How many teachers are unemployed??

gollem_1975

Rosita wrote: »

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?

you may not agree but the cost of the course and the length of time to do the course in economic terms are barriers to entry or costs to enter the profession.

when the PGDE was brought in the barriers were lowered imo. ( isn't the PGDE the 1 year [or is it 18 months?] diploma graduates can do which qualifies them to teach in primary school ?) to my knowledge the HDIP runs for 12 months, which also isn't a huge investment in time imo.

If the cost of entry was higher then fewer people would do the course and might ensure that the most motivated ( or possibly just the financially better off - which admittedly could be seen as a negative consequence of this ) would be doing the course.

If the training took longer we would have better qualified teachers and also the most motivated teachers would make it through the training regime ( they would also have more teaching experience before they get paid teaching jobs )

Rosita wrote: »

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.

let me try to explain.. anniehal mentioned in her post after spending 6500 on getting qualified ( and paying 90 to teaching council ) she was still unemployed.

perhaps when she enrolled on the course and paid the fees she was told that there was a guaranteed job waiting for her at the end of it.

in fairness I think thats probably what she and many others did think.

On the 2nd Novemeber 2010 if I knew that €6500 upfront and a year of college was going to get me a teaching job ( which before I read this thread I would have thought WAS a guaranteed , permanent, pensionable job ) I would be signing on the dotted line.

Rosita wrote: »

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.

well for starters I think that the children and the parents will be getting a better quality of teacher if there was a longer training period. the more training and experience they get the better.

Look at the length of time other professions need to spend in training.

In an area such as IT, you probably won't even get a job interview now ( not even for a WPP job) unless you have a 4 year degree in Computer Science or IT(not english and history) and a few years of experience.

teaching of kids is probably much more important than a lot of IT roles and yet we send people out teaching after a 2.2 degree ,one year of training and perhaps not much life experience either.

also when there is a clear oversupply of teachers increasing the (barriers to entry) cost of training both in time and financially will help reduce the supply of teachers into an already flooded "market".

however lets get back on topic.

I'm not a teacher myself but I don't think the solution to this problem necessarily has to be a collective one ( i.e. all unemployed teachers clubbing together and lobbying for more teaching positions or preventing retired teachers from subbing ) ,
there can also be an individual solution to it.. i.e. use your competitive advantages, personal networks, to get yourself known in a school ahead of the posse. if that means volunteering your services for free then go for it.

free advice/perspective etc.... I can't guarantee that this has been a contradiction-free post.

regards,

Gollem

Rosita

gollem_1975,

Sorry for the nature of the reply. I cannot do the multi-quote thing. Your comments are in italics.

you may not agree but the cost of the course and the length of time to do the course in economic terms are barriers to entry or costs to enter the profession.

Of course they are barriers to entry but that has nothing to do with the point you made which was that someone cannot expect a guaranteed job in the current climate for 6/7k investment. Raising barriers to entry hardly changes the current climate.

when the PGDE was brought in the barriers were lowered imo. ( isn't the PGDE the 1 year [or is it 18 months?] diploma graduates can do which qualifies them to teach in primary school ?) to my knowledge the HDIP runs for 12 months, which also isn't a huge investment in time imo.

With repect you should know this sort of stuff if you are intending to have an informed debate on the matter. The H Dip was the forerunner to the PGDE. All that changed was the nomenclature. This has been a recognised teaching qualification for second-levels schools since time immemorial so the question of barriers being lowered "when the PGDE was brought in" is neither here nor there.

If the cost of entry was higher then fewer people would do the course and might ensure that the most motivated ( or possibly just the financially better off - which admittedly could be seen as a negative consequence of this ) would be doing the course.

Yes, potentially fewer and better off people would do the course if it was more expensive. But here's a mad idea - why not simply cut the number of places on the course in the first place if numbers is a problem? I'll answer that for you - because it is far better economics for the government to have the university sector take in 8 million euro plus from the students willing to do the course than paying dole to a goodly portion of them while having to trump up that university funding themsleves.

