How many teachers are unemployed??

Rosita

gollem_1975 wrote: »

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.

You couldn’t make this stuff up. Your opinion seems to change depending on which way the wind is blowing. Perhaps you are one of these people for whom the argument (as opposed to any kind of resolution/closure) is the thing.

Look at this pattern of opinion – In this post two days ago (1/11/2010 @ 9.34pm), you come over all concerned about the over-supply of teachers and chuck a dollop of Economics 101 at it for a solution: 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".

But the following day (2/11/10 @ 01-40) the over-supply of teachers and flooded market matters not a whit apparently - Does the course make money is the question. 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. Anything is justifiable as long as it is self-financing. (Which in itself is alright if it didn’t directly contradict the view you’d espoused the day before!)

And today (3/11/10 @ 9.26pm) you are back admonishing those who run the courses for their inconsiderate behaviour in taking on so many! - 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 ?

Rosita

sherdydan wrote: »

just that ye probably are to full of yourselves to work in the likes of retail or whatever.

Work in retail (that's a fancy name for selling stuff isn't it?)? Not if it made me that angry.
:cool:

gollem_1975

Rosita wrote: »

You couldn’t make this stuff up. Your opinion seems to change depending on which way the wind is blowing. Perhaps you are one of these people for whom the argument (as opposed to any kind of resolution/closure) is the thing.
Look at this pattern of opinion – In this post two days ago (1/11/2010 @ 9.34pm), you come over all concerned about the over-supply of teachers and chuck a dollop of Economics 101 at it for a solution: 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".

But the following day (2/11/10 @ 01-40) the over-supply of teachers and flooded market matters not a whit apparently - Does the course make money is the question. 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. Anything is justifiable as long as it is self-financing. (Which in itself is alright if it didn’t directly contradict the view you’d espoused the day before!)

And today (3/11/10 @ 9.26pm) you are back admonishing those who run the courses for their inconsiderate behaviour in taking on so many! - 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 ?

hello kettle..

I haven't checked all of your posts but any of them since I joined the thread don't seem to be offering any resolution/closure either.

it is a discussion forum.

my posts are meant to add to the debate and encourage debate. but their is also a positive slant to my posts across boards in that things are not hopeless and that individual unemployed people shoundn't give up hope.
people should ( and are considering ) offering their work/time/expertise for free , such as myself , on programs such as WPP.

One of my suggestions to the resolving the issue is that unemployed teachers should volunteer their services to get ahead of the competition i.e. get themselves known in the schools , ask teachers that they may have had when they were at school if they need assistance.

Another suggestion is that there could be a more official scheme similar to WPP for teachers.

what do you suggest Rosita ?

also you made a point about the gov having a vested interest in keeping the courses running as if they were making money from running the courses.

I had a valid question - are these courses really making money for the government ? I would suspect that the government subsidises the courses as it does most 3rd level education in the country. is that not the case Rosita?

ps: my last point was not a dig at the public sector , it was in response to someone saying " why don't the government control entry to the courses"
my point is that if the courses were provided by the private sector then it would be a lot easier for the government to say "sorry guys we don't need you to run a course for us this year".

Toto Wolfcastle

Stop the petty sniping. (In particular about working in retail.) It adds nothing to the discussion. Thank you.

gaeilgebeo

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).

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?

I for one, will continue giving grinds to students.The new year is the busiest time for me. Misguided parents ? Why do you ask?

Rosita

gollem_1975 wrote: »

I had a valid question - are these courses really making money for the government ? I would suspect that the government subsidises the courses as it does most 3rd level education in the country. is that not the case Rosita?

ps: my last point was not a dig at the public sector , it was in response to someone saying " why don't the government control entry to the courses"
my point is that if the courses were provided by the private sector then it would be a lot easier for the government to say "sorry guys we don't need you to run a course for us this year".

These course are surely bring money into the university sector that otherwise would not be there/have to be provided by government. Not sure if taht qualifies as 'making money' but there you have it.

As for 'if courses were provided by the private sector'.............they already are actually and they are churning teachers put by the new time to a market you have described as "flooded". Riddle me that.

gollem_1975

Rosita wrote: »

These course are surely bring money into the university sector that otherwise would not be there/have to be provided by government. Not sure if taht qualifies as 'making money' but there you have it.

so even if the courses were not being run there would still be a cost to the taxpayer ?

