Permanent job interview

eire32contae

Hi, I had an interview for a permanent teaching job on Monday and haven't heard back since. Just wondering how long it usually takes to hear back? It was a non VEC school. Hate the waiting game!

Crazyteacher

Sorry to disappoint . Many phone the day of or day after the interview. Then again, somebody else may reject an offer and you could be next on line Good luck.

eire32contae

Yeah, I reckon you're right. Aw, Thanks!

ahahah

Permanent job?? Thought they were all gone

TheBody

Unless you were in the job in the first place, I'd say the job was gone in the first place. I don't think they offer permanent jobs to new applicants.

eire32contae

Got my rejection letter in the post this afternoon. Would they bother to interview people if the job was already gone? Oh well. Worth a shot

RealJohn

eire32contae wrote: »

Got my rejection letter in the post this afternoon. Would they bother to interview people if the job was already gone? Oh well. Worth a shot

They usually have to but it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that you had a chance. Good experience anyway.
Better luck next time.

DeeDee89

All the permanent jobs are gone before they are even advertised!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

nineteen

Not true, applicants with more experience will be considered over somebody in the job only a year or two!!! It's a real sting for the person already in the job!!!

Powerhouse

DeeDee89 wrote: »

All the permanent jobs are gone before they are even advertised!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not true. I think this is sometimes a comfort blanket people wrap around themselves when they don't make it but 'all' is a word which should be used carefully. In my school three permanent jobs went to three complete outsiders to the school three years back - two of them NQTs.

RealJohn

NQTs being given permanent jobs rings a whole different set of alarm bells.

dambarude

RealJohn wrote: »

NQTs being given permanent jobs rings a whole different set of alarm bells.

Not necessarily. At primary level at least, I know several people who got permanent jobs immediately after qualifying in the last year. None of them had any connection with the schools and were from different corners of the country.

Because of the nature of contracts and demographics permanent posts are far more likely to appear at primary level though.

rainbowtrout

RealJohn wrote: »

NQTs being given permanent jobs rings a whole different set of alarm bells.

That's how I got my job back in 2001. We are so used to not seeing permanent jobs advertised now that the notion of them going to an outsider, NQT or otherwise has been completely erased from our memories.

rainbowtrout

eire32contae wrote: »

Got my rejection letter in the post this afternoon. Would they bother to interview people if the job was already gone? Oh well. Worth a shot

If the status of a job changes, i.e. part-time to permanent, legally it has to be advertised, even if it is likely that the person who is in the job already will get it. Major pain in the arse for those applying hoping that a job exists and will be filled from open competition.

teacherhead

rainbowtrout wrote: »

If the status of a job changes, i.e. part-time to permanent, legally it has to be advertised, even if it is likely that the person who is in the job already will get it. Major pain in the arse for those applying hoping that a job exists and will be filled from open competition.

And a pain in the arsenal for the school who have a perfectly good teacher but have to run a day of interviews.

All you can do is take a chance, if you're being shortlisted that's a good sign in itself, application etc must be good. Believe it or not you'd see some terrible rubbish coming into schools.

The only way to get good at interviews is by doing them and preparing for well for them.

RealJohn

rainbowtrout wrote: »

That's how I got my job back in 2001. We are so used to not seeing permanent jobs advertised now that the notion of them going to an outsider, NQT or otherwise has been completely erased from our memories.

My objection has nothing to do with the rarity of the occurance. My issue is with the idea that someone who is completely untested in real terms with no actual teaching experience beyond their teaching practice could be given a job from which they can't be sacked provided they manage to tread water until their probationary period is over.

If nothing else, it disincentivises them from ever developing past what they did in college.

rainbowtrout

RealJohn wrote: »

My objection has nothing to do with the rarity of the occurance. My issue is with the idea that someone who is completely untested in real terms with no actual teaching experience beyond their teaching practice could be given a job from which they can't be sacked provided they manage to tread water until their probationary period is over.

If nothing else, it disincentivises them from ever developing past what they did in college.

But that is true of any person who gets a permanent job in any field. And that perpetuates the myth that teachers don't lift a finger once they are made permanent which is very unfair.

RealJohn

rainbowtrout wrote: »

But that is true of any person who gets a permanent job in any field. And that perpetuates the myth that teachers don't lift a finger once they are made permanent which is very unfair.

