School management exploiting part time teachers and what are unions doing to stop it?

f3232

Its been noted in another thread that its increasingly become a practice of school management to farm off posts of responsibility duties to part time staff.

Many of these staff are on 10 12 hour contracts where they may be willing to do extra duties to see if they get a better contract.

Its also been noted that this is pitting part time staff against each other in some way.

I am curious if this practice is wide spread in the second level and what is the feeling on here about such management practices.

Finally, does our unions have a role in preventing this kind of thing from occurring?

TheDriver

I think caution and clarification is required here before this gets into a "all the bad things in my school happen everywhere" thread.

Also, there is a big difference between "farm off posts" and people wanting to take up activities voluntarily through their own conviction to make their school day more interesting.

All that I see required off PT teachers is to teach their classes properly and this is the case is most schools I know.

Also note there is a circular out there regarding CIDs not being stuck on low hour contracts for prolonged periods of time.

f3232

TheDriver wrote: »

I

Also, there is a big difference between "farm off posts" and people wanting to take up activities voluntarily through their own conviction to make their school day more interesting.

Through their own convictions? More often its through the fact that they are stuck on crap hours and want to show they are useful.

Is their not a directive from unions saying that former A post activities can not be undertaken on a volunteer capacity?

Make their school day more interesting? What would make their school day far more interesting is full hours and getting on with doing what they would be paid to do. Teach.

Also note there is a circular out there regarding CIDs not being stuck on low hour contracts for prolonged periods of time

I am seeing more and more teachers in schools I have taught in being brought in on 8-10 hour contracts while other teachers in the school are on 13-14 hour contracts so, it seems to me principals can do what ever they like and that circular is not worth a dam.

RealJohn

I can see this thread being a car crash.

Anyway, it's not my experience that duties that used to be part of a POR get "farmed out" to part timers. It certainly isn't the case in my school.

In the other thread, extra-curricular activities were being thrown into the same box too and all I'll say to that is that part-timers should be delighted to get that opportunity. In my experience, extra-curricular activities are great for developing a more positive relationship with the students and I wish I'd started taking teams sooner in my career. It's something I'd strongly recommend to part-time teachers both for the sake of their own productivity and for their professional development.

I also don't see it as a bad thing if prospective candidates for a teaching job are asked what they can bring to the school on top of their subject expertise (though I was never asked that in an interview personally unless I'd already volunteered the information first or asked about the possibility first). Some people seem to have a real chip on their shoulder over the idea that extra-curricular activities should be a factor in whether or not a person gets a job. I can't help wonder if these people just can't (or aren't willing to) offer anything extra. Teaching qualifications and experience should obviously come first but after that, if two candidates are otherwise equal, of course extra-curricular should be considered. It's good for the school, it's good for the teacher and most importantly, it's good for the students. School isn't all about leaving cert points.

thefasteriwalk

I've worked in a few school now doing maternity and/or part-time hours. I've never been asked to do something that would have historically been viewed as part of a post, but I know some CID people have - although they were always happy to help out, from what I could see. I've contributed heavily to the extra-curricular programme in each of the schools I've worked in. This was entirely my decision, I volunteered and I thoroughly enjoyed it on each occasion. To echo RealJohn's sentiments, I see it as an integral part of my CPD.

2011abc

f3232 wrote: »

I am seeing more and more teachers in schools I have taught in being brought in on 8-10 hour contracts while other teachers in the school are on 13-14 hour contracts so, it seems to me principals can do what ever they like and that circular is not worth a dam.

Its all a question of CONTROL.While some speak of schools led by kind ,considerate principals / BOMs etc most if not all I speak to have horror stories to tell.And as for my own personal experiences ...I wouldnt even know where to begin !Macchiavelli was in the ha'penny place compared with my principals .Afraid of parents and pupils and bullying teachers .....Jesus wept!

2011abc

When I got into teaching over two decades ago now I was lucky enough to get a permanent job literally straight away .It breaks my heart to see the progressive shatering of NQTs T&Cs .And it is ALL in the name of CONTROL from Ruairi Quinn down to the Principals ...if they ask you DARE NOT refuse ...groups of young teachers in a staffroom are often pitted against one another in a perverse Hunger Games style competition to see who gets their contracts renewed next year or even the few hours subbing .I once heard of one such group who were frantically fundraising ,collecting at local supermarket checkouts etc And even after jumping through the hoops they are often left hanging until the very last moment in August before being dismissed.
VERY bad times ahead folks if HRA not defeated by ASTI .Think I might wander into Dublin to CEC meeting at Gresham and make opinion known .No point in thinking we should have done more when its too late .

whiteandlight

While this is a fairly inflammatory topic and I'm cautious about this descending into rants against management here's my experience in some recent years

Two years teaching in a private school four years ago. Excellent on the ball management. There was expectations with regard Extra Curricular but not just of young teachers, of everyone. It was also paid (albeit at a tiny rate). I was told the minuscule payment was to prevent staff "withdrawing" from extra curricular if it ever comes down to strike.

Most recently two years in a KVEC school. Management again excellent but definitely a major expectation of extra curricular from management. Teachers are "pitted" against each other so to speak as the principal has been known to not take the "next in line" for permanent jobs. While I think this is progressive and a good thing, it does create a certain atmosphere of "what can you do for us" and heavy competition among staff. Having said that I do enjoy extra curricular and with music on my timetable its a given that anything music related would be done by me.