And your implication that somehow people currently are not motivated enough is - I'll put this mildly - unproven.

If the training took longer we would have better qualified teachers and also the most motivated teachers would make it through the training regime ( they would also have more teaching experience before they get paid teaching jobs )

I suppose that works off the assumption that longer training is automatically better training. Trying to judge that in the abstract is difficult. But I'm not necessarily sure that the most motivated teachers would always be the ones to make it through the training 'regime'. Maybe really motivated people would find something else to do if faced with a long training course, a period of unpaid teaching experience and uncertain job prospects? This is as plausible as your notions I would suggest.

let me try to explain.. anniehal mentioned in her post after spending 6500 on getting qualified ( and paying 90 to teaching council ) she was still unemployed. perhaps when she enrolled on the course and paid the fees she was told that there was a guaranteed job waiting for her at the end of it. in fairness I think thats probably what she and many others did think.

Honestly this is laughable. I'd say it's about 1972 since anyone in charge of the course would have spoken about guaranteed jobs. People on the course wish you all the best in getting 'hours' - forget about guaranteed jobs. It is spectacularly wrong-headed to think that anyone would have been saying things like that to any prospective Dip candidate. In fact there has been unremitting negativity on boards such as this for some years now in relation to jobs - and it is a well founded negativity.

On the 2nd Novemeber 2010 if I knew that €6500 upfront and a year of college was going to get me a teaching job ( which before I read this thread I would have thought WAS a guaranteed , permanent, pensionable job ) I would be signing on the dotted line.

I am surprised then that you did not apply for the Dip last year if you genuinely believed all this fiction. But you didn't sign on the dotted line did you? It's easy for people to say these things but by their deeds shall you know them.

well for starters I think that the children and the parents will be getting a better quality of teacher if there was a longer training period. the more training and experience they get the better.

Fair enough, assuming that more training is better training and that the experience is meaningful.

Look at the length of time other professions need to spend in training. In an area such as IT, you probably won't even get a job interview now ( not even for a WPP job) unless you have a 4 year degree in Computer Science or IT(not english and history) and a few years of experience.

Hold on now. You are seriously wrong again. In order to do the teaching qualification you need a degree of 3/4 years beforehand. Why are you ignoring this while counting the duration of IT degree as training? Subject knowledge is part and parcel of what a teacher brings to the classroom so to ignore their degree is absurd. And incidentally I imagine the converse is also true - that your chances of getting an English/History teaching job interview with an IT degree would be slim enough. At least compare like with like.

teaching of kids is probably much more important than a lot of IT roles and yet we send people out teaching after a 2.2 degree ,one year of training and perhaps not much life experience either.

Straw-clutching nonsense again I'm afraid - apart from the bit about teaching being much more important than a lot of IT roles. You would not get within an ass's roar of the Dip with a 2.2 degree. The academic standard required has never been higher than it is now. Not saying the students are cleverer/better but they are getting higher grades.

also when there is a clear oversupply of teachers increasing the (barriers to entry) cost of training both in time and financially will help reduce the supply of teachers into an already flooded "market".

Tell me what is the incentive for the government to reduce the supply of teachers? They have a ready-made funding option for the univerisity with no obligation to provide a job afterwards. Why should they reduce the supply of teachers? You are dabbling in economic theory in some of your thoughts and then rejecting it in other areas. What would their incentive be?