I agree but most teachers don't get permanent jobs until they've already spent several years working and developing (and those who don't reduce their chances of getting a permanent job). And in fairness, we all know that it's not true to call it a myth either. I imagine most of us have worked with one of those teachers and there are plenty of them across the country. Yes, they're a minority but not as small a minority as we'd like people to think.

TheBody

RealJohn wrote: »

I agree but most teachers don't get permanent jobs until they've already spent several years working and developing (and those who don't reduce their chances of getting a permanent job). And in fairness, we all know that it's not true to call it a myth either. I imagine most of us have worked with one of those teachers and there are plenty of them across the country. Yes, they're a minority but not as small a minority as we'd like people to think.

A big +1. Ignoring this problem doesn't help.

rainbowtrout

I'm not suggesting that they don't exist, but the media would have you believe that all teachers are like that. Have a read of some of the comments on the journal yesterday on the article about the teachers receiving backpay for being on the wrong payscales. Money they were entitled to and there are still people who say they don't deserve it. Having teachers pass comment that backs up this perception doesn't help.

RealJohn

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that they don't exist, but the media would have you believe that all teachers are like that. Have a read of some of the comments on the journal yesterday on the article about the teachers receiving backpay for being on the wrong payscales. Money they were entitled to and there are still people who say they don't deserve it. Having teachers pass comment that backs up this perception doesn't help.

Neither does denying the situation when we're all aware of it. I think it's more helpful to point out that we're aware of it and don't like it any more than non-teachers.

Powerhouse

RealJohn wrote: »

I agree but most teachers don't get permanent jobs until they've already spent several years working and developing (and those who don't reduce their chances of getting a permanent job). And in fairness, we all know that it's not true to call it a myth either. I imagine most of us have worked with one of those teachers and there are plenty of them across the country. Yes, they're a minority but not as small a minority as we'd like people to think.

The 'keep-them-all-on-tenterhooks-and-you'll-get-more-out-of-them' view is superficially attractive but I see little practical application to it in my school experience. The permanent teachers seem to be far more effective, organised, assertive and innovative than the others. I would say a sense of ownership is not least of the reasons. But it's about attitude really and I don't think that a work-ethic evaporates simply because someone has some job security.

marilynhappy

Powerhouse, I agree completely with your sentiments. You phrased it much better than I could have but I agree. I personally feel it is natural to feel more invested in your job when you have job security as, from my experience of temporary contracts, your situation (in terms of subjects taught and the ethos/departments in every different school) can change every year. When you don't have any continuity, I think anxiety and lack of confidence in your job situation can be overwhelming.

RealJohn

There's a balance between the two though. You don't give a permanent job to someone just out of college. It doesn't make sense to do it. All you have to go on is their teaching practice (which you didn't witness) and even if they got a good grade, there could be any number of reasons for that that wouldn't apply to working full time (not least of which being that even if they were teaching in blocks rather than spread out throughout the year, they'd still have half the number of classes and therefore twice the amount of time to prepare for them as they would once they're working full time).

I agree that worrying year to year about your job isn't a positive thing either but that only applies to people who are either unlucky with the jobs they take (wherein they get replaced due to a lack of demand for their subject, teachers returning from leave etc.) or because they're not that good at their job and principals don't want to keep them on long term (in which case they shouldn't have job security, right?). Obviously some unscrupulous principals seem to get rid of people before they have to give them a CID but I don't think that that is (or at least that it hasn't been) the norm and ultimately is to the detriment of the school as much as the teachers in question but there isn't an awful lot that can be done about that under our current system.

I know if I interviewed for a permanent job with five plus years experience and I subsequently heard that a NQT was given the job I'd be very suspicious as to why that was.

rainbowtrout

RealJohn wrote: »

There's a balance between the two though. You don't give a permanent job to someone just out of college. It doesn't make sense to do it. All you have to go on is their teaching practice (which you didn't witness) and even if they got a good grade, there could be any number of reasons for that that wouldn't apply to working full time (not least of which being that even if they were teaching in blocks rather than spread out throughout the year, they'd still have half the number of classes and therefore twice the amount of time to prepare for them as they would once they're working full time).