On a more general note I have always been asked "what I could contribute to the school?" in interview and in every school I have taught in you were expected as a young, part timer to be involved in extra curricular irrespective of the hours you were contracted for.

I'm only teaching 6 years so I cannot really say if this is a relatively new phenomenon or something that is progressively getting worse. I can say it is much more of an issue in some staffrooms I have worked in over others.

Delphi91

f3232 wrote: »

Its been noted in another thread that its increasingly become a practice of school management to farm off posts of responsibility duties to part time staff....

I refer to my commets I relation to another thread in which generalisations were made in relation to the perceived actions of school management.

I would be very grateful if you could edit the above lines to read:

"Its been noted in another thread that its increasingly become a practice of SOME school management to farm off posts of responsibility duties to part time staff".

In my school, as I already stated, both myself and the Principal took over two year head positions due to retirements. In the case of other posts, we examined our post structure in terms of the current and future needs of the school and then re-distributed posts amongst those staff who already had posts of responsibility (Special Duties and Assistant Principal). No part-time staff are doing posts of responsibility.

So before anyone else goes off and posts wildly generalised posts, please stop and think - do you have factual evidence (not just hearsay) that it is going on in EVERY school? If so, then post away. Otherwise please don't tar all management/BOMs with the same brush.

tosh999

Have to agree with the last post. In my experience Principals and Deputy Principals have taken up the slack as PORs have been lost. Posts such as ICT, Exam Secretary, Student Council Liaision, Healthy Eating Co Ordinator, Senior Book Rental, Teacher Induction - saving the Department a fortune and having to work even longer hours. This is my experience and what I pick up from other Ps and DPs.

implausible

In my school, there are posts being done by non-postholders, but they are certainly not part-timers.

As for extra-curricular, I'd agree with some of what Real John said - to make a contribution to a school, more is required of you than to simply turn up, prepare and teach your classes and go home. In my school, the majority of staff members (new, old, part-time, full-time) assist with extra-curricular activities. New teachers, who want to make a good impression, get involved in the school community and so they should. I was doing this 12 years ago, even when I knew my position was secure and I doubt I'm the only one.

implausible

tosh999 wrote: »

Have to agree with the last post. In my experience Principals and Deputy Principals have taken up the slack as PORs have been lost. Posts such as ICT, Exam Secretary, Student Council Liaision, Healthy Eating Co Ordinator, Senior Book Rental, Teacher Induction - saving the Department a fortune and having to work even longer hours. This is my experience and what I pick up from other Ps and DPs.

And it's because of this that no-one wants to do it. When the DP post was advertised in our place, none of the A post holders went for it.

ethical

I have worked in schools where management were a dream and in others where management were a nightmare.Yes,young and not so young staff are maltreated .Some NQT take all the sh1t that is thrown at them in the hope that it might mean being asked back next year.I don't mind mucking in and doing my fair share when I know management are also putting their shoulder to the wheel and working for the overall good of the school but what I detest is someone who totally changes character when 'upgraded' to management.A case in point was one school I worked in,a small dept,two teachers,one off on maternity leave which left a sub working with the senior teacher.Well you would not believe what went on,the sub did everything and was asked to do even more and of course did in the hope of getting back the following year.A subject inspection came to the same Dept,lo and behold the sub (who was an outstanding individual) did everything and when the report came back it was one of the best ever Home Economics school inspection reports....so good infact that mother superior(and very superior in her own world,a nun when it suited her which was seldom!) appeared in the staffroom one day to thank the Home Ec dept for such a glowing report.........unfortunately by this time the sub who had 'got' the glowing report for the dept was long gone,of course the senior teacher and the newly returned from maternity leave teacher were patting themselves on the back for the honour the sub teacher had achieved on their behalf.....oh I was soooooooooooooo sick of the whole sham and there are endless other stories of similar abuse of non permanent staff.

f3232

Delphi91 wrote: »

I refer to my commets I relation to another thread in which generalisations were made in relation to the perceived actions of school management.

I would be very grateful if you could edit the above lines to read:

"Its been noted in another thread that its increasingly become a practice of SOME school management to farm off posts of responsibility duties to part time staff".

SOME i,m happy to clarify that.

In my school, as I already stated, both myself and the Principal took over two year head positions due to retirements. In the case of other posts, we examined our post structure in terms of the current and future needs of the school and then re-distributed posts amongst those staff who already had posts of responsibility (Special Duties and Assistant Principal).

As it should be I see nothing particularly worthy about this.

No part-time staff are doing posts of responsibility.

No but part time staff are being asked to do particular roles traditionally assigned to an A post holder. I see this as becoming increasingly the norm as new duties emerge with the JC reform etc.

So before anyone else goes off and posts wildly generalised posts, please stop and think - do you have factual evidence (not just hearsay) that it is going on in EVERY school? If so, then post away. Otherwise please don't tar all management/BOMs with the same brush.

So you outline your own experiences regarding management, but when I outline some of my experiences you accuse me of hearsay? I can only comment on what I am seeing in the staff room, what teachers are seeing regarding how younger staff.

