More teacher bashing, when will it ever end?

Ambersky

Three teachers in our very small school got contracts of indefinite duration last year.
Two of those have been working for something like 8 or 10 hours per week but have been working in the school for about eight years.
They both try to suppliment their income and get whatever work they can in other schools.
Now they think their hours are in question anyway as they tell me the contract doesnt state exactly how many hours per week they are contracted to work for and the principal has been dropping hints about cut backs.

Godge

rainbowtrout wrote: »

How do you know, do you have figures to back that up?



Again, how do you know?

I've just done a quick tally in my head and we have about 14 people who are not on full hours in my school. A few of them are on CIDs for less than 18 hours, so while they have some security they won't have full hours in the long run. But I'm sure if I had posted that you would have said the same about my school.

As permanent staff are retiring and many have in the last few years, they are not being replaced by teachers who are given full hours, they are being replaced by 2 teachers given half hours. You might argue that this employs 2 people instead of one and it does and I'm sure those people are delighted to get hours because they are so hard to come by, but the reality is that a lot of teachers find that their hours aren't increasing and they are not brought up to full hours in the four year run up to CID, they are being kept on low hours, usually about 14-16, enough to keep them interested in the job, with perhaps the implied incentive of full hours if they stay, but not enough to bring them up to the magical 18 that will get them a full contract in the long run.

I've seen more than 20 new staff start in my school over the last 6-7 years and only 3 of them are now on full hours. One, because she has a subject that no one else has, so she had to get the hours and the other two because they were on 18 hours in their fourth year and were entitled to get CIDs for full hours in their fifth year - the principal did try to get out of it, but the fact of the matter is that he slipped up in giving them more than 18 hours in their fourth year without realising so he had to give them full contracts legally - not that he wanted to. He's made sure not to do that since to any other teacher following on.

You have 14 teachers not on full hours in your school. Does that include those who have volunteered for job-sharing? What is the total number of teachers in your school?

I would agree that there has been a trend in the last few years increasing the number of recently-recruited teachers who are not on full hours but the post I was replying to stated that the majority of all teachers are not on full hours which is incorrect.

rainbowtrout

Godge wrote: »

You have 14 teachers not on full hours in your school. Does that include those who have volunteered for job-sharing? What is the total number of teachers in your school?

I would agree that there has been a trend in the last few years increasing the number of recently-recruited teachers who are not on full hours but the post I was replying to stated that the majority of all teachers are not on full hours which is incorrect.

There are no teachers on job share in my school at the moment. I would say that we have (excluding principal and deputy principal) about 30 staff including all those people not on full hours. That's 30 bodies, not 30 whole time equivalents. So that's about half our staff and that's the way it's heading in many schools.

There are still a lot of teachers who are on full hours, but those that entered teaching in the 70s are now coming to the end of their careers. Give it another 5 years and between retirements, cutbacks and the division of full time jobs into multiple part time jobs there will be very few people on full hours in schools.

Godge

rainbowtrout wrote: »

There are no teachers on job share in my school at the moment. I would say that we have (excluding principal and deputy principal) about 30 staff including all those people not on full hours. That's 30 bodies, not 30 whole time equivalents. So that's about half our staff and that's the way it's heading in many schools.

There are still a lot of teachers who are on full hours, but those that entered teaching in the 70s are now coming to the end of their careers. Give it another 5 years and between retirements, cutbacks and the division of full time jobs into multiple part time jobs there will be very few people on full hours in schools.

That still means 32 teachers in the school, 18 on full hours, only 14 on less than full hours, which means the majority are on full hours. Of that 14, you haven't clarified whether any of them are by choice - women with young children etc. and in WTEs, the proportion on full-time hours is obviously higher.

There will always be a significant proportion on part-time hours in smaller second-level schools especially when schools are looking to offer the widest range of options to students rather than looking after the needs of teachers (which would have been the attitude thirty years ago).

The solution is amalgamations where possible of smaller second-level schools which means the school can look after both priorities - the students wide choices and the staff who want full-time contracts.

Consuelano

Godge wrote: »

That still means 32 teachers in the school, 18 on full hours, only 14 on less than full hours

What on earth do you mean only 14?