I agree that worrying year to year about your job isn't a positive thing either but that only applies to people who are either unlucky with the jobs they take (wherein they get replaced due to a lack of demand for their subject, teachers returning from leave etc.) or because they're not that good at their job and principals don't want to keep them on long term (in which case they shouldn't have job security, right?). Obviously some unscrupulous principals seem to get rid of people before they have to give them a CID but I don't think that that is (or at least that it hasn't been) the norm and ultimately is to the detriment of the school as much as the teachers in question but there isn't an awful lot that can be done about that under our current system.

I know if I interviewed for a permanent job with five plus years experience and I subsequently heard that a NQT was given the job I'd be very suspicious as to why that was.

My original point was that I got my job in 2001, when permanency was relatively commonplace and 22 hour EPT contracts could be picked up no problem. Full hours or close to it (18+) was the norm 10 years ago, that seems to have been very quickly forgotten.

What is the difference between a teacher being hired as permanent and teaching 22 hours and a teacher being hired as 22 hours PRPT? They are still doing the same number of hours just the contracts are different so I don't think the whole 'they'll have more time to prepare' washes very well.

Pretty much anyone that graduated with me got full hours when they started teaching as it was the norm 12 years ago and got on with it. It's only in recent years that contracts of 11-17 hours have become commonplace. If NQTs were able to cope with 22 hours a week 12 years ago why wouldn't they be able to do it now? I'd be insulted as an NQT if someone thought I wasn't up to the job just because I was new. Many NQTs are only able to get subbing/maternity leaves because of the lack of jobs at the moment, but many of those contracts are for 22 hours a week because they are covering permanent teachers and they manage fine.

It doesn't happen to graduates in other jobs. They are not told 'well we'll only give you 20 hours, because we're not sure you could cope with a 40 hour working week'. They just get on with it, why should it be any different for a new teacher.

To address the other point, no not every principal is getting rid of staff coming up to CID, but it has been frequently discussed here over the last 5 or 6 years that CIDs for 18+ hours are becoming as rare as hens teeth. They may not be getting rid of people but they are carving up the hours between more and more teachers who are on smaller and smaller hours. As a teacher said to me in my staffroom who is on a 17.20 CID, he's losing approximately 20% of his annual potential earnings each year as his hours will not be increased above 18 in case he goes for an improved CID and looks for 22 hours, and in the long run if that is what he is stuck on for the rest of his life it also has implications for his pension which will be 80% of what it could be and so will the lump sum. That's a lot to lose out on over 30 years for a teacher (and there are plenty like him) who would be more than willing to take on the random computer and SPHE classes that are landed on timetables randomly to bring him up, or indeed take on more of his own subject area as the need arises.

Miss Lockhart

RealJohn wrote: »

I agree that worrying year to year about your job isn't a positive thing either but that only applies to people who are either unlucky with the jobs they take (wherein they get replaced due to a lack of demand for their subject, teachers returning from leave etc.) or because they're not that good at their job and principals don't want to keep them on long term (in which case they shouldn't have job security, right?). Obviously some unscrupulous principals seem to get rid of people before they have to give them a CID but I don't think that that is (or at least that it hasn't been) the norm and ultimately is to the detriment of the school as much as the teachers in question but there isn't an awful lot that can be done about that under our current system.

I just don't think this is an accurate view of the situation at all.

I work in one of the biggest VECs in the country. There are 3 large VEC schools in my locality with which I'm familiar (my own included) - there is not a single teacher under the age of 30 with CID or permanency in any of them. That's around 80/90 teachers, the vast majority of whom have been working within that VEC for 5+ years.

Friends report similar in other schools, VEC and otherwise, countrywide.

Maybe they're all crap teachers. Or maybe they're just all unlucky.

RealJohn

rainbowtrout, I think you're confusing permanent jobs (ie. the ones in which you have 22 hours a week and more importantly, a job you will never realistically lose unless you engage in some sort of gross misconduct) and a full time job (ie. the ones where you have 22 hours a week which include permanent jobs but also include one year full time contracts). I'm talking about the former as that is the subject of the thread.