TheDriver

I must agree with Rosita on this line of the topic. Unfortunately as has been seen over the past 2-3 years on this forum is people asking "am I mad to do the Dip etc" and one of the usual answers is that there are no jobs out there unless you have a weird and wonderful subject choice. Yet now we see people getting irate at the situation yet in all honesty, this situation has been predicted over the last 2 years prior to most people paying up for the PGDE. My sympathy goes out to ye all but its not exactly a shock to those of us in the profession.
On the basis of the retirees, I again reiterate my point that a lot of NQTs are not as eager as ye and not willing to race in at short notice to do any few hours. And to manage a school effectively, you need people in classroom at short notice who are willing, don't need a tour of the school and won't take me away from lots of other duties. You honestly get sick of people "thinking" over the phone when its an answer I want.
Lastly, working for free: Wouldn't touch any teacher wanting that as got burnt before. Why? Because Teacher can get a job elsewhere and is gone (which is fair enough) but then suddenly those classes can't be replaced because the free Teacher is not within the allocation.
My sympathy goes out to ye all but to be honest, it is no surprise. And i can say with certainty that the PGDE have people thinking that all the "no teaching jobs" talk is rubbish and because they got accepted/paid "big" money, they will probably get a job.

gollem_1975

I had written a big reply to Rositas post earlier that boards lost on me so I think I will quit while I'm behind

interesting point thedriver with regard to taking on the teacher for free.. proves the old adage* that its easier to get a job when you have a job doesn't it ?

but how about the idea that free teacher is taken on to help the main teacher out - a teaching assistant so to speak ?

with regard to all the posts over the last few years re "doing the dip" there are still posts coming up..
there is someone posting over in work and jobs doing a degree in film studies and religion wondering could they do a PG in history and then do the dip.

however with prospects being what they are in the economy i'd still say there are people who would say the dip/h-dip/pgde it is a safer bet than a lot of other postgrad options.

* the fact that the free teacher got a job could have been purely coincidental.

gollem_1975

Rosita wrote: »

Tell me what is the incentive for the government to reduce the supply of teachers? They have a ready-made funding option for the univerisity with no obligation to provide a job afterwards. Why should they reduce the supply of teachers? You are dabbling in economic theory in some of your thoughts and then rejecting it in other areas. What would their incentive be?

Are these courses self-financing ?
I had assumed that they were costing more money to run than they were bringing in.
If they are revenue positive then by all means keep them going.

rainbowtrout

gollem_1975 wrote: »

with regard to all the posts over the last few years re "doing the dip" there are still posts coming up..
there is someone posting over in work and jobs doing a degree in film studies and religion wondering could they do a PG in history and then do the dip.

however with prospects being what they are in the economy i'd still say there are people who would say the dip/h-dip/pgde it is a safer bet than a lot of other postgrad options.

I read that other thread earlier... and I've posted several times on this forum at the lunacy of applying for the PGDE with Religion/CSPE/SPHE/IT as a major subject.

I think a lot of people applying for post grads think 'I know, I'll do the PGDE' because there is a specific qualification and job associated with it... it's a hell of a lot more specific than doing a post grad in computing (which I did) where you could end up applying for jobs from software development to data entry. Teaching is very specific. There is some sense of security in completing a course with a very specific outcome - in this case being qualified to do one specific type of job which is needed nationwide.

The other problem is that everyone seems to know a teacher or sees someone they used to know from the town they grew up in back working in the local school and think, that's a grand handy number, she got in there easy enough, I think I'll do that. It's not all that cut and dried but that's the general gist of it.

The general public seem to think once a person is working in a school that they are on full hours and permanent and never seem to realise that so many teachers are on low hours or only subbing. There's a guy living around the corner from me in his mid to late 30s and has never really had a proper contract of his own. He's probably been teaching 12 years or so, he got married, bought house etc, so is tied to this area where there are few teaching jobs going and has been subbing/doing maternity leaves/sick leaves for as long as I've known him which is about 7 years. For all intents and purposes anyone else that vaguely knows him around the town probably thinks 'Oh there's John*, that's handy for him working in the local school, only 5 minutes from home' when the reality is that he's subbing classes here for this week for 4 or 5 different subjects/teachers and there may be no work for him next week. They never stop to think why he still works behind the bar in one of the local pubs at the weekend.

This image is also the one that is perpetuated by the media and probably does go some way to influence people's view that they will get a full time job once they have done the PGDE.