I want to quote another teachers post I think it sums up well

When I got into teaching over two decades ago now I was lucky enough to get a permanent job literally straight away .It breaks my heart to see the progressive shatering of NQTs T&Cs .And it is ALL in the name of CONTROL from Ruairi Quinn down to the Principals ...if they ask you DARE NOT refuse ...groups of young teachers in a staffroom are often pitted against one another in a perverse Hunger Games style competition to see who gets their contracts renewed next year or even the few hours subbing .I once heard of one such group who were frantically fundraising ,collecting at local supermarket checkouts etc And even after jumping through the hoops they are often left hanging until the very last moment in August before being dismissed.

Hearsay, pretty close to the bone if you ask me. I have also seen such practices go on and with the demise of younger teachers terms and conditions it going to get worse.

f3232

RealJohn wrote: »

I can see this thread being a car crash.

Anyway, it's not my experience that duties that used to be part of a POR get "farmed out" to part timers. It certainly isn't the case in my school.

In the other thread, extra-curricular activities were being thrown into the same box too and all I'll say to that is that part-timers should be delighted to get that opportunity. In my experience, extra-curricular activities are great for developing a more positive relationship with the students and I wish I'd started taking teams sooner in my career. It's something I'd strongly recommend to part-time teachers both for the sake of their own productivity and for their professional development.

I also don't see it as a bad thing if prospective candidates for a teaching job are asked what they can bring to the school on top of their subject expertise (though I was never asked that in an interview personally unless I'd already volunteered the information first or asked about the possibility first). Some people seem to have a real chip on their shoulder over the idea that extra-curricular activities should be a factor in whether or not a person gets a job. I can't help wonder if these people just can't (or aren't willing to) offer anything extra. Teaching qualifications and experience should obviously come first but after that, if two candidates are otherwise equal, of course extra-curricular should be considered. It's good for the school, it's good for the teacher and most importantly, it's good for the students. School isn't all about leaving cert points.

All fair points but when part time teachers are struggling for hours and to be kept on, the ability or willingness to do more and more can be exploited by management and also younger teachers seem to be willing to jump through hoops and be played off against each other.

Its shameful.

Delphi91

f3232 wrote: »

...So you outline your own experiences regarding management, but when I outline some of my experiences you accuse me of hearsay? I can only comment on what I am seeing in the staff room, what teachers are seeing regarding how younger staff...

Actually if you read my post again, I did not accuse you of hearsay. That was a general comment to all posters.

I don't doubt that there are unscrupulous practices going on in some schools. I've read accounts of it on here and it annoys the hell out of me. My problem is when those practices are seen by some as typical of management in all schools.

This is patently not the case and all I'm asking is that when people come on here to post, that they take cognisence of that fact. Even the title of this thread could lead someone to think that it was ALL school management that was doing it. By all means give out about management practices in your school, etc, but please don't tar us all with the same brush.

Think of how we as a profession feel when we get slagged off in the media because of the attitude and behaviour of some of the profession. We're very quick to point out that we all don't behave that way. I'm just doing the same for management. We're not the "enemy".

RealJohn

f3232 wrote: »

All fair points but when part time teachers are struggling for hours and to be kept on, the ability or willingness to do more and more can be exploited by management and also younger teachers seem to be willing to jump through hoops and be played off against each other.

It can be but that doesn't mean that is always is or even that it is in the majority of cases. In any job where you need to impress your employer in order to secure your status (which is the way it should be in all jobs, not just in teaching) people are going to compete to make themselves look good. Some people do that by trying to perform as well as they can within the limits of their job description. Some people do it by showing what they bring to the table outside of their job description. Some people do both. Some people do neither. It's the way it should be, especially in a job where doing your job to the letter and no more probably means you're not contributing as much as you should be.

doc_17

I've taught in two different schools and have nothing but respect and gratitude for the three principals I worked for. I do a wee bit extra at times but I know if I'm in a jam I can ask them to cover my clases.

Lots of younger teachers will do loads of extra work in the hope of staying on. If some principals are manipulating them then that is wrong.

f3232

RealJohn wrote: »

. In any job where you need to impress your employer in order to secure your status (which is the way it should be in all jobs, not just in teaching) people are going to compete to make themselves look good.

I worked in a multinational pharama sector for a number years and yes people do try to work hard go beyond their 40 hours, impress their employer etc etc and its not necessary a bad thing of course.

However the big difference between that and teaching is that by and large you are in permanent employment and are looking for promotion or just wanting to work hard. BUT YOU ARE GETTING PAID FOR YOUR 40 HOURS work. I see young teachers on 8 10 hour contracts working their asses off in the hope of securing better contracts, competing with each other in a really negative manner. It reminds me of the rank and yank system of some American Multinationals.

Some people do that by trying to perform as well as they can within the limits of their job description. Some people do it by showing what they bring to the table outside of their job description. Some people do both. Some people do neither. It's the way it should be, especially in a job where doing your job to the letter and no more probably means you're not contributing as much as you should be.

And all I am asking when someone does all this is that they be offered fair contracts if they are preforming well not stuck on 12 hour contracts for years. After 5 years of university education and commitment you describe above I don't think that's too much to ask for.

jimbo28

Its been noted in another thread that its increasingly become a practice of school management to farm off posts of responsibility duties to part time staff.