Miss Lockhart, I'm also working with a large VEC and while I can't talk about the other schools, the situation in my school is the opposite of what you've described - the majority of the staff have been in the school for a while and I'm not aware of anyone who's been in the school for four years or more (which is most of the staff) who isn't on full hours and on a CID or is permanent, regardless of age.
That notwithstanding, I don't dispute that it might well be the practice in some places (and it's quite possible that a VEC is more likely to implement that kind of policy as it can implement it in all schools and thereby not make other schools more attractive for it), I just don't believe that it's widespread.

rainbowtrout

RealJohn wrote: »

rainbowtrout, I think you're confusing permanent jobs (ie. the ones in which you have 22 hours a week and more importantly, a job you will never realistically lose unless you engage in some sort of gross misconduct) and a full time job (ie. the ones where you have 22 hours a week which include permanent jobs but also include one year full time contracts). I'm talking about the former as that is the subject of the thread.

I'm not confusing them at all, but you mentioned how dip students had plenty of time to prepare for classes with time off between their teaching blocks etc, which implies that they wouldn't be able to keep up with the workload of a full time permanent job. I'm just pointing out that whether an NQT is permanent on full hours or part time/sub on full hours they should be well able to cope with the workload.

Their work ethic should be unaffected, in my experience people with a work ethic always have it whether their jobs are permanent or not and those who do the minimum to get by also behave in the same manner regardless of what the contract states.


We had a PE teacher sub with us 7 or 8 years ago. Teacher was out long term sick and he was going to take early retirement at the end of the year so the job was hers for the long term if she wanted it. I was in the staffroom one day when she came in to sit down at a computer and started burning CDs... music ones not anything educational. That's not what the computers are for, but no harm done really, until she said 'rainbowtrout, look out the window at the basketball court there and see how my class are getting on' That was only one of many incidents like that. She wasn't permanent but could have had it if she wanted it but didn't care about the job. On the other hand, plenty of subs have come through the place with no hope of being kept on because they weren't needed and worked their arses off regardless. It's not fair to generalise about NQTs and permanent jobs when some will make a go of it and strive to improve each year and others do not.

RealJohn

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I'm not confusing them at all, but you mentioned how dip students had plenty of time to prepare for classes with time off between their teaching blocks etc, which implies that they wouldn't be able to keep up with the workload of a full time permanent job. I'm just pointing out that whether an NQT is permanent on full hours or part time/sub on full hours they should be well able to cope with the workload.

That wasn't what I was implying at all. I was simply pointing out that a student's grade in their teaching practice doesn't necessarily reflect their actual teaching ability for many reasons and as a result, giving them a permanent job straight out of college is at very least a risk and an unwarranted one at that because while full time contracts weren't rare in the past, permanent jobs have never been thick on the ground as far as I'm aware so a school would almost always have a more experienced option if they had a permanent job to fill. I'm not saying NQTs shouldn't be given full time jobs, I'm just saying that it makes no sense to make anyone in any job permanent if they have no actual experience of doing the job on a full time basis.

RealJohn

I agree with you on the work ethic too by the way but you can fake a work ethic for your dip year, which again is a reason not to give a permanent job to a NQT.
When I was made permanent in my second year in the school, my boss told me he'd have made me permanent in my first year but he wanted to see how I was in the job first. I agreed with his rationale completely. Again, there are many other reasons other than teaching ability that it might not be a good idea to make a person permanent. How they get on with other members of staff, how they deal with parents, whether or not they get involved in extra curricular activities, whether or not they bring anything extra to the school and these are things that, in general, you don't know until they're actually in the job. It's not all about workload and work ethic.

teacherhead

RealJohn wrote: »

.
When I was made permanent in my second year in the school, my boss told me he'd have made me permanent in my first year but he wanted to see how I was in the job first. I agreed with his rationale completely.

It's called probation - every teacher spends their first year on probation regardless of the number of hours. It's up to the principal to have the balls to show them the door if they aren't up to the mark.

The fact remains that full time jobs, permanent, CID or otherwise are rare. And it is also the case that people are being kept below the 18 hour mark due to the 22 hour rule.

In the old days someone could be twt this year and on 20 hours next year if numbers fell or whatever. I had a colleague who started after me in my dept. we were both on 22 hrs. there was a dip in enrolment and he ended up being shared between two schools for the year to keep his hours up. The alternative was to take a cut in his hours which went up the next year in any case.