Rosita wrote: »

As for 'if courses were provided by the private sector'.............they already are actually and they are churning teachers put by the new time to a market you have described as "flooded". Riddle me that.

well the common consensus on this thread is that there is a considerable oversupply of teachers over current demand. Flooded is not an unusual term used to describe a scenario such as this.

assuming that the state is not subsidising the private sector training courses then from a taxpayers pov i'm not too concerned.
However I can totally see why an unemployed teacher I would be concerned about current course numbers being maintained.
I think eventually an equilibrium will be reached..i.e. knowledge of the difficulties faced by NQT's in getting jobs will become common knowledge and will be reflected in the decisions made by future students.
similar to lack of interest in construction related courses nowadays and IT related courses after the dot-com bust.

why are the Private sector courses churning them out.. well i'd guess its probably because is a profitable business for them. their revenues exceed their costs etc... indicating that there is still good demand among hopeful entrants into the profession.

I suppose "the problem" with regards to Hibernia is that they have met certain standards laid down by the department in order to deliver teacher training courses.
a possible solution would be to change these standards( possibly by including a requirement for a more extensive period of training/experience ) ?
Now I haven't a clue how feasible the above would be to do. Again its just a suggestion.

its a tricky one Rosita.

Rosita

gollem_1975 wrote: »

so even if the courses were not being run there would still be a cost to the taxpayer ?

Do you seriously think that the people who organise and teach that course work only on that course? The Education Department of a University operates many courses. And lecturers operate across different faculties.

dillo2k10

I am doing my leaving cert this year and I plan on going into secondary teaching.
I know that there is a big chance that I won't get a job. However over 50% of teachers are aged over 50. So that means that half of teachers will be retired withing the next 15 years. That will be over 10,000 teaching jobs becoming available. Of course class sizes may get much bigger and not all of them will be re-hired.
I was also talking to my school principal and she said that she would prefer to hire newly graduated teachers than those who have been out of work the last few years.

I am also aware of a teacher in my school who is teaching the same subjects that I hope to and he is retiring in about 7 years. My parents are friends with the vice principal and kinda know the principal aswel as a lot of the teachers in the school. So that may help me to get job. But I know that I am not guaranteed one and I am willing to accept that I may not get a job.

spurious

Where did you get that over 50% of teachers are over 50?
Not in any school I know.

Redr

The story of my secondary teaching career ....

There were no jobs in teaching when I qualified ... unless you had pull. I emigrated and worked abroad for a few years and not as a teacher. My typing course in Sight and Sound done when I was 17 is what got me places!! I returned to Ireland and got a full time office manager job with someone in a start up situation. I finished that job (at this stage married, with kid) and decided to make a stab at subbing. I got a couple of maternity leaves and then got part-time hours in a plc - 2 hours a week. And believe it or not I was lucky to be in the right place at the right time - I got a full-time permanent job!!! I was 37 when this happened and I love my job. I don't know if I'd love my job trying to control a bunch of hormonal 16/17 year olds in some school though.

So getting on is a matter of luck but no so much pull any more. Working abroad really helped my career in the plc sector - I had industrial experience as well as teaching experience. I had travelled and grafted and do you know, that's what it boils down to. I never take my good luck for granted. It is soul destroying and it is a pain and you never know what the eventual outcome will be when you are teacher job hunting. All I can say is the wheel turns ... if you're persistent and good enough it'll come round for you

dillo2k10

spurious wrote: »

Where did you get that over 50% of teachers are over 50?
Not in any school I know.

I dont know where it came from. Thats what my math teacher said though.

gollem_1975

Rosita wrote: »

Do you seriously think that the people who organise and teach that course work only on that course? The Education Department of a University operates many courses. And lecturers operate across different faculties.

So are you are telling me that stopping the running of these training courses would actually COST the country money ? phew I'm not saying I don't believe you but if thats the truth then there must be opportunities for cost savings in this area.

Meanwhile if you have any suggestions to solve the issue of unemployment among teachers please let us know.

Rosita

gollem_1975 wrote: »

So are you are telling me that stopping the running of these training courses would actually COST the country money ? phew I'm not saying I don't believe you but if thats the truth then there must be opportunities for cost savings in this area.

