Unusual but nice

Juniorhurler

This is from a local paper:D.

http://www.goreyguardian.ie/news/teacher-critics-should-step-into-the-classroom-l-3284118.html

Worth a read

F.A.S.H

Hey, I'm from Wexford too, read this in the paper. Even though he's sticking up for us (Thanks, Shea!) unfortunately he still gets it wrong "a job for life" HA! If you can get one that is. And nothing about the past 3 hurling matches, weekend confirmations / communions and regular abuse that gets thrown at teachers, and thats only primary.

We need a few more people like this in the world, thanks Shea

Mick! 1234

Do people not think 30000 is a little high for someone starting their first teaching post? For example, I believe that vets start at about 25/26000. I just think its a little high compared to what some higher educated/higher caliber students earn when starting out.

spurious

Mick! 1234 wrote: »

Do people not think 30000 is a little high for someone starting their first teaching post? For example, I believe that vets start at about 25/26000. I just think its a little high compared to what some higher educated/higher caliber students earn when starting out.

It's like saying, 'Do people think a Ferrari is too flash for a first time driver's car?'

Yes, it's possible some first time drivers are driving a Ferrari, as it's possible some first time teachers are getting full time jobs, but the reality is most people are on about ten hours, not so much a Ferrari as a clapped out '96 Micra that won't pass the NCT.

Miss Lockhart

Mick! 1234 wrote: »

Do people not think 30000 is a little high for someone starting their first teaching post? For example, I believe that vets start at about 25/26000. I just think its a little high compared to what some higher educated/higher caliber students earn when starting out.

Vets start at whatever they can negotiate - they don't have a payscale, unless they are one of the few employed by the Department of Agriculture.

In my experience vets start on a lot more than 26000 - and so they should, for their expertise, and the hours, stresses, risks and responsibilities they undertake.

evolving_doors

Mick! 1234 wrote: »

Do people not think 30000 is a little high for someone starting their first teaching post? For example, I believe that vets start at about 25/26000. I just think its a little high compared to what some higher educated/higher caliber students earn when starting out.

Do you know how many teachers start out on full hours/30000 mick...?

What makes you so sure that vets are higher educated/higher caliber..? How much more do you value your childs education over minxy the cat' s mange?

Do you think the prospects of attracting teachers of 'good caliber' into the profession will improve by decreasing the salary....dont forget though that teachers dont apply for jobs any more, they apply for hours...

Would a vet be happy to work for less than the dole on a part time ad hoc basis for a couple of years, to maybe get a few ' permanent' CID hours which won't bring you any where near 30000 ¿

You need to turn off the radio and disregard the same old guff that'd been trotted out to get plebs to ring and text in to say how easy teachers have it.... The times have well and truly changed mick!

Heydeldel

E30,000 is perfectly adequate for a professional salary. Surely nurses, garda etc are on something similar?

Mick! 1234

Armelodie wrote: »

What makes you so sure that vets are higher educated/higher caliber..?

Would a vet be happy to work for less than the dole on a part time ad hoc basis for a couple of years, to maybe get a few ' permanent' CID hours which won't bring you any where near 30000 ¿

Well based on the points system and the longer duration/hours etc of the course I think its fair to say they are of higher caliber than someone who takes an "easier" course and gets into teaching through the hDip.

As a matter of fact if you divide out the pay over the 'on call' hours it can often work out substantially less than our high dole!

Ps, minxy is very important to me also!!:D

Juniorhurler

Mick! 1234 wrote: »

Well based on the points system and the longer duration/hours etc of the course I think its fair to say they are of higher caliber than someone who takes an "easier" course and gets into teaching through the hDip.

As a matter of fact if you divide out the pay over the 'on call' hours it can often work out substantially less than our high dole!

Ps, minxy is very important to me also!!:D

Not all teachers did a course and then went on to the dip. A lot of us did concurrent education courses.

Anyway, how do you know that a lot of us did not get as many points as a vet in the LC. Think about aptitude and ability to do a chosen job.

In my other life I saw a vet all but kill a cow at a caesarian section by having her side open for over 3 hours through incompetence. she died from infection. This guy may have got the points to be a vet but is in no way capable of being one.

By the same token some teachers are incompetent. CAO points DO NOT define competence.

whiteandlight

Just as input there, given how competitive it is to get into the HDIP in PAC most people would have an excellent degree (minimum 2:1 but lots of firsts in my class) as well as masters and further qualifications. They wouldn't get into the course without them

chippers

There isn't always a direct correlation between CAO points / years in college and salary earned. Take for example the architect who must get 500 + points and goes to college for 6/7 years. I was in this sector a few years back and the starting salary differed but if an NQT received 25 - 30k per year they would be doing very well.

Compare this to the bus driver who has comparatively very little if any formal qualifications and starts on 28k for Bus Eireann.

By the way I am a teacher with 6 years graduate and postgraduate education. Do I feel my salary reflects my educational attainment....No!!

Miss Lockhart

Mick! 1234 wrote: »

Well based on the points system and the longer duration/hours etc of the course I think its fair to say they are of higher caliber than someone who takes an "easier" course and gets into teaching through the hDip.