In the current scenario if you get a CID for 17 hours you can be given extra hours on a pro rata contract on a year by year basis with a specific purpose contract this makes it easier to manage allocations and to be sure that you're not going to have to have a teacher transferred or redeployed.

If you get the 18 hour contract and then are being paid for 22 hours then you count as 1.0 WTE in the allocation instead of 0.818 WTE. These hours have to come from somewhere to be allocated to you so its put you in a subject you're not qualified in or shaft someone else who's unfortunate enough to be there a year less than you.

I do acknowledge that there are unscrupulous people out there doing all sorts of untoward things but in some cases there may be genuine reasons for things. It's important to try to see things from both sides.

RealJohn

teacherhead wrote: »

It's called probation - every teacher spends their first year on probation regardless of the number of hours. It's up to the principal to have the balls to show them the door if they aren't up to the mark.

It's not called probation. I was on probation the following year (and on a separate probation for the first few months of that first year as is the VEC's policy for all new employees) once I actually had the permanent contract but again, you can fake a work ethic and a good attitude for a year. It's harder to do it for two. That was one of the points I was making.

Powerhouse

RealJohn wrote: »

Obviously some unscrupulous principals seem to get rid of people before they have to give them a CID but I don't think that that is (or at least that it hasn't been) the norm and ultimately is to the detriment of the school as much as the teachers in question but there isn't an awful lot that can be done about that under our current system.

There is no little incongruity in the fact that you champion the apparent dangers of job security yet describe Principals who seem to agree as 'unscrupulous'.

RealJohn

Powerhouse wrote: »

There is no little incongruity in the fact that you champion the apparent dangers of job security yet describe Principals who seem to agree as 'unscrupulous'.

I'm starting to wonder if there's any point in continuing to explain myself when some of you seem intent on taking the worst out of everything I say, even though you're having to ignore other parts of what I said in order to do it.
I did not "champion the apparent dangers of job security". I said that giving a permanent job to a NQT is stupid and mentioned being overly secure in their job having done little to earn that security as one reason for this.
I never suggested that people shouldn't be secure in their jobs. There are systems in place designed to give people job security once they've earned it. The unscrupulous principals I've mentioned are those who seek to circumvent those systems purely to avoid giving people CIDs.
I also said that there was no point in pretending that those teachers who do the bare minimum once they're made permanent are few and far between when we all know that they're not. They're a minority certainly but it's still a widespread phenomenon and gives us all a bad name which will take the profession years to shake off, if we ever manage to. Denying their existance or pretending that they are so few in number as to be insignificant only makes it look like we don't care about their willingness to exploit the system and again, makes the whole profession look bad.

teacherhead

I agree with everything you say except the bit about giving an NQT a permanent job.

Give it to them, they're useless, don't probate them. Not a problem really.

marilynhappy

Well, Realjohn I suppose I can see your original point that possibly being made permanent in your first year post-qualification is not the best idea and maybe not necessary. I just hope that there are enough opportunities for permanency and job security further down the line for teachers (without having to wait for years). Perhaps if you could get a CID or panel right after teaching for four consecutive years in different schools as opposed to the same school? I'm no expert on this. I would welcome a system where all your experience could count for something, panel rights or something. (Like the situation in primary schools.) Maybe people won't agree...

drvantramp

RealJohn wrote: »

That wasn't what I was implying at all. I was simply pointing out that a student's grade in their teaching practice doesn't necessarily reflect their actual teaching ability for many reasons and as a result, giving them a permanent job straight out of college is at very least a risk and an unwarranted one at that because while full time contracts weren't rare in the past, permanent jobs have never been thick on the ground as far as I'm aware so a school would almost always have a more experienced option if they had a permanent job to fill. I'm not saying NQTs shouldn't be given full time jobs, I'm just saying that it makes no sense to make anyone in any job permanent if they have no actual experience of doing the job on a full time basis.

I wouldn't worry yourself overly about this "problem".
6 hour short-term contracts are nearly a holy grail at present, horrible.

Pwpane

RealJohn, you're wrong.