So are you are telling me that stopping the running of these training courses would actually COST the country money?

This sentence makes no sense to me and relates to nothing I have said. What I am telling you is that your implication that if the course ceased to exist all the costs associated with its provision suddenly evaporate seems dubious.

You appear to believe that the buildings and staff involved in the provision of the PGDE are exclusive to that course and were that course to cease to exist then all of these would be redundant. My understanding is that these people/facilities were/are involved in the provision of many other courses too as certainly the university I attended goes in big time for cross-pollination of courses/faculties.

But then again I only did the PGDE. You have the apparent advantage of lack of familiarity with it so you can afford to make sweeping statements about it that I know make little sense.

Rosita

dillo2k10 wrote: »

I am doing my leaving cert this year and I plan on going into secondary teaching.
I know that there is a big chance that I won't get a job. However over 50% of teachers are aged over 50. So that means that half of teachers will be retired withing the next 15 years. That will be over 10,000 teaching jobs becoming available. Of course class sizes may get much bigger and not all of them will be re-hired.
I was also talking to my school principal and she said that she would prefer to hire newly graduated teachers than those who have been out of work the last few years.

I am also aware of a teacher in my school who is teaching the same subjects that I hope to and he is retiring in about 7 years. My parents are friends with the vice principal and kinda know the principal aswel as a lot of the teachers in the school. So that may help me to get job. But I know that I am not guaranteed one and I am willing to accept that I may not get a job.

This is what I would call forward planning - the Leaving Cert still ahead of you and a specific job in a specific school and the necessary procedure to get it identified already. And I suppose being willing to accept it's not guaranteed is a help, but your parents knowing the Principal and Vice-Principal should definitely swing it I would say.

implausible

dillo2k10 wrote: »

I know that there is a big chance that I won't get a job. However over 50% of teachers are aged over 50. So that means that half of teachers will be retired withing the next 15 years. That will be over 10,000 teaching jobs becoming available.

Your logic and your figures are off there. Even if your figures were right, the retirees will not be automatically replaced by NQTs. If you read regularly through this forum, you will see that there are a huge amount of unemployed teachers, teachers on very low hours and teachers barely getting by on subbing. All of these people will be filling these (dubious) 10,000 positions, before the 15 years worth of graduates from the PGDE and the returning graduates from the UK and that's not accounting for the possibility of the pupil-teacher ratio going up.

If it's your dream job, go for it, just don't go into it thinking that you will have a job at the end of it, never mind a specific one.

gollem_1975

Rosita wrote: »

So are you are telling me that stopping the running of these training courses would actually COST the country money?

This sentence makes no sense to me and relates to nothing I have said. What I am telling you is that your implication that if the course ceased to exist all the costs associated with its provision suddenly evaporate seems dubious.

so we are in agreement then .. i.e. it would not cost the country money if these courses were stopped.

Rosita wrote: »

You appear to believe that the buildings and staff involved in the provision of the PGDE are exclusive to that course and were that course to cease to exist then all of these would be redundant.

I never said ALL resources would be redundant.
If these courses were stopped there would be SOME redundancies and most definitely they're should be cost savings and not incurring of additional cost as you inferred by your "government have a vested interest in keeping the courses going because they get €6500 per student". but anyway I have taken this argument with regards to the costs of providing teacher training to the state as far as I want to in this thread. I don't think it adds much to the discussion of currently unemployed teachers so lets agree to disagree.

Rosita wrote: »

My understanding is that these people/facilities were/are involved in the provision of many other courses too as certainly the university I attended goes in big time for cross-pollination of courses/faculties.

But then again I only did the PGDE. You have the apparent advantage of lack of familiarity with it so you can afford to make sweeping statements about it that I know make little sense.

just because someone hasn't done a PGDE and is not a teacher doesn't mean I can't have an opinion and share it on a public forum.

fair play to you for engaging with me,even though you found my posts a bit confusing and haven't yourself responded to my prompting for any suggestions of your own.

Cost savings will need to be made over the coming years in the university sector too just like every other area of public spending.
The PGDE might only be one course of the many that are run by numerous colleges at the moment. in the future who is to say that there won't be rationalisation in the sector. i.e. does a country with the pop of greater manchester really need so many colleges. Interesting debate in itself but one for another day.