Its been going on for years and to be honest of all the different schools I've been in( and this is just going on personal experience) Community schools seem to be the worst for it.That said young teachers are their own worst enemies, they are prepared to make doormats out of themselves for a few extra hours that may not even fall their way.It is unfair to say that all management are like this, but like every walk of life there are assh0les in management everywhere.

teacherhead

This topic really annoys me to be honest. The title asks what should the unions do and yet nobody has attempted to answer or suggest a solution, not even the OP which suggests that they aren't so much looking for opinions but giving them.

I have seen teachers on full hours with cid's doing post work. They are secure in their employment and can say no if they want to. If they decide to undertake the duties then that's their business, a union cannot stop that. However, if there is a case that young vulnerable staff are being targeted and abused then it does fall to the union to protect them. As I have often said here before the union is only as strong as the members and what they are willing to tolerate at a local level.

If you work in a school where a new teacher is being burdened with a massive workload then it falls on those of you who are so concerned to raise the matter at a school union meeting or a staff meeting and call the situation for what it is. If there is a clear problem then you have case to get the union involved if the member wishes.

If however you prefer to rant and rave and accuse and vilify on the internet and have less concern for your younger colleagues ( and possibly more concern over how you will look having scratched your arse when there was a real need for work to be done should a post arise in the future) than you presume to have - carry on.

whiteandlight

Thread tidied and off topic posts removed.

This thread is about the role of the unions in management requiring additional work outside the classroom from part time teachers not about salaries.

Any further off topic posting will result in bans

Do not reply to this post on thread

drvantramp

Why is discussion on this being censored so much?
a raw nerve for management perhaps?

1. the unions are doing nothing to prevent exploitation of part-time staff by management.
Moreover, they have shown how little they care about this ever before HRA.
How many part time guards on "hours" are there? They wouldn't tolerate this serf status.

2. It seems many are commenting from safe positions where they feel they can say NO to management in schools, not realising other peoples very vulnerable positions. Its all perspective.

3. Easy for the union heads to pontificate about saying no to additional work. They know all about it ! - they are doing SFA and sowing the seeds for major discontent down the line.

whiteandlight

If you are referring to the moderation the posts deleted were about teachers pay and nothing to do with the thread

There should be no discussion of moderation on thread.

Please continue the discussion but on topic.

Peter Flynt

Management in schools asking young non-permanent/CID staff to do extra curricular activity is a form of exploitation.

It goes on in every school in the country bar none.

TheDriver

Peter Flynt wrote: »

It goes on in every school in the country bar none.

Afraid you are incorrect on this. It does not go on in my school nor does it happen in the vast majority of schools that I know of (and I have asked friends on other schools about this in the last few days). That's not to say it doesn't take place but your statement above is not factual and a generalised unsubstantiated comment.

Juniorhurler

TheDriver wrote: »

Afraid you are incorrect on this. It does not go on in my school nor does it happen in the vast majority of schools that I know of (and I have asked friends on other schools about this in the last few days). That's not to say it doesn't take place but your statement above is not factual and a generalised unsubstantiated comment.

Perhaps you are asking permanent staff who would not be asked, or maybe other VPs? Happens in every school I ever worked in, community, secondary and vec.

byhookorbycrook

In primary schools ,it was usually the case when I was subbing that you'd take on extra curricular to improve your job chances. That was in the 80s ,but wasn't the case when jobs were more plentiful. Seems to be happening more now again, from what I hear, but it's not coming from management, so not an issue in primary, I think

implausible

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Management in schools asking young non-permanent/CID staff to do extra curricular activity is a form of exploitation.

In my experience, Ps and DPs don't have to ask. New staff are usually chomping at the bit to get involved in extra-curricular activities to make an impression in the school and increase their chances of being kept on/increase hours. Even if the hours don't materialise, you have more strings to your bow in your next interview situation.

From what I'm reading here, it seems that in some schools Ps and DPs are bringing new staff into the office and telling them to take a football team or run a quiz.

To be honest, if there is widespread evidence of 'exploitation', then yes, the unions should do something about it, though what that is, I don't know. I don't know how the union can stop Mr Principal asking Mary, a young English teacher who is on 8 hours, if she'd mind proofreading the yearbook. Do you issue a directive banning any teacher on less than 18 hours from doing extra-curricular activity? Do you direct Ps and DPs not to ask teachers to do extra-curricular?

Delphi91

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Management in schools asking young non-permanent/CID staff to do extra curricular activity is a form of exploitation.

It goes on in every school in the country bar none.

And the over-generalisation continues......:(

Please provide evidence to back up that statement - not evidence that it goes on, but evidence that it goes on "in every school in the country bar none".

What if they are paid for it? Is that exploitation?

Caiseoipe19

As an NQT, in college we were strongly advised to get involved in volunteer for extra-curricular activities etc. while on Teaching Practice. It was looked upon favourably by our supervisors and without doubt had a positive effect on our grades.

While on TP I was asked to help out with the 1st yr football team as the DP knew I played football myself. I was going to offer anyways so I was more than happy to get involved. Now, unlike some of the people bad-mouthing management saying they don't do S&S and they pressurise the PT teachers to provide ECA, it was the Deputy Principal that was managing the team. Even coming towards the end of the year when all the other teams in the school had stopped training because they were out of competitions, he kept on bringing out the first years training twice a week because he wanted to keep as many of them involved for as long as possible as he felt it was good for them to take part. He and the principal also carried out S&S. So while there are undoubtedly schools out there that the management offload duties to PT staff, it's unfair to paint them all with the same brush.