<snip>

rainbowtrout

Godge wrote: »

That still means 32 teachers in the school, 18 on full hours, only 14 on less than full hours, which means the majority are on full hours. Of that 14, you haven't clarified whether any of them are by choice - women with young children etc. and in WTEs, the proportion on full-time hours is obviously higher.

There will always be a significant proportion on part-time hours in smaller second-level schools especially when schools are looking to offer the widest range of options to students rather than looking after the needs of teachers (which would have been the attitude thirty years ago).

The solution is amalgamations where possible of smaller second-level schools which means the school can look after both priorities - the students wide choices and the staff who want full-time contracts.

What exactly is your problem? The proportion is higher but not by much.

That's a huge number of people who are not in full time jobs.

I shouldn't need to clarify the status of any of those people. I have yet to meet a teacher who is on part time hours by choice, every part time teacher I know is striving to get more hours on their timetable not to get rid of them. It's hard enough to come by a teaching job of any type in the first place, and even harder to cling on to it for four years to get an evermore elusive CID. The more hours they have the stronger their position in the school. I already stated that none of the teachers in my school are on job share, a luxury only available to those on full hours.

I exclude the principal and deputy principal from my count because every school has one of each, and because of the nature of their positions regardless of the size of the school both are full time permanent positions.


Of course there will always be some part time teachers, but there is no need to split contracts like is happening in so many schools today. E.g. a teacher of French and Irish retired in my school last year. A common enough combination. The position could have easily been filled by one teacher but instead was split into two jobs. Irish is a core subject and French is a popular subject in most schools because of the language requirement in so many third level colleges. It's by far the most popular foreign language subject at Junior Cert and Leaving Cert. So hiring one teacher on full hours for the two subjects wouldn't have enhanced the subject choice in my school and it would have given one teacher a decent contract. Instead there are two teachers on 11-12 hours who will be waiting for the scraps in September, hoping they'll get thrown a CSPE, SPHE or computers class to bring their hours up.

E.T.

Consuelano wrote: »

<snip abusive post>

Unfortunately many people think that just having gone through the school system as a pupil makes them an expert on the entire system from all sides. Get used to it, it doesn't go away!

Godge

rainbowtrout wrote: »

What exactly is your problem? The proportion is higher but not by much.

That's a huge number of people who are not in full time jobs.

I shouldn't need to clarify the status of any of those people. I have yet to meet a teacher who is on part time hours by choice, every part time teacher I know is striving to get more hours on their timetable not to get rid of them. It's hard enough to come by a teaching job of any type in the first place, and even harder to cling on to it for four years to get an evermore elusive CID. The more hours they have the stronger their position in the school. I already stated that none of the teachers in my school are on job share, a luxury only available to those on full hours.

I exclude the principal and deputy principal from my count because every school has one of each, and because of the nature of their positions regardless of the size of the school both are full time permanent positions.


Of course there will always be some part time teachers, but there is no need to split contracts like is happening in so many schools today. E.g. a teacher of French and Irish retired in my school last year. A common enough combination. The position could have easily been filled by one teacher but instead was split into two jobs. Irish is a core subject and French is a popular subject in most schools because of the language requirement in so many third level colleges. It's by far the most popular foreign language subject at Junior Cert and Leaving Cert. So hiring one teacher on full hours for the two subjects wouldn't have enhanced the subject choice in my school and it would have given one teacher a decent contract. Instead there are two teachers on 11-12 hours who will be waiting for the scraps in September, hoping they'll get thrown a CSPE, SPHE or computers class to bring their hours up.

look, I don't doubt that you are annoyed by all of this but you already mentioned in a previous post that your principal has a particular policy of hiring part-time teachers.

I know, from my experience (not as a pupil - haven't been one for a very long time) that that is not the case across the education sector, though it is more prevalent at second-level than first-level.

It also is a temporary issue, school managements are trying to keep as many people in employment as possible, when the pupil numbers increase (school amalgamations anyone? economic recovery?) they will try and look after the part-timers and get them full hours. Much of the anger on forums like this will dissipate eventually.

Godge

E.T. wrote: »

Unfortunately many people think that just having gone through the school system as a pupil makes them an expert on the entire system from all sides. Get used to it, it doesn't go away!

A very glib comment.