Miss Lockhart

gollem_1975 wrote: »

so we are in agreement then .. i.e. it would not cost the country money if these courses were stopped.

The dip costs around €6500. I don't think it actually costs the university that much to run.

For example, NUIM take in about €1 million every year they run the course.

If they lose that income then yes, funding for NUIM is decreased and the need for government funding increased.

dillo2k10

deemark wrote: »

Your logic and your figures are off there. Even if your figures were right, the retirees will not be automatically replaced by NQTs. If you read regularly through this forum, you will see that there are a huge amount of unemployed teachers, teachers on very low hours and teachers barely getting by on subbing. All of these people will be filling these (dubious) 10,000 positions, before the 15 years worth of graduates from the PGDE and the returning graduates from the UK and that's not accounting for the possibility of the pupil-teacher ratio going up.

If it's your dream job, go for it, just don't go into it thinking that you will have a job at the end of it, never mind a specific one.

I know now that the figures are all wrong. They were just given to me by another teacher.

And if 10,000 positions were to become available I would think that the schools would rather have NQT rather then people who havn't done anything in teaching for the last 10 years.

I know that I may not have any job at the end of it all, but it is definitely the job that I want. I will continue to go after it until the end. I will also not be stopping at the degree I get at the start. I will be going for my masters at least.

There is a chance that the number jobs will go down even further, but there is also a chance that the gov will start putting more money into education in 5-10 years time.

Rosita

gollem_1975 wrote: »

1) so we are in agreement then .. i.e. it would not cost the country money if these courses were stopped.

2) just because someone hasn't done a PGDE and is not a teacher doesn't mean I can't have an opinion and share it on a public forum.

1) What I wrote was "This sentence makes no sense to me". Not sure how you see that as synonymous with "it would not cost the country money if these courses were stopped". It was merely an acknowledgement that I hadn't a clue what you were trying to say.

2) Indeed. It just means that your opinion is much less informed than it might be. I never questioned your right to have an opinion, I simply asserted my right to suggest that the opinion you offer is coming from a position of complete ignorance of the PGDE and the set-up in the average university - and it shows as far as I can see.

Rosita

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

The dip costs around €6500. I don't think it actually costs the university that much to run.

I think anybody familiar with the Dip would be astonished if it was not making a tidy sum for the universities given the phenomenal revenue garnered every year and the apparently relatively low cost of provision with more than half the time during the course spent away from the university. It's one of the great 'bums on seats' courses - no major equipment required and I'd be surprised if the first 40 or 50 students didn't cover the entire cost of the course provision.

chunli_boom

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

(i dont know how to do the quote thing sorry!see IT is important in schools!)



oh my god its attitudes like this that really kill me. I am a cspe teacher and when taught properly and passionately by a trained teacher (ie some one who a degree in politics or sociology) it is a vital part of a students life as a citizen. if cspe was taken more seriously in schools and by the department of edu we wouldnt have this apathetic attitude to the mess the country is in that we currently have. i remember even in my politics lectures that barely anyone even voted. at times like these it is vital to get rid of the 'doss' attitude that surrounds cspe and make it a vital subject.

give it at least 3 classes a week. help make kids realise that being a good citizen and being aware of the world around you is actually, believe it or not, more valuable to your life on a whole as opposed to quadratic equations or 'did maire go to the siopa' in the irish listening tape.

im sick of people telling me that i only have technically one subject with history and that cspe doesnt count. last yr in my dip two of the cspe teachers in the school didnt even vote. great way to encourage the importance of civic life in ireland!

gaeilgegrinds1

Just to clarify those figures, 35% of teachers have over 20 years service, not half. Also there are a lot of unemployed teachers who are waiting for all these supposed jobs out there. I'd still not let it put me off but would choose my subjects carefully and take college seriously enough to do well.

implausible

dillo2k10 wrote: »

And if 10,000 positions were to become available I would think that the schools would rather have NQT rather then people who havn't done anything in teaching for the last 10 years.

I think you're missing the point - there are thousands of unemployed and subbing NQTs and teachers who only have a few hours looking for jobs at the moment. These numbers are only going to be added to every year as new graduates come out of PGDE courses, which should really be reducing their intake to reflect this.