From my point of view, as said above, it is taken for granted that NQTs and non-permanent teachers need to get involved in ECA in order to make a good impression. In the scramble for jobs, anything extra we can bring to the school we have to use to our advantage.

I've gotten a job this year and my interview I was not asked about what I would bring to the school in terms of ECA etc. I will be volunteering to at least train a football team or something in the hope of getting some hours next year. No need for me to be asked by management.

f3232

Caiseoipe19 wrote: »

As an NQT, in college we were strongly advised to get involved in volunteer for extra-curricular activities etc. while on Teaching Practice. It was looked upon favourably by our supervisors and without doubt had a positive effect on our grades.

You were training then its a different dynamic involved than competing for hours when your actually employed.

While on TP I was asked to help out with the 1st yr football team as the DP knew I played football myself. I was going to offer anyways so I was more than happy to get involved. Now, unlike some of the people bad-mouthing management saying they don't do S&S and they pressurise the PT teachers to provide ECA, it was the Deputy Principal that was managing the team. Even coming towards the end of the year when all the other teams in the school had stopped training because they were out of competitions, he kept on bringing out the first years training twice a week because he wanted to keep as many of them involved for as long as possible as he felt it was good for them to take part. He and the principal also carried out S&S.

Thats great to see but maybe give it a bit of time in the actual job in a number of schools and see what goes on. Maybe you might open your eyes a little. And with the increase in PTR on the way, you may get the chance to see a few other schools in the next few years.

So while there are undoubtedly schools out there that the management offload duties to PT staff, it's unfair to paint them all with the same brush.

Bad management practices do not go on in every school but as others have observed it is becoming more prevalent.

From my point of view, as said above, it is taken for granted that NQTs and non-permanent teachers need to get involved in ECA in order to make a good impression. In the scramble for jobs, anything extra we can bring to the school we have to use to our advantage.

So after training for five years you believe its okay to work for a few hours a week and in the scramble for jobs get involved to make a good impression? Believe in yourself as a great teacher, as a professional, as someone that's invested in your education, don't scramble around trying to make a good impression. This kind of attitude from young teachers really saddens me.

I've gotten a job this year and my interview I was not asked about what I would bring to the school in terms of ECA etc. I will be volunteering to at least train a football team or something in the hope of getting some hours next year. No need for me to be asked by management.

And that about sums it up for me.

Peter Flynt

Caiseoipe19 wrote: »

As an NQT, in college we were strongly advised to get involved in volunteer for extra-curricular activities etc. while on Teaching Practice. It was looked upon favourably by our supervisors and without doubt had a positive effect on our grades.

While on TP I was asked to help out with the 1st yr football team as the DP knew I played football myself. I was going to offer anyways so I was more than happy to get involved. Now, unlike some of the people bad-mouthing management saying they don't do S&S and they pressurise the PT teachers to provide ECA, it was the Deputy Principal that was managing the team. Even coming towards the end of the year when all the other teams in the school had stopped training because they were out of competitions, he kept on bringing out the first years training twice a week because he wanted to keep as many of them involved for as long as possible as he felt it was good for them to take part. He and the principal also carried out S&S. So while there are undoubtedly schools out there that the management offload duties to PT staff, it's unfair to paint them all with the same brush.

From my point of view, as said above, it is taken for granted that NQTs and non-permanent teachers need to get involved in ECA in order to make a good impression. In the scramble for jobs, anything extra we can bring to the school we have to use to our advantage.

I've gotten a job this year and my interview I was not asked about what I would bring to the school in terms of ECA etc. I will be volunteering to at least train a football team or something in the hope of getting some hours next year. No need for me to be asked by management.

The function of a teacher is to provide the highest quality instruction to the best of their abilities.

Teachers should be preparing classes, marking, doing up notes, PowerPoints, worksheets, model answers and reflecting on their progress.

Running around a football pitch is what the more experienced permanent teachers should be doing.

NQTs should be supported by management and not asked in interviews what they're going to do for free.

The Colleges, of course, play their role in promoting all of this.

Quite frankly any Principal who chooses a teacher based on the level of ECA they're doing rather than what's going on in the classroom is probably unfit for the job in my view.

f3232

Delphi91 wrote: »

And the over-generalisation continues......:(

Please provide evidence to back up that statement - not evidence that it goes on, but evidence that it goes on "in every school in the country bar none".

What if they are paid for it? Is that exploitation?

Now lets be reasonable, you don't expect people to give examples from actual schools do you as site this as evidence?

We all have got to accept that what we are saying, we are saying in good faith and from our experience as professions.

I have worked in a lot schools over the last six years and where there is a cohort of young staff on small hours there is usually a scramble for hours and young teachers bending over backwards to do stuff for management. Experienced teachers talking to me in the staff room commented on it all the time. That's a fact.

For example I watched a girl who was in subbing, she worked on the school show, spend every spare minute working on it running around like a headless chicken all year. GIrl did nt get a word of thanks on the night, particularly offensive VP took the credit. BTW the girl is on a few hours in another school.

implausible

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Running around a football pitch is what the more experienced permanent teachers should be doing.