*not real name

Capt'n Midnight

maynooth_rules wrote: »

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.

So they can tell people they are doing something and at the same time the principles can just ignore so in effect it's the status quo.

anneh2010

anyone know what working in england would be like in terms of pay etc....

sherdydan

well when ye spend so many years studying to learn how to teach C.S.P.E, history and P.E, do ye really think that ye deserve a job? if ye're services are'nt required, you dont "deserve" a job in that field. it is not how an economy works.

dambarude

sherdydan wrote: »

well when ye spend so many years studying to learn how to teach C.S.P.E, history and P.E, do ye really think that ye deserve a job? .

I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but I think you're suggesting that the subjects you mention aren't worth being studied? If that is what you're saying, you have a very narrow-minded view of what education should involve.

sherdydan wrote: »

if ye're services are'nt required

The thing is the services are required- classes are getting bigger, and schools are having to drop certain subjects. But obviously economic issues dictate that services that ideally would be provided may not actually be provided.

sherdydan wrote: »

you dont "deserve" a job in that field. it is not how an economy works.

I think everybody here realises how the economy works. Nobody thinks they should walk into a job, just because they 'deserve' one. Unfortunately the fact that a service is required doesn't hold much sway anymore; minds are focused on which services are absolutely essential, and which aren't as important. It doesn't mean that they aren't important at all.

It looks like the pupil teacher ratio is going to be increased, which is going to have a large impact on education standards, and teacher employment.
Unfortunately I wouldn't expect it to be any other way given the state of the country's finances.

Teachers who hold as naive a view of the job market as you suggest are, I believe, few and far between. Nobody is suggesting that every teacher that is trained should be employed.The problem being discussed here is that too many teachers are being trained, and that the number should be reduced. There is a difference between the two.

sherdydan

dambarude wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but I think you're suggesting that the subjects you mention aren't worth being studied?

ohhhh yeah C.S.P.E is an essential part of the Irish education system :rolleyes:

dambarude wrote: »

The problem being discussed here is that too many teachers are being trained, and that the number should be reduced. There is a difference between the two.

Yes, too many teachers are being trained, thats why you people should understand when ye go into training, there is an oversupply of teachers, and you may not get a job in it afterwards. If you can accept that but still want to learn to teach fair enough, just dont be a twat and go along oblivious to the fact you may never get employment in your field.

dambarude

sherdydan wrote: »

ohhhh yeah C.S.P.E is an essential part of the Irish education system :rolleyes:

Essential, maybe not. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught.

sherdydan wrote: »

Yes, too many teachers are being trained, thats why you people should understand when ye go into training, there is an oversupply of teachers, and you may not get a job in it afterwards. If you can accept that but still want to learn to teach fair enough, just dont be a twat and go along oblivious to the fact you may never get employment in your field.

We agree there, that's basically what everybody in this thread is saying! But the thing is that the government controls the numbers in other courses like nursing, so why shouldn't they do the same with teaching? Especially with B.Ed courses since they are funded directly by the government (for now anyway). I realise that the PGDE is different.

sherdydan

they dont control it because what the hell else ye gonna do with ye're arts degrees?! So what you are basically saying is that the government should control your free will to save you from yourself? If you havent the intelligence and cop on to check up whether or not the occupation you want to train in is in demand or not, you deserve not to be employed in the field you are educated in. And anywho, I'm sure that ye could get work in another field of some form, just that ye probably are to full of yourselves to work in the likes of retail or whatever.

Grow up, stop acting like children!

dambarude

sherdydan wrote: »

they dont control it because what the hell else ye gonna do with ye're arts degrees?! So what you are basically saying is that the government should control your free will to save you from yourself? If you havent the intelligence and cop on to check up whether or not the occupation you want to train in is in demand or not, you deserve not to be employed in the field you are educated in. And anywho, I'm sure that ye could get work in another field of some form, just that ye probably are to full of yourselves to work in the likes of retail or whatever.