I'm not trying to put you off, just arguing the point about the employment prospects. Teaching is a great job if you love it and can get a position.:)

dillo2k10

deemark wrote: »

I think you're missing the point - there are thousands of unemployed and subbing NQTs and teachers who only have a few hours looking for jobs at the moment. These numbers are only going to be added to every year as new graduates come out of PGDE courses, which should really be reducing their intake to reflect this.

I'm not trying to put you off, just arguing the point about the employment prospects. Teaching is a great job if you love it and can get a position.:)

I do agree that they should be taking in less teachers to train.

I would at least cut it in half (if not more) and increase the requirements too.

bbbbbaaaaa

dambarude wrote: »

I'm no good to you, I'm a primary teacher in training. Ask me again in two years time when I'm sure it'll be even worse... Judging by the budget announcements at any rate.

Your prediction was so right. I know so many newly qualified primary teachers who haven't had an hours teaching since they qualified. The Department of Education needs to wake up and realise what is going on. Their rule on completing a one-year probationary period is absurd considering that it is not possible to get a one-year contract in a school. This probationary requirement should be scrapped immediately as students of primary teaching have had sufficient study and teaching practice demanding long hard hours of preparatory work which puts enormous pressure on them. These inspectors could be doing more productive work instead of putting more pressure on newly qualified teachers.
I agree with the thread saying that the control should be with the INTO and not with the school principals and certainly not with the parish priest.
The INTO should form a panel giving teachers a fair chance at getting temporary work and ensuring that someone from the INTO is on the interview panel for permanent positions. At present, teaching is wide open to corruption and when jobs are scarse, those in power will look after their own. I hope the teacher training colleges will reduce the numbers of places available and stop flooding the country with primary teachers since there are no jobs available for them.

Fuinseog

chunli_boom wrote: »

Just wondring if there is any definite figures for the amount of unemployed teachers out there?

Or better yet the number of unemployed NQTs? I'm just feeling so down that I've worked so hard last year in the P.G.D.E course and I haven't even gotten an interview....boourns!

unless you have a very obscure subject combination there are plenty of jobs out there. the problem is having to move to another town, which a lot of people these days are not prepared to do. they would rather stay at home, say there are no jobs and live off the generous welfare payments than move to where the jobs are.

implausible

bbbbbaaaaa wrote: »

Their rule on completing a one-year probationary period is absurd considering that it is not possible to get a one-year contract in a school. This probationary requirement should be scrapped immediately.

I'm not sure I agree with the probationary period being scrapped, but they should be more open to letting an NQT complete it over a longer length of time or by accumulating subbing work.

the control should be with the INTO and not with the school principals and certainly not with the parish priest.

In fairness, you can't take the school principal out of the equation when appointing a new teacher and if you posted anywhere but in this forum, you would get crucified for suggesting that a union run primary schools:eek:

I hope the teacher training colleges will reduce the numbers of places available and stop flooding the country with primary teachers since there are no jobs available for them.

+1

gollem_1975

Rosita wrote: »

1) What I wrote was "This sentence makes no sense to me". Not sure how you see that as synonymous with "it would not cost the country money if these courses were stopped". It was merely an acknowledgement that I hadn't a clue what you were trying to say.

2) Indeed. It just means that your opinion is much less informed than it might be. I never questioned your right to have an opinion, I simply asserted my right to suggest that the opinion you offer is coming from a position of complete ignorance of the PGDE and the set-up in the average university - and it shows as far as I can see.

I may have started out with a "position of ignorance" but I'm a quick learner

So with your lower level of ignorance about these matters what suggestions do you have?

Are you happy enough with keeping things the way they are ?

gollem_1975

Rosita wrote: »

I think anybody familiar with the Dip would be astonished if it was not making a tidy sum for the universities given the phenomenal revenue garnered every year and the apparently relatively low cost of provision with more than half the time during the course spent away from the university. It's one of the great 'bums on seats' courses - no major equipment required and I'd be surprised if the first 40 or 50 students didn't cover the entire cost of the course provision.

good answer.

this is basically a straight answer to a question I asked you a few pages back.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68802456&postcount=66

we got there eventually.

Gollem