Teachers should be permanent and full-time, unless there are exceptional reasons for this. It's good for the teacher, good for the student and good for the school as a whole. A school staff should be a community of different people - male/female, young/old, sporty/arty/intellectual etc. - whose different strengths balance and combine. This group of people make the school.

A teaching staff should not be a hodge-podge of part-timers, job-sharers, and temporary and/or inexperienced staff who come and go with the the hours and days. The timetable may work but the school won't.

You seem to have taken the old notion that 'teachers cannot be fired even though a lot of them are useless' too much to heart (maybe due to constant repetition), internalised it as a guilt you should share from the fact that you're a teacher yourself. You should know that what constitutes an under-performing teacher varies wildly depending on the viewpoint of the commentator.

Most teachers enter the profession starry-eyed with idealism and optimism and many under-performing teachers are made that way by the school system within which they work. There is much that a principal can do nowadays about under-performing teachers - summarily sacking them being the least worthy option. Leadership and personnel management is one of the major functions of a principal.

As stated above, the whole concept of probation was set up to test the day-to-day performance and ability of an NQT in the actual working situation of a full-time teacher. Of course they should be offered permanent and full-time jobs just like anyone else.

RealJohn

Pwpane, your post is only barely worth replying to (for all the effort you put in) and all I'll say is reread what I've actually posted, not what you think I've posted and then address it properly.

seavill

I think this may be a first but I have to agree with RealJohn to a certain degree.

Permanent jobs should be given to people fully deserving of them. However I agree someone walking into one straight from college is less than ideal in my opinion. The current situation of 7 hour contracts and a revolving door of staff is a desperate situation to be in however everyone walking into permanent contracts is not the answer either.

People should be given full hours and after a couple of years of prooving your worth to a school if deserving should be made permanent. I say a couple of years as I again agree judging on a first year may give a false result.

whiteandlight

Hm. I'm torn on this one. In many ways it is ideal to have teachers work a year/two probation in a school before getting a permanent post. However the reality is that teachers could end up on a two year circuit simply due to the type of contracts being offered nowadays.

I do think the discussion is a little moot though as I have not come across an NQT getting a full time RPT, never mind a permanent position in many years. While it did happen in the past, it is simply a different world out there now.

Inspector Coptoor

John is on the money, as usual, as far as I'm concerned.

Teachers should have to spend some time on the trenches, subbing, moving around and getting experience before being made permanent.

It adds to their life experience & the different kids/environments they teach and coping mechanisms they employ will make them better teachers.

All that said, this time period should, in an ideal world, be limited to 3-4 years.

I see Musicmental's point here, I'm about to start my 8th year of teaching & am entering my 2nd year in a school I hope to get a CID in a couple of years. But I've just turned 30 & this lack of status at my age is a bit demoralizing

whiteandlight

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

All that said, this time period should, in an ideal world, be limited to 3-4 years.

I see Musicmental's point here, I'm about to start my 8th year of teaching & am entering my 2nd year in a school I hope to get a CID in a couple of years. But I've just turned 30 & this lack of status at my age is a bit demoralizing

This is the part that should be concerning for everyone. It is demoralising for teachers and damages students to have teachers on a revolving door circuit. I've said it before but arriving into a class to realise you are the 5th or 6th teacher in their junior cycle is a horrific situation for the education system to be in.

rainbowtrout

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

John is on the money, as usual, as far as I'm concerned.

Teachers should have to spend some time on the trenches, subbing, moving around and getting experience before being made permanent.

It adds to their life experience & the different kids/environments they teach and coping mechanisms they employ will make them better teachers.

All that said, this time period should, in an ideal world, be limited to 3-4 years.

I see Musicmental's point here, I'm about to start my 8th year of teaching & am entering my 2nd year in a school I hope to get a CID in a couple of years. But I've just turned 30 & this lack of status at my age is a bit demoralizing

Who wants to be a nomad for 3 or 4 years of their life? I know it happens, and teachers have to move to get jobs, but who actually wants to have to uproot their life every 9 months to a different part of the country, a new school, new staff, new students? There comes a point where it doesn't add much to the experience but leaves a teacher not being able to plan for anything in their personal life because they don't know where they are going to be the following year. That part of life is important too.