If one wanted to be facetious, derogatory or equally glib, one could say that someone having gone through the school system as a pupil, continued on to a quasi-school system in St. Pats or an arts degree/H.Dip and returned to a school system as a teacher would have little experience of the real working world that so many of the population face each day and that that makes them an expert on nothing.

Thankfully, while I have heard that sentiment repeated a number of times, I do not share it. I have a lot of respect for teachers and what they do, many of them in difficult situations, but that doesn't mean they (and particularly those they send out to represent them or the bad ones that are defended) are not without serious flaws.

spurious

Consuelano - of course debate can get heated, but please don't post abusive posts.
Attack the post, not the poster.
Thanks.

HellFireClub

Powerhouse wrote: »

You appear to be confusing the role of an employer with that of a union. It is the employer's job to set the agenda regarding pay, security and tenure, and a union's job to represent the interests of their members in that context. Same as in any industry really.

Eh not reallly the same as in any industry in the private sector. These well established norms in the public sector such as:

(1) Automatic annual increments. In the private sector you typically have to make a case for these by way of a formal productivity, twice yearly review system, they are certainly not handed out automatically.

(2) Jobs for Life/Cannot be Fired. I can't think of any private sector industry where people cannot be dismissed if they are failing to do their job as described.

These norms are poisonous and allow disenfranchised employees (such as teachers who have had their pay cut), to sit back and do as little as they can in the full knowledge that they cannot be fired or have pay increments witheld for performance issues, no moreso than in an economic depression like what we are in now, when pay has been cut.

You have no idea how completely and utterly offensive these norms are now to the vast majority of people in the private sector who have suffered massive austerity, to see such highly paid people so utterly protected and cossetted from any real effect of this economic depression.

rainbowtrout

Godge wrote: »

look, I don't doubt that you are annoyed by all of this but you already mentioned in a previous post that your principal has a particular policy of hiring part-time teachers.

I know, from my experience (not as a pupil - haven't been one for a very long time) that that is not the case across the education sector, though it is more prevalent at second-level than first-level.

It also is a temporary issue, school managements are trying to keep as many people in employment as possible, when the pupil numbers increase (school amalgamations anyone? economic recovery?) they will try and look after the part-timers and get them full hours. Much of the anger on forums like this will dissipate eventually.

Well what is your experience exactly? Because I'm not just speaking about my school. My school isn't the only place this is going on. A scan of the jobs in the paper over the summer should be enough to tell you that. This is the wrong time of year to look at job vacancies because it's too early for next years positions but if you looked at them a few months ago a lot of the jobs advertised are not on full hours.

Keeping teachers on low hours was happening before the arse fell out of the economy. It started when CIDs came in.

Godge

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Well what is your experience exactly? Because I'm not just speaking about my school. My school isn't the only place this is going on. A scan of the jobs in the paper over the summer should be enough to tell you that. This is the wrong time of year to look at job vacancies because it's too early for next years positions but if you looked at them a few months ago a lot of the jobs advertised are not on full hours.

Keeping teachers on low hours was happening before the arse fell out of the economy. It started when CIDs came in.

I don't want to go into detail on my experience as I am sure you wouldn't want to state which school you are from. However, while I have not worked as a teacher, I do have work experience in the education sector and I have been on more than one school board of management.

rainbowtrout

Godge wrote: »

I don't want to go into detail on my experience as I am sure you wouldn't want to state which school you are from. However, while I have not worked as a teacher, I do have work experience in the education sector and I have been on more than one school board of management.

Well that's fair enough, I wasn't asking you to name where you worked, but being on a BOM is not the same as being in a classroom.


Here's an example of the reality of contracted hours for a typical teacher:

Before CIDs came in a few years back, a friend of mine had her hours cut from 22 to 14 due to cutbacks in the school. The attitude she had from many non teacher friends was 'aren't you lucky to have a job etc.' The reality for her was a 33% pay cut, in a job where she was still in 5 days a week and while she had more classes off, because of the nature of teaching, it doesn't allow you go off and get part time work during those hours, so she was down a considerable amount of money in her wages.


That is the reality today for many teachers getting contracts on low hours. Classes are spread across the week, they can't avail of other part time work because their hours for the most part are spread right across the school day (I know they might get subbing in school, but this varies from place to place and is not guaranteed), and don't have many real opportunities to improve their lot so to speak.