NQTs should be supported by management and not asked in interviews what they're going to do for free.

So, no NQTs should do extra-curricular activities?

f3232 wrote: »

For example I watched a girl who was in subbing, she worked on the school show, spend every spare minute working on it running around like a headless chicken all year. GIrl did nt get a word of thanks on the night, particularly offensive VP took the credit. BTW the girl is on a few hours in another school.

How did the girl feel about it? Was she annoyed? Maybe she loved doing it, regardless of thanks or employment opportunities. People who get involved in sport, by and large, love it. People who involve themselves in a school show usually do it for the love of it.

From what I'm reading here, I get the impression that both of you think that new members of staff should not get involved in anything other than teaching their classes. Those who do are being 'exploited.' I really don't get this thinking. NQTs are often young, usually full of energy and enthusiasm and they want to contribute to a school and get involved (and, yes, further their employment chances) and improve their standing with staff and students. I didn't become a teacher to just teach the students in front of me, I enjoy being part of a community, contributing to the school and having a good relationship with the students in my classes. Doing extra-curricular activities, in my experience, only improves that relationship and minimises discipline issues.

And both of you believe that NQTs/part-timers should not do any of this?:rolleyes:

Peter Flynt

implausible wrote: »

So, no NQTs should do extra-curricular activities?



How did the girl feel about it? Was she annoyed? Maybe she loved doing it, regardless of thanks or employment opportunities. People who get involved in sport, by and large, love it. People who involve themselves in a school show usually do it for the love of it.

From what I'm reading here, I get the impression that both of you think that new members of staff should not get involved in anything other than teaching their classes. Those who do are being 'exploited.' I really don't get this thinking. NQTs are often young, usually full of energy and enthusiasm and they want to contribute to a school and get involved (and, yes, further their employment chances) and improve their standing with staff and students. I didn't become a teacher to just teach the students in front of me, I enjoy being part of a community, contributing to the school and having a good relationship with the students in my classes. Doing extra-curricular activities, in my experience, only improves that relationship and minimises discipline issues.

And both of you believe that NQTs/part-timers should not do any of this?:rolleyes:

Are you in management? What ECA do you do?

Personally I don't think that NQTs should involve themselves in ECA. They should be given the time and space to develop their own teaching philosophy and resources (together with meeting the demands of teaching) and not running around some football pitch with the Principals sword of damocles hanging over their heads.

Delphi91

f3232 wrote: »

Now lets be reasonable, you don't expect people to give examples from actual schools do you as site this as evidence?

We all have got to accept that what we are saying, we are saying in good faith and from our experience as professions.

When Peter Flynt has worked in every school in the country then he is free and entitled to make the comment that what he describes is going on "in every school in the country bar none". I can categorically state that it doesn't happen in my school, so I'm being perfectly reasonable in taking issue with his comment.

I have had a number of teachers over the last number of years on small contracts. This was not a choice that I made (i.e. to keep them on small hours). Their contracts arose out of a need to provide subjects in the school and an inability to do so from the permanent staff. In each of those cases, I told each of them that I would gladly offer them any extra class cover that came my way to bring them up to as close to their 22 hours as I possibly could, with those on the least number of contracted hours being given priority. At the end of the month, each of those teachers was paid for any work that they did.

I have worked in a lot schools over the last six years and where there is a cohort of young staff on small hours there is usually a scramble for hours and young teachers bending over backwards to do stuff for management. Experienced teachers talking to me in the staff room commented on it all the time. That's a fact.

For example I watched a girl who was in subbing, she worked on the school show, spend every spare minute working on it running around like a headless chicken all year. GIrl did nt get a word of thanks on the night, particularly offensive VP took the credit. BTW the girl is on a few hours in another school.

Just curious, did any of the permanent staff get involved in the concert?

whiteandlight

This is an interesting topic (albeit controversial) and from the reading of the thread a polarising one for teachers

I do believe there is a problem in the profession but it is not specifically managements fault in the way some here appear to believe. The reality (for me at least) is that young teachers are bending over backwards volunteering for extra work.

Personally I think the cause of this and perhaps the perceived exploitation in some schools is the short term/small hour contracts and frankly an oversubscribed profession. What choice do non permanent staff have but to keep putting themselves on the line for extra curricular or outside the classroom work when contracts are so hard come by?

Peter Flynt

Musicmental85 wrote: »

What choice do non permanent staff have but to keep putting themselves on the line for extra curricular or outside the classroom work when contracts are so hard come by?

The problem is that management are always eager to put themselves forward to parents to represent their school in terms of facilities other than educational facilities.

This is understandable. Students are always catered for in so many different ways which involve virtually every teacher giving up their free time.

The issue of exploitation of young teachers occurs when the staff room phone is constantly going off looking for a particular teacher to do,for example, supervision.

Then that teacher may happen to meet the Principal whereby the Principal "reminds them" of the time they said they'd set up, say, guitar lessons. So the teacher (feeling they cannot say no) is then giving up one or two afternoons of their time.

A staff meeting then occurs. A B post holder has recently resigned and the Department won't pay for the duties of that teacher anymore. The Principal suggest that these duties are important and if anyone wishes to "assist" [hint hint] (and do the duties for free). . ..then they could inform management.