Over the past number of years the standards required for entry to the dip have been very high. Also, what makes you think that some teachers entering the dip aren't graduates of such "high caliber" courses? Some of them may even be vets.

Seanchai

The points for the PDE should be based on the subject you want to teach: if you want to teach a subject where there is a relative shortage of teachers - e.g. languages and maths - points are lower. If, however, you want to teach a subject beloved of wafflers where there is no shortage at all - e.g. English and history - then points should be higher.

The current system is a joke, designed entirely to subsidise Education departments of the various universities. Any honest person could concede this.

More long term, teachers should have to do many years teaching practice and study, like in Finland. This current one-year post-graduate teaching qualification - where in many cases teaching is an afterthought for the people in question - and I'm a "teacher" discredits the profession.

Seanchai

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

Over the past number of years the standards required for entry to the dip have been very high. Also, what makes you think that some teachers entering the dip aren't graduates of such "high caliber" courses? Some of them may even be vets.

I don't know have they. I got the maximum possible points (55/56?) before I did the PDE. But I was, quite frankly, a retard when I walked into the classroom. I obviously (given my points) had a very sharp academic intelligence, but teaching activated a distinctly alien range of intelligences, those of interpersonal as well as a different type of creative intelligence. I could feel I was growing in those classes; I could sense the challenge to my intelligence and my traditional way of dealing with things. In a classroom, I was beyond my comfort zone.

People who had better interpersonal and creative intelligences would have been better suited to being a teacher than I was.

Miss Lockhart

Seanchai wrote: »

I don't know have they. I got the maximum possible points (55/56?) before I did the PDE. But I was, quite frankly, a retard when I walked into the classroom. I obviously (given my points) had a very sharp academic intelligence, but teaching activated a distinctly alien range of intelligences, those of interpersonal as well as a different type of creative intelligence. I could feel I was growing in those classes; I could sense the challenge to my intelligence and my traditional way of dealing with things. In a classroom, I was beyond my comfort zone.

People who had better interpersonal and creative intelligences would have been better suited to being a teacher than I was.

I see your point and I understand where you're coming from. Interpersonal intelligence is not something that's easily quantified though.

There's no reason we can't be very choosy about entry to teaching though - requiring people with excellent academic standards, excellent extra-curricular abilities and excellent interpersonal skills.

whiteandlight

Seanchai wrote: »

The points for the PDE should be based on the subject you want to teach: if you want to teach a subject where there is a relative shortage of teachers - e.g. languages and maths - points are lower. If, however, you want to teach a subject beloved of wafflers where there is no shortage at all - e.g. English and history - then points should be higher.

.

The problem right now is there are no full time positions available in any subject really except for the odd maternity leave. All subjects are over supplied, combined with the trend of management to offer smaller and smaller contracts eg 3/22 or5/22 hours means that nobody can get proper work.

There are other factors that should be dealt with but first the numbers on the PGDE will need to be drastically reduced by all colleges. The other side though is that the PGDE is a huge cash cow for colleges so they prefer to offer it to hundreds of students year on year to bring in money not caring whether there are jobs available or not. This is the issue not the points tbh. If the number of places was limited points would go up for all applicants

chippers

Seanchai wrote: »

The points for the PDE should be based on the subject you want to teach: if you want to teach a subject where there is a relative shortage of teachers - e.g. languages and maths - points are lower. If, however, you want to teach a subject beloved of wafflers where there is no shortage at all - e.g. English and history - then points should be higher.

I'm pretty sure this happens to a minor extent already. When I did the PGDE course in UCD the numbers allowed to do business was restricted. We were told that this was due to oversupply of teachers in the marketplace. I'm not sure if it still the case or why only Business was chosen to be restricted as a whole host of subjects could have been deemed to be in oversupply as well.

F.A.S.H

Seanchai wrote: »

The points for the PDE should be based on the subject you want to teach: if you want to teach a subject where there is a relative shortage of teachers - e.g. languages and maths - points are lower. If, however, you want to teach a subject beloved of wafflers where there is no shortage at all - e.g. English and history - then points should be higher.

The current system is a joke, designed entirely to subsidise Education departments of the various universities. Any honest person could concede this.

More long term, teachers should have to do many years teaching practice and study, like in Finland. This current one-year post-graduate teaching qualification - where in many cases teaching is an afterthought for the people in question - and I'm a "teacher" discredits the profession.

So our saying you believe that everyone should lnow what they want to do FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES at 17 and 18 years of age? That is an antiquated notion, and also, people who do the postgraduate have to actually PAY themselves for it, sometimes upwards of €10,000, no such thing as a grant or free education. And it's not just teaching that you can study as a postgrad, they have these things nowadays called "conversion courses" where you can study most subjects as postgrad.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but your not a teacher right? Because if you were you should know that teaching is all about experience and every day you learn something new and store it for future use. You could be in college for 10 years and learn more in one year of teaching, than in all those years of "theory".

These courses certainy do not diecredit the profession, and you offend a lot of people who worked hard for their qualification by saying so.