Government policy: Teaching in deprived areas

Dionysus

I've been looking through the ASTI website here - http://www.asti.ie/faq/salary.htm - on remuneration for teachers. However, I can't see any additional pay for teachers who are teaching in deprived areas.

I'll be doing my PGDE in a fee-paying school and, while I expect that will bring its own issues, I'd imagine that dealing with kids who come from less privileged socio-economic backgrounds would bring a great deal more work for a teacher. Does educational policy acknowledge these sort of challenges facing some teachers and reward them accordingly?

Or have I got it wrong and is teaching in these areas actually not much more difficult than teaching in fee-paying schools?

spurious

It depends on the school and its discipline policies.

I can assure you a particular socio-economic background of kids is no guarantee of good discipline in schools. I visit many types of schools weekly and I have seen and heard some shocking behaviour in schools in what people would consider 'nice' areas.

I teach in an inner city vocational school in Dublin. I teach generally speaking the weakest kids. I do not expect any extra money for teaching these kids. Yes, it's difficult to try and teach history to a child who cannot read, but it makes you think of and pursue different ways of teaching. It's far more interesting (for me and the kids) than ploughing though a history book page after page.

I just want to be let get on with it, without the undoing of what little improvements in conditions we had recently been given - learning support, SNAs, language supports - all cut for this year.

implausible

spurious wrote: »

I can assure you a particular socio-economic background of kids is no guarantee of good discipline in schools.

Spot on Spurious!

As well as that, I teach in a DEIS school and at times it's tough, and can be more work, but at least I'm dealing with the kids, not parents. It can be far more stressful dealing with parents and students who have (often unrealistic) high expectations.

A system that remunerated teachers according to how difficult the kids are would be impossible to implement.

Dionysus

deemark wrote: »

As well as that, I teach in a DEIS school and at times it's tough, and can be more work, but at least I'm dealing with the kids, not parents. It can be far more stressful dealing with parents and students who have (often unrealistic) high expectations.

Apparently the place I'm in parents have been known to request lesson plans from teachers. That's scary but also fine as I chose the school solely because of its strong academic record. On a side issue, I was also told that shirt and tie (and definitely not jeans) is the dress code for staff. I would have thought smart casual would be the norm in most schools, as it is across much of the public service. Up until now I've worn a tie and those buttoned shirts at the two or so weddings a year that I attend and never after that. Are ties and buttoned shirts standard in most schools?

deemark wrote: »

A system that remunerated teachers according to how difficult the kids are would be impossible to implement.

It could perhaps work along the lines of the New Era programme, where teachers from schools whose students' are eligible for New Era funding receive an additional increment?

Toto Wolfcastle

Dionysus wrote: »

Apparently the place I'm in parents have been known to request lesson plans from teachers. That's scary but also fine as I chose the school solely because of its strong academic record. On a side issue, I was also told that shirt and tie (and definitely not jeans) is the dress code for staff. I would have thought smart casual would be the norm in most schools, as it is across much of the public service. Up until now I've worn a tie and those buttoned shirts at the two or so weddings a year that I attend and never after that. Are ties and buttoned shirts standard in most schools?

Depends on the school itself. I'd imagine that a lot of schools have a smart casual dress code. In my school we can where what we like as long as we don't wear belly tops, etc, so most people wear jeans or smart trousers. A few of the men wear shirts and ties but that's their preference. I was also told before I started that one teacher had pink hair at one stage so that's something to consider in the future. I suppose that if the school wants to have a good image they might think that a shirt and tie dress code would be one way of doing so. Most of the male PGDE students who were on the same course as me wore shirts and ties anyway.

Powerhouse

deemark wrote: »

A system that remunerated teachers according to how difficult the kids are would be impossible to implement.

This is debatable. If it is possible to pay allowances to teachers willing to teach on the islands then it should be quite easy to designate disadvantaged areas/schools and pay an allowance for teaching there.

In reality of course with the over-supply of teachers the government doesn't need to do that. But it is easily done in Britain to attract teachers to so-called undesirable areas.

It might not be politically acceptable but it certainly would be capable of being implemented practically.

freire

I reckon the Island supplement is maybe fair enough - as you are living on an island, remote and inaccessible. This obviously presents its own particular problems, on a socio-environmental level. Or something. So you get some extra cash for putting up with where you are, not, one presumes, who you are with. Hardship buzz.

Expecting to get paid more because you teach kids from a disadvantaged area is a little bit precious if you ask me.

And uniforms should be for the kids only.

Powerhouse

freire wrote: »

I reckon the Island supplement is maybe fair enough - as you are living on an island, remote and inaccessible. This obviously presents its own particular problems, on a socio-environmental level. Or something. So you get some extra cash for putting up with where you are, not, one presumes, who you are with. Hardship buzz.

Expecting to get paid more because you teach kids from a disadvantaged area is a little bit precious if you ask me.

And uniforms should be for the kids only.

I wasn't arguing that people should get an allowance (nor that they shouldn't) but just showing that it could be implemented as there is a precedence for discrimination based on location.