Add in the fact that non permanent teachers are almost watching each other to see what the other non permanent teachers are doing. This creates uncertainty and division and yet, by and large, management in Irish schools are more than prepared to allow this to fester as they couldn't care less.

This is ongoing. . . from one thing to another and guess what - It damages the morale of the non permanent younger teacher and it damages the education of the children they're responsible for.

There are some management posting here who are painting a utopian picture of how ALL non permanent teachers are really delighted to help etc. . . I suggest they're doing so to ease their own conscience as they're in denial.

Delphi91

Peter Flynt wrote: »

...There are some management posting here who are painting a utopian picture of how ALL non permanent teachers are really delighted to help etc. . . I suggest they're doing so to ease their own conscience as they're in denial.

Peter, just in case you're referring to any of my posts, can you please point out a post (or posts) where that has been said?

Peter Flynt

Delphi91 wrote: »

Peter, just in case you're referring to any of my posts, can you please point out a post (or posts) where that has been said?

Would you care to comment on the rest of my post there?

Would you agree that this occurs?

Caiseoipe19

Peter Flynt wrote: »

The function of a teacher is to provide the highest quality instruction to the best of their abilities.

Teachers should be preparing classes, marking, doing up notes, PowerPoints, worksheets, model answers and reflecting on their progress.

Running around a football pitch is what the more experienced permanent teachers should be doing.

NQTs should be supported by management and not asked in interviews what they're going to do for free.

The Colleges, of course, play their role in promoting all of this.

Quite frankly any Principal who chooses a teacher based on the level of ECA they're doing rather than what's going on in the classroom is probably unfit for the job in my view.

Peter Flynt wrote: »

...

Personally I don't think that NQTs should involve themselves in ECA. They should be given the time and space to develop their own teaching philosophy and resources (together with meeting the demands of teaching) and not running around some football pitch with the Principals sword of damocles hanging over their heads.

I agree with most of what you've said in these two posts, although I think NQTs should be allowed involve themselves if it's their decision.

My point, as Musicmental has put much more clearly, was that their and involvement is not all a result of pressure from management. I've no doubt it does happen, going by some of the posts here, but there is also a general consensus among NQTs that we have to do add to the school outside of the classroom as well as inside, by volunteering for ECAs. This is generally accepted even before NQTs have qualified. Colleges are part of the reason behind this mindset. The reason I mentioned my TP experience was that by giving us marks for getting involved in ECA while on TP, colleges are essentially saying that the carrying out of ECA is part of the job.

joebloggs32

The big issue for me is posts.

Teachers taking on the duties of post holders are actually diminishing the chance of them ever returning. Principals are actively encouraging this in many schools as (a) they can't take on the workload and (b) they want their school to continue to function.
Those taking on the posts are either vulnerable NQT's and part timers, who I would sympathise with, or the more sinister ones looking to climb up the ladder to be in place for what they hope is the eventual return of A and B posts.

The whole thing stinks.

Delphi91

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Would you care to comment on the rest of my post there?

Would you agree that this occurs?

I will only comment on what does/does not go on in my own school because I cannot comment on what may or may not go on in other schools.

You referred to the constant ringing of the phone in the staffroom looking for teachers to cover classes. In my school, usually by 9:30, I have assigned the class cover for the day to the part-time teachers. Every now and again one of them will tell me that they can't do a particular class because of a prior commitment. That's fine by me, I'll re-assign it where possible or if not I'll cover the class myself.

I've commented on the filling of posts before. All that I will add is that it doesn't say much for the organisational ability of a Principal if he or she has to ask for someone to "assist" at a staff meeting - any resignation would not be immediate and there would have been time to put a contingency plan in place. Maybe it goes on, I don't know, but in my school, we re-distributed posts amongst those who already had the posts.

Let me summarise my position - we don't ask any part-time staff member to do a job (not a post of responsibility) if we cannot offer them some sort of remuneration for their work. If they themselves come forward and suggest that they'd like to get involved in some form of ECA, then again we will help out any way that we can - it may be covering classes while they're away with a group, etc.

Miss Lockhart

For me the core issue is the casualisation of the profession. Everything else is a side issue, though I agree some of these side issues are certainly worthy of further discussion in their own right.

The statistics speak for themselves. There are thousands of teachers on part time hours.

Of course it is always going to be the case that there will be a need for part time contracts in schools to cover gaps in the timetable. But the situation has gone far beyond that now. Never before, even when there was a shortage of jobs, have part time contracts been so widespread. Never before have short term contracts been deemed necessary in such vast numbers. This casualisation is an deliberate scenario.

The government can take some of the blame for an increase in part time contracts due to funding cuts and increases in the PTR. But they are not responsible for the splitting of contracts on the scale currently seen. That is down to management decisions. And since it is so widespread then responsibility can be attributed to a huge cohort of management.

Is this casualisation and hours culture good for education? Well I can only assume that management think it is since they seem so determined to implement an hours culture.

Personally I think it is utterly damaging to the profession and, more importantly, to education as a whole. I think, in cases other than filling gaps in a timetable, it is symptomatic of very poor management.

From the angle of what can the union do, I don't really know what would be effective. These managers are in many cases ignoring a department circular so I doubt they will pay more heed to a union directive.