Every now and again there are threads on here from new teachers inquiring if they can sign on because they are only on 7 or 8 hours. If you worked in a private sector job and could only get work 2 days a week you would be allowed sign on for the other three days. If you work 7 or 8 hours a week in teaching across 5 days you can't. Nor are you in a position to take up other work between 9-4 for the most part.

Ms.M

Originally Posted by Hellfire Club

(1) Automatic annual increments. In the private sector you typically have to make a case for these by way of a formal productivity, twice yearly review system, they are certainly not handed out automatically.

(2) Jobs for Life/Cannot be Fired. I can't think of any private sector industry where people cannot be dismissed if they are failing to do their job as described.

You have no idea how completely and utterly offensive these norms are now to the vast majority of people in the private sector who have suffered massive austerity, to see such highly paid people so utterly protected and cossetted from any real effect of this economic depression.

Hi there Hellfire,
I'm a teacher of seven years in my thirties, and I'm still looking for a permanent job. To put this in private sector language, I've been fired from seven jobs. Not for any incompetency on my part. I haven't a single friend or sibling in the private sector who has received similar treatment or anywhere near it.

In this time, despite working my arse off and being held in high-regard by pupils, my wage has barely changed since I started. In fact, there is nothing in terms of increasing productivity I can do to increase my chances of getting a job or increasing my salary. Meanwhile my sisters and brothers who have the same work ethic as me are getting promoted. Their salaries are and will always be far higher than mine. (even taking into account my holidays)

My only point is that there are plenty of advantages to working in the private sector over teaching. And I don't resent my friends for them. I don't think my friends and family will resent me when I eventually get to work and live in the one place for more than a year.

And I don't think you're entitled to either.

Ms.M

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Well that's fair enough, I wasn't asking you to name where you worked, but being on a BOM is not the same as being in a classroom.


Here's an example of the reality of contracted hours for a typical teacher:

Before CIDs came in a few years back, a friend of mine had her hours cut from 22 to 14 due to cutbacks in the school. The attitude she had from many non teacher friends was 'aren't you lucky to have a job etc.' The reality for her was a 33% pay cut, in a job where she was still in 5 days a week and while she had more classes off, because of the nature of teaching, it doesn't allow you go off and get part time work during those hours, so she was down a considerable amount of money in her wages.


That is the reality today for many teachers getting contracts on low hours. Classes are spread across the week, they can't avail of other part time work because their hours for the most part are spread right across the school day (I know they might get subbing in school, but this varies from place to place and is not guaranteed), and don't have many real opportunities to improve their lot so to speak.

Every now and again there are threads on here from new teachers inquiring if they can sign on because they are only on 7 or 8 hours. If you worked in a private sector job and could only get work 2 days a week you would be allowed sign on for the other three days. If you work 7 or 8 hours a week in teaching across 5 days you can't. Nor are you in a position to take up other work between 9-4 for the most part.

I probably should have read this before I posted! Here here rainbowtrout!
Though I have to say none of my buddies say to me "Aren't you lucky you have a job?". They know how hard I work and are supportive of my pursuit of a permanent post.
I actually think that the vast majority of people working in the private sector do understand the teaching profession. I don't want my above post to be seen as a dig at the private sector. I have plenty of buddies who work hard and deserve promotions in my opinion.
I think the public versus private thing is spin and bait for not particularly smart people from all walks to be honest, but thought I might need to take one step back to take two paces forward.

average_runner

I dont think what the goverment doing is a teacher bashing, i think the goverment are preparing everyone in the PS for big wage decrease or a cull in numbers.

The cost of the PS is too much to the tax payer and you cant expect the non PS tax payer to take a further hit for PS while the PS keeps all its benefits.

The goverment needs to cut 10-15% of the salaries there.
Stop automatic promotions and salary increase base on years of service, but do it on how good they are. Reward the good workers.

Dont cut the education finances, yes cut their salaries but the not the funds for schools.


I heard a good comment from the ASTI Union leader, Teachers are responsible for the boom, we encourage the kids to work in building trade etc.

When asked are they responsible for the recession because they encourage kids to leave school early and be untrained and hence on the dole, they had no answer for that.


