Section 30 Teaching Council

gaeilgegrinds

Where does this leave unqualified workers who have been told they have jobs next year?

rainbowtrout

What does Section 30 say? Positions must be offered to qualified teachers first???? Too lazy too look it up right now

30.—A person who is employed as a teacher in a recognised school
but—
(a) is not a registered teacher, or
(b) is removed or suspended from the register under Part 5,
shall not be remunerated by the school in respect of his or her
employment out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.

I have no idea.

gaeilgegrinds

Unqualified people cannot teach. And we can only teach the two subjects on our teaching council cert.

rainbowtrout

I'd say it's probably going to be ignored like most legislation in this country. The whole thing about only teaching the subjects you are qualified in is unworkable anyway, most teachers at some stage end up teaching something they are not qualified in for one reason or another. I'd say if principals had to go rigidly by those rules in September they would have serious problems with their timetables.

As for the position on unqualified teachers, who knows? Aren't schools supposed to actively continue to seek a qualified teacher if they are only able to fill a position with an unqualified teacher?

gaeilgegrinds

Except with this legislation you only get paid for teaching your two subjects. I thought they were calling a bluff again until I heard about it at the last union meeting. Serious stuff. The three principals there said it was workable, would just take an extra week to timetable.

Powerhouse

Leaving aside the short-term problem strict adherence to that policy would bring about it is in fact something (insistence that teachers teach only what they are qualified to teach) that teachers and teacher unions, students and parents should be pleased about.

For students and parents it means that only teachers who have actually studied a subject to a reasonable level are teaching it rather than someone just winging it by keeping one page ahead of the students. And for teachers and teacher unions it means employment prospects (in more reasonable economic circumstances of course) for teachers are greater because more teachers need to be employed as you wouldn't get the 'bed-blockers' teaching subjects they are not qualified to teach.

gaeilgegrinds

Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy with it. As someone who both as a student and teacher have seen people winging it, I believe this is correct. It's not right to teach something without the background knowledge.

Powerhouse

gaeilgegrinds wrote: »

You only get paid for teaching your two subjects.

This is in fact the salient point of that. If implemented and in the current circumstances who would bet against it, it will signal the end of the 'I studied it in first year Arts' teacher. The interesting bit is not where it leaves unqualified teachers but where it leaves schools which have been relying on teachers to take Junior and Pass leaving cert classes for years for subjects they do not have to degree level. This potentially will have quite an effect on schools' arrangements as things stand without even considering recruitment issues.

gaeilgegrinds

Forget even that! We have people teaching subjects who never ever studied them! And come to me half way through a class asking for an explanation of an Irish work (cos Foundation level Irish is SO easy) or of a poem on OL English. I'm sick of it, a vet wouldn't fill your tooth, why should a teacher with no background in your subject be let try their skills out on our kids?

rainbowtrout

Powerhouse wrote: »

This is in fact the salient point of that. If implemented and in the current circumstances who would bet against it, it will signal the end of the 'I studied it in first year Arts' teacher. The interesting bit is not where it leaves unqualified teachers but where it leaves schools which have been relying on teachers to take Junior and Pass leaving cert classes for years for subjects they do not have to degree level. This potentially will have quite an effect on schools' arrangements as things stand without even considering recruitment issues.

This would be the main problem in my school. Eg History is quite neglected as a subject, and the JC classes tend to get farmed out to anyone after the History teachers timetables are full. I don't think it's right but it's happening. Ridiculous considering it's a core subject, but does that mean more teachers should be hired to teach it and if so, does that mean other teachers get let go in the meantime? Can of worms territory and that's only one subject.

I suspect a lot of schools have teachers doing Religion, CSPE, SPHE and Computers as filler subjects on their timetables, it's what happens in my school. What happens there?

I teach a lot of PLC Computing subjects, I did my post grad in Software/Programming so I have a qualification but it's not a teaching qualification, where does that leave PLC courses. I welcome only having to teach subjects you are qualified in, it's better for teachers and students all round but it's going to take a while to iron out.

There are also the teachers who have rightly or wrongly been teaching a subject they are not qualified in for quite a long time and have built up their knowledge of the subject. Maths/Science would be a common combination and even Biology/Ag Science (my area). They would not be able to teach it anymore which could cause more problems within a school.

gaeilgegrinds

It will indeed take a while to iron out but I perceive it as being better all round when finally implemented correctly.