Grow up, stop acting like children!

First of all, I'm not doing an Arts degree.

In my post I specifically referred to B.Ed degrees. There was a lot of hubbub a week or two ago over all the money wasted training nurses when they had to go abroad for work. The same argument could be applied to the training of primary teachers/secondary teachers (though primarily the former), as the government funds the fees of some of the degrees like they do nursing degrees or any other undergraduate degree.

And while I acknowledge that a large amount of people who do a BA go into teaching, that doesn't mean that it's the only route they can take.

sherdydan

well whatever route people take to become teachers, if they find it hard to get a job after, it's there own fault for not researching the need for employees in that sector!

anneh2010

sherdydan wrote: »

they dont control it because what the hell else ye gonna do with ye're arts degrees?! So what you are basically saying is that the government should control your free will to save you from yourself? If you havent the intelligence and cop on to check up whether or not the occupation you want to train in is in demand or not, you deserve not to be employed in the field you are educated in. And anywho, I'm sure that ye could get work in another field of some form, just that ye probably are to full of yourselves to work in the likes of retail or whatever.

Grow up, stop acting like children!

How rude first of all. How ignorant, people worked hard for their degrees and regardless of their degree it is still the same level education as anyone else and many of them have masters etc....
I can tell you now many unemployed teachers have sought employment elsewhere, ,myself included.... Two giant retailers in Ireland told me I was TOO qualified as they were aware I had a high level of education.

When i went for the PGDE, there was plenty of Jobs and I had one of them and went to get qualified as we were told to.

The last statement doesn't even justify an answer....

kiwikid

anneh2010 wrote: »

When i went for the PGDE, there was plenty of Jobs and I had one of them and went to get qualified as we were told to.

surely this is because you were teaching something that you were unqualified to teach? Is that still happening? unqualified people teaching (im not referring to retired people here btw).

Anyway i agree with 3 points made on here,
1. there are whingers who do not want a day here and day there working when principals call them up. These people should be blacklisted!
2. Supply and demand. It is that simple. Unless you know someone who can "pull you in"
3. Retired folks (and unqualified people) should not be able to set foot in a classroom to teach its occupants.

Can i ask as an aside, how many of you will work on the black market in the new year giving grinds to children of misguided parents?

Dionysus

anneh2010 wrote: »

Two giant retailers in Ireland told me I was TOO qualified as they were aware I had a high level of education.

Then drop a few of your qualifications. And accentuate and even exaggerate the part of your cv which is more appropriate to the job you're applying for. In fact, you might be well advised to visit, asap, a career development person in your alma mater to help you on this.

anneh2010 wrote: »

When i went for the PGDE, there was plenty of Jobs

From an earlier post:

anneh2010 wrote: »

I graduated in 2009 and have had very little work in between

There were *not* plenty of jobs in teaching when you began the PGDE in September 2008. If your subjects are shíte, you would have been very, very very aware of your job prospects before you began the PGDE. My subjects are shíte. I was very aware of the abysmal job prospects when I began the PGDE. I'm not going to dress it up now. You have to start being honest about things.

Dionysus

kiwikid wrote: »

surely this is because you were teaching something that you were unqualified to teach? Is that still happening? unqualified people teaching (im not referring to retired people here btw).

It's not only happening but as Delta Bravo pointed out last September our esteemed government has just given unqualified teachers the legal right to work in the schools of this great state of ours.




Thread here.

senordingdong

sherdydan wrote: »

well whatever route people take to become teachers, if they find it hard to get a job after, it's there own fault for not researching the need for employees in that sector!

Hardly a fair point if a civil service recruitment embargo came into effect whilst they were studying.

Dionysus

sherdydan wrote: »

they dont control it because what the hell else ye gonna do with ye're arts degrees?!.... I'm sure that ye could get work in another field of some form, just that ye probably are to full of yourselves to work in the likes of retail or whatever.