As for the actual argument you raise, whether people should extra money or not - it is a matter of how you phrase it anyway. It might not be a question of paying people for "hardship" or for "putting up with who you are with".

It could be considered an incentive to attract the best most motivated* teachers to disadvantaged areas where it might be argued the are needed most. If we can call them disadvantaged areas why do we have to pretend that the kids there do not require particular attention?

* This of course assumes that teachers are like the rest of a rational capitalist workforce and are motivated to work by the prospect of earning money. Presumably we would have the forego the pleasure of having the "vocational" teachers with their "calling" in those schools as mere filthy lucre wouldn't do it for them.

gaeilgebeo

Powerhouse wrote: »

I wasn't arguing that people should get an allowance (nor that they shouldn't) but just showing that it could be implemented as there is a precedence for discrimination based on location.

As for the actual argument you raise, whether people should extra money or not - it is a matter of how you phrase it anyway. It might not be a question of paying people for "hardship" or for "putting up with who you are with".

It could be considered an incentive to attract the best most motivated* teachers to disadvantaged areas where it might be argued the are needed most. If we can call them disadvantaged areas why do we have to pretend that the kids there do not require particular attention?

* This of course assumes that teachers are like the rest of a rational capitalist workforce and are motivated to work by the prospect of earning money. Presumably we would have the forego the pleasure of having the "vocational" teachers with their "calling" in those schools as mere filthy lucre wouldn't do it for them.

You can't be serious! An "incentive " to attract the best teachers! Are you considering that a lot of schools lose disadvantaged status when results improve etc.... So how would that work with your salary? It goes up and down according to the school status?

I work in a deis school in what would be considered a "difficult" school with "tough" students. I would never dream of expexting extra money!

freire

Powerhouse wrote: »

It could be considered an incentive to attract the best most motivated* teachers to disadvantaged areas where it might be argued the are needed most. If we can call them disadvantaged areas why do we have to pretend that the kids there do not require particular attention?

Like others on here I too work in a DEIS school. I'm not sure the most motivated teachers (whatever that means-asterisk not withstanding) are always the most suitable for teaching in similar schools. It does take a certain 'personality type' to work in these schools, I have come to believe.

I think the key to teaching here is not the motivated teacher but the motivating teacher. Kids in our school are often incredibly able but very unmotivated.

Have had one or two teachers who have voiced the opinion that they should have extra money and even special training to 'put up' with some of the clientele. Either they move on or they grow to love the atmosphere, kids and the challenge.

Which is of course its own reward.

implausible

Powerhouse wrote: »

This is debatable. If it is possible to pay allowances to teachers willing to teach on the islands then it should be quite easy to designate disadvantaged areas/schools and pay an allowance for teaching there.

In reality of course with the over-supply of teachers the government doesn't need to do that. But it is easily done in Britain to attract teachers to so-called undesirable areas.

It might not be politically acceptable but it certainly would be capable of being implemented practically.

In fairness an island is pretty easy to identify!

Designated disadvantaged schools are not always in disadvantaged areas and therein lies the problem. I teach in a DEIS school in a large town, hardly a ghetto! In Britain, due to the massive populations in the cities, disadvantaged areas are easier to identify.

Powerhouse

deemark wrote: »

In fairness an island is pretty easy to identify!

Designated disadvantaged schools are not always in disadvantaged areas and therein lies the problem. I teach in a DEIS school in a large town, hardly a ghetto! In Britain, due to the massive populations in the cities, disadvantaged areas are easier to identify.

Why would disadvantaged "areas" have to be identified? Why not just disadvantaged schools?

If there were criteria agreed upon for identifying them and the schools are deemed to fulfill those then it would be easy to implement such a system. Then the Tech in Foxrock could get a dig out and the private school in Ballyfermot not. Easy. The schools either qualify or they don't.

Powerhouse

gaeilgebeo wrote: »

You can't be serious! An "incentive " to attract the best teachers! Are you considering that a lot of schools lose disadvantaged status when results improve etc.... So how would that work with your salary? It goes up and down according to the school status?

I work in a deis school in what would be considered a "difficult" school with "tough" students. I would never dream of expexting extra money!

I haven't considered anything about schools' disadvantaged status. The system for identifying disadvantaged schools is neither nere nor there with regard to my point, just so long as we accept that such a system can exist - we don't have to be married to the present system. I am just answering the suggestion that "a system that remunerated teachers according to how difficult the kids are would be impossible to implement."

It would be quite easy to implement - you can identify disadvantaged schools in whatever way you like once you identify them. It would be politically impossible of course as teacher unions would never accept the principle of payment based on such wacky notions as workload or ability to teach, but very implementable practically as I have been saying - though of course the argument that it is "impractial" will always be the one proffered for obvious reasons.

Of course you wouldn't dream of accepting extra money - dead easy to say that when it's not on the cards. The matter of you refusing to accept it if it became available and was the norm is another matter of course.