Teachers do a very important job, but sadly half of them in my experience arent up to it but are never fired, this has to changed.

dg647

average_runner wrote: »

I dont think what the goverment doing is a teacher bashing, i think the goverment are preparing everyone in the PS for big wage decrease or a cull in numbers.

The cost of the PS is too much to the tax payer and you cant expect the non PS tax payer to take a further hit for PS while the PS keeps all its benefits.

The goverment needs to cut 10-15% of the salaries there.
Stop automatic promotions and salary increase base on years of service, but do it on how good they are. Reward the good workers.

Dont cut the education finances, yes cut their salaries but the not the funds for schools.


I heard a good comment from the ASTI Union leader, Teachers are responsible for the boom, we encourage the kids to work in building trade etc.

When asked are they responsible for the recession because they encourage kids to leave school early and be untrained and hence on the dole, they had no answer for that.


Teachers do a very important job, but sadly half of them in my experience arent up to it but are never fired, this has to changed.

This is one question that I would really like answered. How do people propose that you reward the good teachers, what criteria do you propose be used?

Ms.M

Ms.M wrote: »

...............

Hi there Hellfire,
I'm a teacher of seven years in my thirties, and I'm still looking for a permanent job. To put this in private sector language, I've been fired from seven jobs. Not for any incompetency on my part. I haven't a single friend or sibling in the private sector who has received similar treatment or anywhere near it.

......................

To put that in private sector language you've has 7 contracts that ended

Plenty of folks working in the private sector are contract workers, many by choice, many more due to head count limitations in companies.

chippers

The following is a good read on the realities of teaching in Ireland today from the perspective of a teacher. Apologies if it's been posted all ready:

http://www.morestresslesssuccess.ie/2012/04/want-to-be-teacher-why-bother.html?spref=fb&m=1

Toto Wolfcastle

average_runner wrote: »

Teachers do a very important job, but sadly half of them in my experience arent up to it but are never fired, this has to changed.

Hi average_runner. Can I ask you to clarify what you mean by the bit in bold? I presume you mean from your experience of teachers in school rather than teachers as a whole? Thanks.

average_runner

Bobblehead Panda wrote: »

Hi average_runner. Can I ask you to clarify what you mean by the bit in bold? I presume you mean from your experience of teachers in school rather than teachers as a whole? Thanks.

Basically what i meant was the following:

There are teachers in schools who cant teach, cant express themselves to the students or explain something clearly to them. Some teachers rely too much on answer books and when a student challenges the teacher, the teacher lacks what to do.

But there is alot of great teachers out there also.

average_runner

dg647 wrote: »

This is one question that I would really like answered. How do people propose that you reward the good teachers, what criteria do you propose be used?

Same way you do in private sector, have appraisal forms where targets are met, continous assessment of the teacher. On spot class checks.
All these things will help.

Toto Wolfcastle

Thanks for that. You're right, of course. Can I just ask though in future that you put it that way rather than just saying 'half of them.' It's against the charter to generalise and while I realise it's just a difference in language, it ensures that you don't get infracted needlessly. Thanks.

gaeilgebeo

average_runner wrote: »

Same way you do in private sector, have appraisal forms where targets are met, continous assessment of the teacher. On spot class checks.
All these things will help.

So do you think a "spot check" on a really difficult class with serious learning and behavioural difficulties is going to be the same as a "spot check" on a class of straight A high achievers?

If I can get my really weak class through a Junior Cert exam and they receive Cs and Ds(which is an excellent achievement for them) as opposed to my colleague who had a much stronger class who got As and Bs, is my "appraisal" going to be worse than my colleagues? As on paper my results won't be as high?

How do you set the criteria for this "appraisal"?
How do you set the "targets" you refer to?
How will "continually assessing" a teacher work?

byhookorbycrook

average_runner wrote: »

Same way you do in private sector, have appraisal forms where targets are met, continous assessment of the teacher. On spot class checks.
All these things will help.

Define targets. I teach in a reasonably affluent school.More of our children would have some parental support and read/be read to at home than some other schools I know of. So, my children will probably perform better in tests, does that make me a better teacher?