Amazing.

kiwikid

Dionysus wrote: »

Amazing.

in fairness i know plenty of arts folks who did the dip with no intentions of teaching and just something to fall back on.

I don't accept that there were loads of jobs before the embargo. Again supply and demand.

Teaching unions are self serving animals. Nobody should stand at the top of a class without a teaching qualification. Nor should they be let! Its nothing to do with if they are aware of the subject matter or capable of crowd control.
but you guys... keep paying your subs, keep yer mouth shut and don't rock yer sinking ship...

Dionysus

kiwikid wrote: »

in fairness i know plenty of arts folks who did the dip with no intentions of teaching and just something to fall back on.

I don't accept that there were loads of jobs before the embargo. Again supply and demand.

Teaching unions are self serving animals. Nobody should stand at the top of a class without a teaching qualification. Nor should they be let! Its nothing to do with if they are aware of the subject matter or capable of crowd control.
but you guys... keep paying your subs, keep yer mouth shut and don't rock yer sinking ship...

How does any of this make that guy who I was responding to correct?

Dionysus

dambarude wrote: »

But the thing is that the government controls the numbers in other courses like nursing, so why shouldn't they do the same with teaching? Especially with B.Ed courses since they are funded directly by the government (for now anyway). I realise that the PGDE is different.

I don't doubt you, dambarude, but as I don't have a clue about nursing entry do you have any reference to support this? Thanks. Anybody know of any other areas that the state controls entry into? (An Garda Síochána being an obvious example)

dambarude

The Irish Times, January 2009 wrote:

The points requirement for all nursing programmes will increase substantially in 2009 because of the HSE decision to reduce the intake of student nurses into the 13 colleges from more than 1,800 down to 1,500.

Link.

kraggy

sherdydan wrote: »

well whatever route people take to become teachers, if they find it hard to get a job after, it's there own fault for not researching the need for employees in that sector!

Idiotic statement.

When I started college, schools couldn't get teachers.

Now I can't get a job.

TashaMonster

sherdydan wrote: »

well whatever route people take to become teachers, if they find it hard to get a job after, it's there own fault for not researching the need for employees in that sector!

That's a ridiculous comment, using your logic means that EVERYONE (regardless of profession) who is unemployed only has themselves to blame because they are seeking employment in a sector where there are no jobs.

anneh2010

i think some people really don't understand, when i started my pgde there were plenty of teaching jobs, well in my local area, i had a principal calling me asking me to the dip, which i had already got a place in and then during the dip the jobs seemed to slow down.

I think most of us genuinely thought when we went for the dip, we had a chance of a job.

In response to the person who said take qualifications off is right, but what do i say i have been doing?

gollem_1975

Dionysus wrote: »

I don't doubt you, dambarude, but as I don't have a clue about nursing entry do you have any reference to support this? Thanks. Anybody know of any other areas that the state controls entry into? (An Garda Síochána being an obvious example)

there is some level of control as to who gets into teaching

there is also some control exercised by points system.. i.e. there aren't unlimited places to get into b.ED courses. there aren't unlimited places to get into the post grad dip in education courses either and despite what you guys are saying about there being an oversupply and that the 6500 to do the course isa waste of money there will still be an excess of demand for people wanting to do these courses
partly because of the perception that teaching provides a high level of career satisfaction, good salary, permanent job , pension and great holidays.
same still can't be said about a lot of other career options at the moment.

another problem with regards to state control of entry onto the courses is that public sector who provide the courses is never going to quickly adapt to changes in demand. e.g. what happens to the people running the courses ?

gotta split and mind the babby :pac:

dambarude

I considered doing secondary school teaching when in Leaving Cert (three years ago now).

Even then posters on this forum and teachers I consulted with in school were telling me that there were little or no jobs. I was told "It might be different when you're qualified in four years time", but we're nearly at that point now, and that's obviously not going to be the case, unfortunately. Primary teaching wasn't in quite as bad a position 3 years ago, but it's gone the same way now.