. the placement teacher and the school have to be relied on to not feck eachother about.
"the carrot and the stick" for the person on the placement would be the reference they get from the school. if the placement person was to get a paid job in the meantime they would not be obliged to stay in the unpaid position.

option 2 is the personal voluntary route - this could be implemented as you say through personal networks. i.e. you know some qualified teachers that are on the dole, you say to them you're looking for assistants, are they interested ? alternatively unemployed teachers approach their employed teacher friends and say "I'm available, let me help"

gaeilgebeo · 28-10-2010 2:50pm

Rosita wrote: »

Not sure of the circumstances of one of the people but in the case of the other it is an Honours Irish class where there is an assumption many will drop down and they will not countenance Honours and Pass in the same class. Obviously the ASTI holds less sway in some schools.

I'm actually TUI, but regardless of which union we're in, as teachers, I feel very strongly that we should stand firm on this. It is scandalous that schools are allowing such practices.

Rosita · 28-10-2010 3:05pm

gaeilgebeo wrote: »

I'm actually TUI, but regardless of which union we're in, as teachers, I feel very strongly that we should stand firm on this. It is scandalous that schools are allowing such practices.

I don't disagree. In fact I think 30 is a ludricous number for a really effective class never mind higher than that.

rainbowtrout · 28-10-2010 3:42pm

gaeilgebeo wrote: »

I'm actually TUI, but regardless of which union we're in, as teachers, I feel very strongly that we should stand firm on this. It is scandalous that schools are allowing such practices.

The problem is that class size numbers are directives from the unions. The Department have not put down a figure on maximum class sizes anywhere on paper, nor will they do so, as that would set a precedent. So the reality is that it depends how strong the union is in your school and how supportive the principal is working with the union directives.

rainbowtrout · 29-10-2010 1:00am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

getting rid of TY would mean 27,000 more people on the dole in three years time because there won't any extra jobs/ 3rd level places for them

even our government aren't quite that stupid to believe that huge additional costs are worth the savings ( though they did screw up the figues on the tax relief on public service pension )

keeping them in school is the cheapest option and IMHO one of the reasons why TY was started in the first place

I don't doubt your logic but I do doubt the ability of our government to make a sensible decision.:(

gaeilgegrinds1 · 29-10-2010 11:12am

It is all well and good saying the unions says this or that but it depends on how strong it is in your school. My first year out after the Dip I was in a school where I never heard the word union, and most days I had well over 40 in my class as the other Irish teacher sent them to me. It was only when the principal saw this that is stopped. I was surely not in a position to open my mouth as if I did I'd have been out. I saw it happen enough in there. In my present school union issues are taken very seriously.
I have a friend in another school though who is of the opinion no union is fantastic, she is not a member and does as she pleases. I use the word, 'friend,' losely as she really is not the type of teacher I'd normally associate with. I just wonder where she stands when the Croke Park Agreement comes into play? Does she reap all the benefits without ever paying a cent or attending so much as one meeting or rally? Unfair if so...

maynooth_rules · 30-10-2010 12:03pm

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/coughlan-asks-schools-to-stop-hiring-retired-teachers-2400571.html

The usual limp wristed response by Fianna Fail. Rather than banning the practice of hiring retired teachers, they send out letters to all principals!!!! In other words she is doing the exact same as Batt O'Keefe did a couple of years back. This is a very easy practice to stop, yet FF simply wont do it for whatever reason.
I know people in this thread have put forward the reasons for hiring off retired teachers, but it is still a very wrong practice. Just because it is easier does not mean it is right. Im a secondary teacher(unemployed

), so this issue does not effect me as much as it would for primary teachers. But it is an issue that something has to be done about, and speaking to people who are non teachers, this is also an issue that infuriates them

wicklowgal · 30-10-2010 4:37pm

Just thought I'd add my experience of teacher employment here. I'm a NQT, just out. I am lucky enough to have a job at the moment, but it's only maternity cover up until Christmas. However, they interviewed for 2 days for my job and I did a really rubbish interview (or so I thought!)