Ditto to assessments.On the spot checks are known as incidentals and are common in primary level, as are whole school evaluations. Our principal reviews all the results of the standardised maths and literacy tests each year. One class have had weaker results most of the way up, which to someone not involved in education would seem like a failure. However, on reviewing their IQ tests, the class in general are weaker academically and many of the kids are performing as would be expected, while some are actually above what the IQ tests would indicate.

Powerhouse

HellFireClub wrote: »

Eh not reallly the same as in any industry in the private sector.

Eh, yes, really the same as in any industry in the private sector. You should have read the post to which I replied. I was not talking about working conditions - I was referring to the respective roles of employers and unions in relation to pay.

In the private sector (and in the public too) employers ultimately decide pay and conditions while unions argue the toss over various aspects of pay and conditions exerting whatever influence they can. But the employer has to deal with the unions (where this applies) in whatever way best benefits the employer and eventually take responsibility for its decisions. (This is largely the same type of mutual pressure relationship as between retailers and consumers in relation to price.)

There are lots of examples in both public and more especially the private sector where exmployers took their eyes off the ball in this respect and badly misjudged their business but ultimately it is their responsibility to run their affairs in a viable manner. Unfortunately with regard to teh private sector (and this is an opinion which should be voiced a lot more) the rest of us now have to bear the enormous brunt of the inability of many in the private sector to organise a p*ss up in a brewery adequately.

Our tax revenues have gone to pot because the private sector was simply not very good at running its affairs. What good really did targets and appraisals forms do it? Talk is cheap but by their deeds shall you know them.

I know a school Principal whose sister (private sector worker) once got a bonus the size of the Principal's annual salary. That business is now gone belly up. Why wouldn't it be? What a joke! What a farce it is to have to read constant implications that the private sector is some kind of utopia of organisation and invigilation when the reality was for many of them that when handy money came in the front door sensible business practice slipped out the back and they were completely vulnerable when the gravy train shuddered to a halt.

If you want to give a rant about how tough everyone's lot is in the private sector that's fine. But please say it as a general comment rather than a reply to me about something I did not say.

And incidentally, I worked in the private sector, so I know there are people there who wouldn't work to warm themselves. People who wouldn't last a week in a classroom. People who wouldn't have the intelligence and education levels to get there in the first place. And they think they are superior? I also saw phenomenal waste - £220 on a lunch for three people at a restaurant in Dame Street in 1992! People drinking wine like water.

A favourite story of mine is of one guy I worked with who did a Civil Service exam about ten years ago and was offered a job (a high level job in fairness) in the Department of the Taoiseach. He turned it down when he realised the hours he'd be expected to work. You won't read that in the letters to newspapers or on discussion boards but it's true. His private-sector routine was of too much value to him. That company is staring down the toilet too as it happens!

The Black Oil

The auld "teachers should be graded based on their students' results" routine/private sector comparisons concern me a lot. It's no good to offer soundbite solutions without any details.

This discussion on Media Matters, on the US system, might interest some here. The one with Diane Ravitch. Media Matters has a leftward bent, but Ravitch worked for Bush.

Kaner2004

Where I work the salary is 75k + pension + living in Dublin allowance + travel allowance + a couple of other allowances.

That brings the total to 88k.

Now I could work for another company for 88k salary with no allowances.

Its all the same thing. Allowances are part or your salary...

I have a friend who works for a company where he gets 14 pay checks a year instead of 12. One extra in August and one extra in December.
Now this is his yearly salary paid in 14 payments instead of 12.

But when others hear about it they start complaining that he gets 14 months salary a year.

People will never understand anything that is not set up like their own setup.

Teachers are going to get pulled here there and everywhere until they bite back.

Imagine the government sitting in there doing their dirty work.
"Lets charge them a pension levy." - Ok they complained a bit, but didnt strike so it wasnt too bad on them.

"Lets take away something else." - OK, more complaining, but no strike. They obviousl still have too much money.

"Lets take their allowances." - If there is a strike then we'll stop, but if not, what else can we take.

If teachers went on an all out strike for 2 days a week, then people and the government might sit up and take notice of what they do. Or they could just keep talking about how unfairly they are being treated. That wont get them any respect though.

byhookorbycrook

Kaner, I agree that it is time to shout "stop."People seem to detest teachers anyhow so to hell with it, one good all-out few days would work wonders.