Whatever about RealJohn's point about not making NQTs permanent, but I'm actually annoyed at seeing NQTs being relegated to subbing status in this one. They are qualified teachers. They should be allowed to teach and have their own classes. That was the whole point of teaching practice on the dip and the whole purpose of the qualification. People in other professions do not have to deal with this crap, where people in their own profession are going 'ya well you're qualified but we don't think we could let you do any real work on your own for a while'

Inspector Coptoor

That's all well and good Trout, but the fact remains that the job has an oversupply in almost every subject, so it should therefore stand to reason that a teacher with 3-4 years experience should get the nod ahead of an NQT.

I didn't say the situation I outlined was ideal, I just think it's a realistic viewpoint.

I've taught in 3 countries, taught 3 curricula, taught in all boys, all girls, mixed & all this had made me a Better teacher.

I still love the job & want to stick with it as a career despite 8 years of moving around.

it's very easy for someone in your position who got sorted so early in their career to say that, I'm saying all of the above based on my experience.

I could be very bitter about the whole thing, but I'm not.

The 3-4 years of subbing etc would weed out the people in it for the handy, pensionable number.

Powerhouse

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

Teachers should have to spend some time on the trenches, subbing, moving around and getting experience before being made permanent.

It adds to their life experience & the different kids/environments they teach and coping mechanisms they employ will make them better teachers.

This is a highly specious argument in my experience. In my school the status of a teacher is all-important to the students. Any sniff that the teacher might be moving on or is obviously temporary and students regards them (to quote one of them this year) as 'fresh meat'. All a teacher need is experience and 'coping mechanisms' for the students in front of them. Nothing gives them this like a bit of status in the school. A person moving from place to place will always struggle in this respect.

It is odd how some believe that teachers need to be hanging on by their fingernails for years in order to eventually do their job well and acquire experience. Thank heavens it doesn't work like this in all walks of life.

Inspector Coptoor

This is what happens when older, permanent teachers continually sell their younger counterparts down the Swanee

RealJohn

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Whatever about RealJohn's point about not making NQTs permanent, but I'm actually annoyed at seeing NQTs being relegated to subbing status in this one.

Nobody's "relegated [NQTs] to subbing status", it was just one of the things the Inspector mentioned. You seem to be looking for the worst meaning you can take from the posts that don't agree with you.

Of course people don't want to have to move around for five years before they get security but that doesn't mean that the moving doesn't benefit them professionally.

rainbowtrout

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

That's all well and good Trout, but the fact remains that the job has an oversupply in almost every subject, so it should therefore stand to reason that a teacher with 3-4 years experience should get the nod ahead of an NQT.

I didn't say the situation I outlined was ideal, I just think it's a realistic viewpoint.

I've taught in 3 countries, taught 3 curricula, taught in all boys, all girls, mixed & all this had made me a Better teacher.

I still love the job & want to stick with it as a career despite 8 years of moving around.

it's very easy for someone in your position who got sorted so early in their career to say that, I'm saying all of the above based on my experience.

I could be very bitter about the whole thing, but I'm not.

The 3-4 years of subbing etc would weed out the people in it for the handy, pensionable number.

Oh I totally agree that a teacher with more experience should get the job ahead of an inexperienced teacher. I wasn't disputing that at all.

Yes I was lucky, so I can't say that moving around wouldn't have improved me, but at the same time, I've had a wide variety of subjects over the years, have taught all sorts of levels, dealt with all sorts of behaviour, I teach adults, and I also have education related experience outside the classroom which feeds into my teaching.

I have friends that haven't been as lucky, one friend in particular has been teaching 12 years and has not got a job to call her own. She's weary from moving from place to place and not able to make long term plans because she doesn't know where she will be this September let alone next year.

Miss Lockhart

I think there's just as many professional drawbacks as benefits. I think moving constantly and not being able to take one group through a course from start to finish seriously hinders professional development.

seavill

I would have to agree purely based on my own teaching experience. Although being in 4 schools in 5 years (all in the one county I was lucky) was demoralising at times for me, looking back on it now it has made me the teacher I am now.
Teaching Girls, Boys, Girls and boys, tough school, posh school, middle of the road school.
I noticed this year in my current school how insulated the teachers were that knew nothing else except this school.

Obviously no one is arguing that someone should have to move around for 12 years etc. However experience of different types of schools is vital in my opinion