I do count myself really lucky to be getting 3 and a half months full time experience, I know how difficult it is going to be to even get substitute work for the rest of the school year

looksee · 31-10-2010 12:36pm

While I agree in principle about retired teachers staying retired, don't assume that everyone has a pension. Because of 'life circumstances' I will retire with no private pension, a very small government pension(if I get one at all), and my husband is on a partial (about 60%) teacher's pension. If I were offered an hour here or there, I would take it.

anneh2010 · 01-11-2010 10:40am

I respect the fact you dont have the huge pensions that many of the retired teachers do, however, it is extremely difficult for any young teacher to get employment at the moment and i feel it is unfair that schools are hiring those who are finished their careers instead of those who have paid 6500 euro to qualify and get nothing in return........ Also why must we pay 90 to the teaching council when they do nothing for us and we arent working............

gollem_1975 · 01-11-2010 12:12pm

anneh2010 wrote: »

I respect the fact you dont have the huge pensions that many of the retired teachers do, however, it is extremely difficult for any young teacher to get employment at the moment and i feel it is unfair that schools are hiring those who are finished their careers instead of those who have paid 6500 euro to qualify and get nothing in return........ Also why must we pay 90 to the teaching council when they do nothing for us and we arent working............

€6500 in qualification/tuition fees is not an exhorbitant sum imho, definitely nowhere near enough to guarantee you a job in the current climate tbh.. if it was the market would be even more flooded with unemployed teachers then it already is.
the PGDE is only one year long... in terms of an investment of time thats not much either.

tbh the training period should be longer and should involve a longer period of unpaid on the job training.

however none of that really helps those that have completed the training as it stands and are unable to get teaching jobs so back OT.

If its any consolation to you the jobs situation is not much better in any of the other employment sectors for recent grads.

Am I mad in thinking that by going to your local principal and saying "I willing to work for free, is there anything for me" you would be putting yourself ahead of other NQTs when/if sub/perm etc. jobs do become available ?

anneh2010 · 01-11-2010 1:01pm

gollem_1975 wrote: »

€6500 in qualification/tuition fees is not an exhorbitant sum imho, definitely nowhere near enough to guarantee you a job in the current climate tbh.. if it was the market would be even more flooded with unemployed teachers then it already is.
the PGDE is only one year long... in terms of an investment of time thats not much either.

tbh the training period should be longer and should involve a longer period of unpaid on the job training.

however none of that really helps those that have completed the training as it stands and are unable to get teaching jobs so back OT.

If its any consolation to you the jobs situation is not much better in any of the other employment sectors for recent grads.

Am I mad in thinking that by going to your local principal and saying "I willing to work for free, is there anything for me" you would be putting yourself ahead of other NQTs when/if sub/perm etc. jobs do become available ?

Without being disrespectful, if your financial circumstances are like mine 6500 plus living expenses is quite alot when ur still paying off undergrad loans. But i agree a year isnt a long time and is worthwhile investment.

However, I do think that ur last point is true and to be honest i have done that, well offered to do so. I know its bad but i just wanted to make a connection because it is who u know not what you know in the schools where i live..... one school has 2 children of vice principal as permanent posts no interview and it frustrates me.

gollem_1975 · 01-11-2010 1:47pm

anneh2010 wrote: »

Without being disrespectful, if your financial circumstances are like mine 6500 plus living expenses is quite alot when ur still paying off undergrad loans. But i agree a year isnt a long time and is worthwhile investment.

However, I do think that ur last point is true and to be honest i have done that, well offered to do so. I know its bad but i just wanted to make a connection because it is who u know not what you know in the schools where i live..... one school has 2 children of vice principal as permanent posts no interview and it frustrates me.

fair play to you.

why not go to teachers that you got on well with when you were at school. maybe they might be able to open some doors ?

yes with regards to the money its all relative.. hopefully your investment in time and money will pay off.

good luck

anneh2010 · 01-11-2010 2:59pm

Thank you

Rosita · 01-11-2010 7:36pm

gollem_1975 wrote: »

1) €6500 in qualification/tuition fees is not an exhorbitant sum imho, definitely nowhere near enough to guarantee you a job in the current climate tbh..

2) if it was the market would be even more flooded with unemployed teachers then it already is.

3) tbh the training period should be longer and should involve a longer period of unpaid on the job training.

1) I find it hard to agree with your implication that if the PGDE retailed at say 20k rather than 6/7k it would make any difference never mind guaranteeing you a job in "the current climate". What course guarantees a job?

2) Again we have contradiction from you - how on earth can you say that if the cost of the course was "enough to guarantee you a job in the current climate" the market would be "even more flooded with unemployed teachers"? Think about it...........if they were guaranteed a job they wouldn't be unemployed by definition.

3) On what basis do you think the training period should be longer? At first glance it seems like another scheme to get slave labour and dress it up as "sure doesn't it keep you out of harm's way" work experience.

How many teachers are unemployed??

Comments