Who goes? (Please read this Rainbowtrout & Spurious!)

sitstill

I was thinking spurious or rainbowtrout or one of the more experienced posters might give their views on this:

I'm in a disadvantaged school which benefits from a lot of special needs/EAL/traveller hours. It looks like these are going to be considerably cut back to the extent that we may lose a teacher.

So my question is, who goes?

We have a number of teachers who are in their third year of service and one teacher who is in his first year of service. You'd think it's be last in, first out?

But the teacher in his first year is teaching a subject which noone else on the staff has in their degree (but a number have studied it maybe in 1st year etc).

So, in a case like this, would the principal shaft one of the teachers who have been there three years over the new person?!

Thanks

rainbowtrout

Well I had to reply when I saw my username there in shining lights!

It'll probably be one of the third year teachers - it does depend on the subject. If that teacher is needed for that specific subject, i.e. no one else can teach it to LC, then they will have to be kept to meet curricular need.

I can give two specific examples of this happening in my school.

Six or seven years ago we had 9 EPT staff (when the term EPT was still in use). We were a newly amalgamated school and WAY over quota. We were allowed to keep our quota for 1 year and then we would be cut.

Staffing : 2 EPTs - both 16 years exp. One in Business/Maths and one in English/Religion.
1 EPT about 5 years experience Maths/Religion
2 EPTs about 2 years experience : both Business
4 EPTs all 2 years experience: 1 Music/Maths, 1 Art, 1 Home Ec and 1 German/English - all the only teachers of their subject in the school.

The 5 years Maths/Religion teacher and the two 2 year Business teachers got the boot as the two teachers with 16 years experience would have been kept on subject seniority and the 4 specialist subject teachers were needed for their subjects. There were no CIDs back then.

Second example: Have lost 5 positions in last 2 years due to cutbacks. Have a woodwork teacher who until this year had the least number of years completed in the school but is needed for his subject. Other teachers with 1-2 years more experience in the school than him have been let go because the cut had to be made and other teachers could teach their subjects: English, French, Religion etc.

We have hired a metalwork teacher this year due to a retirement on staff. If there are more cuts in the budget this year he will not lose his job because he has a specialist subject and is the only teacher of that subject. We also have a number of teachers who are in their fourth year and due CIDs. They could lose their jobs as they have to be brought back to start their fifth year to be eligible. However I think the most likely scenario is that they will be redeployed (as happened to two teachers this year) or that hours will be cut wherever possible rather than lose one teacher.

I wouldn't look it as as shafting the third year teachers although that depends on the school you are in. The principal has to meet the needs of the school so if say your school offers Spanish and this first year teacher is fully qualified and is needed up to LC level and then there are a couple of teachers who only did it in first year Arts well then you have to keep the qualified teacher. Particularly if the other subjects the third year teachers are currently teaching can be taught by someone else.

The other scenario is that (assuming all teachers in question are on full hours), all three teachers be kept and rather than losing one teacher and keeping two on 22 hours, all three are kept but on 14 hours each or as even as the timetable will allow.

spurious

AFAIK the union position is almost always last in, first out. To be fair, it's the fairest rule, although it does result in subjects being lost. Local arrangements may be different though.

Maybe we need more subjects lost though, to let people know the chaos schools are in. Sometimes we do too good a job 'making do' and covering up for huge holes in the staffing arrangements.

If little Mary can't do German because of the cutbacks maybe the public might finally get a different view as to what goes on in schools other than of course us all sitting on our barnies four months of the year in full time positions, getting paid 80k a year.

seriouslysweet

So the student cannot do the subject or else gets taught by someone without proper knowledge of it? This sucks!

doc_17

Happened at my school a few years ago where a friend was let go and there was a newly appointed religion teacher kept on to meet the needs of the timetable.

ytareh

Yep same here -subject need wins out ...

rainbowtrout

spurious wrote: »

AFAIK the union position is almost always last in, first out. To be fair, it's the fairest rule, although it does result in subjects being lost. Local arrangements may be different though.

Maybe we need more subjects lost though, to let people know the chaos schools are in. Sometimes we do too good a job 'making do' and covering up for huge holes in the staffing arrangements.

If little Mary can't do German because of the cutbacks maybe the public might finally get a different view as to what goes on in schools other than of course us all sitting on our barnies four months of the year in full time positions, getting paid 80k a year.

I'd agree, normally it is last in first out in my place but if you have metalwork classes in every year it's not practical to let go the metalwork teacher in favour of the english teacher who can be replaced from within.

I do agree though that schools should cut back on subjects. We were going to lose subjects off our timetable this year and in the end we lost computers which isn't the end of the world in the greater scheme of things.

Instead the timetable was changed so all 40 min classes are now 35 min classes. Students still get the full complement of subjects just less time at each. Days with 10 class periods are creating quite a bit of strain on teachers and students though. They are wrecked by the time they get to last class as are staff on the day they have 10 in a row.

sitstill

Thanks for the replies guys.

I think that the fairest way to do it is last in, first out - despite the curriculum issues.

It is the fault of the government and their decision to enforce education cutbacks, not a teacher who has been loyal and working hard in a school for three years.

Terri26

If they are in their third year of teaching then this teacher will only have two years extra on the new teacher in the grand scheme of things which is very little. It depends on the subject, if it a subject that has to be taught then a teacher who has teh same subjects as someone else will be let go. How long you are in the school will only win out if it's teh same subject. We lost teachers in our school due to redeployment from another school.

chippers

spurious wrote: »

AFAIK the union position is almost always last in, first out. To be fair, it's the fairest rule, although it does result in subjects being lost.

I would disagree with this comment. This is one of the major downfalls of our public sector. The best person at doing the job should be kept on.

kippy

chippers wrote: »

I would disagree with this comment. This is one of the major downfalls of our public sector. The best person at doing the job should be kept on.

Indeed, thats not really a comment though but a position the unions/management take on staffing in general in the public sector.
Indeed many private organisations operate on a similiar system.....

chippers

spurious wrote: »

AFAIK the union position is almost always last in, first out. To be fair, it's the fairest rule, although it does result in subjects being lost. Local arrangements may be different though.

Maybe we need more subjects lost though, to let people know the chaos schools are in. Sometimes we do too good a job 'making do' and covering up for huge holes in the staffing arrangements.

If little Mary can't do German because of the cutbacks maybe the public might finally get a different view as to what goes on in schools other than of course us all sitting on our barnies four months of the year in full time positions, getting paid 80k a year.

kippy wrote: »

Indeed, thats not really a comment though but a position the unions/management take on staffing in general in the public sector.
Indeed many private organisations operate on a similiar system.....

Apologies i wasn't specific enough. I dont agree with spurios's comment that the 'last in first out rule' is the fairest.

I know this unionised rule will never change as the value of job security is so high.

My school has improved hugely over the last few years as a lot of the 'dead wood' has finally moved on. The school had gone stale and there was a huge imbalance of older staff members. The younger teachers brought in since have brought a huge amount of energy and innovation to the school. There's a buzz in the school which we did not have for a long time.

I'm probably going a bit off track on this one but I do believe the best teachers available should be teaching our students, not just those who have stayed in the same school the longest.

Toto Wolfcastle

I don't agree that it should be last in first out. I think that whatever subject is needed should be what matters. If your job is no longer available then it is no longer available. Plenty of professions do it this way. I know of one man who was working with a company for 15 years. His job title was no longer needed so he was let go.