Peter Flynt

Delphi91 wrote: »

I've commented on the filling of posts before. All that I will add is that it doesn't say much for the organisational ability of a Principal if he or she has to ask for someone to "assist" at a staff meeting - any resignation would not be immediate and there would have been time to put a contingency plan in place. Maybe it goes on, I don't know, but in my school, we re-distributed posts amongst those who already had the posts.

The Government won't pay any longer for a particular B post (after someone resigns for instance) and you facilitate this by increasing the workload of the other B post holders. I don't think that this is right. Granted it won't involve a NQT.

Let me summarise my position - we don't ask any part-time staff member to do a job if we cannot offer them some sort of remuneration for their work. If they themselves come forward and suggest that they'd like to get involved in some form of ECA, then again we will help out any way that we can - it may be covering classes while they're away with a group, etc.

Fair enough. I respect that.

Peter Flynt

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

For me the core issue is the casualisation of the profession. Everything else is a side issue, though I agree some of these side issues are certainly worthy of further discussion in their own right.

The statistics speak for themselves. There are thousands of teachers on part time hours.

This is one of the main reasons why the new pay scale for new teachers introduced in February 2011 had to be revised upwards as it was clear that many on small numbers of hours were coming out pro-rata with next to nothing.

Some schools (a very small number) have also been using JobBridge to look for QUALIFIED teachers whilst setting up, what seems to me, to be a bogus training program.

I agree - The casualisation of the profession - along with the other cuts - is demeaning the profession.

Delphi91

Peter Flynt wrote: »

The Government won't pay any longer for a particular B post (after someone resigns for instance) and you facilitate this by increasing the workload of the other B post holders. I don't think that this is right. Granted it won't involve a NQT...

I should have made myself clearer - I did refer to this in an earlier post in another thread. If a post becomes available, we re-examine the posts we currently have. We re-distribute the posts so that the amount of work performed by each post holder at each level is approximately the same. This may often involve dropping a job if it is felt that it is no longer required.

Another point that springs to mind from your reply above is that the government will not allow you to temporarily fill a post for a postholder on maternity leave.

Lord TSC

I'm usually the very one to be having goes at the unions and what I perceive as their lack ofprotection of NQTs. But honestly I cannot see how you can do anything about the problem which exists now with regards this subject. Maybe there could be an arguement that they should have fought harder to make sure conditions did not fall so much, fought harder to ensure we didn't need so many people trying desperately to impress by working for nothing, but in terms of the present situation, what can they do now?

I also don't know how much you can blame on management. I get some schools work to exploit the system, but strikes me most are just trying to stay alive. Don't get me wrong, I know some do imply if work isn't done, an NQTs life will be harder (something suggested to me at both schools I've worked at for longer than a day's sub work). And that is not fair, given the jobs arent there if you work harder too.

But there's work that needs to be done, regardless of if the government are trying to stop them reassigning posts or the likes. Classes need tutors, and aspects of the school need to be orginised. And NQTs are, naturally, going to want to do all work possible to impress the powers-that-be. They/we need to work harder because our jobs aren't as safe, if safe at all, as the permanent staff. While we can blame the unions and the management, if NQTs stuck together and didn't work against each other, life might be easier.

But as far as the unions go, asking them to do something now is like asking them to roll back the tides. It's a situation that should have been fought against years ago, and it's too late to start asking them to intervene in that problem now. The only "fix" for it is to get back to a stage where jobs are plentiful...

Peter Flynt

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

I'm usually the very one to be having goes at the unions and what I perceive as their lack ofprotection of NQTs. But honestly I cannot see how you can do anything about the problem which exists now with regards this subject. Maybe there could be an arguement that they should have fought harder to make sure conditions did not fall so much, fought harder to ensure we didn't need so many people trying desperately to impress by working for nothing, but in terms of the present situation, what can they do now?

I also don't know how much you can blame on management. I get some schools work to exploit the system, but strikes me most are just trying to stay alive. Don't get me wrong, I know some do imply if work isn't done, an NQTs life will be harder (something suggested to me at both schools I've worked at for longer than a day's sub work). And that is not fair, given the jobs arent there if you work harder too.

But there's work that needs to be done, regardless of if the government are trying to stop them reassigning posts or the likes. Classes need tutors, and aspects of the school need to be orginised. And NQTs are, naturally, going to want to do all work possible to impress the powers-that-be. They/we need to work harder because our jobs aren't as safe, if safe at all, as the permanent staff. While we can blame the unions and the management, if NQTs stuck together and didn't work against each other, life might be easier.

But as far as the unions go, asking them to do something now is like asking them to roll back the tides. It's a situation that should have been fought against years ago, and it's too late to start asking them to intervene in that problem now. The only "fix" for it is to get back to a stage where jobs are plentiful...

A person's job should be judged on their performance in the classroom.

I'm getting the impression that the NQT has "to be seen" to be doing things that the management appear to think are beneficial. A NQT sitting at home working on their PC or marking is not going to get noticed. . . But which is more effective in terms of increasing the quality of instruction in the classroom?

I would argue the latter. I could give an example of my own school. A NQT of recent years has successfully landed themselves a more securer contract. This particular teacher was extremely active in ECA and yet when it came to teaching it was all my notes and resources that they used as they simply didn't have the time to do their own. Now i don't mind one bit as I believe in supporting each other - especially NQTs - but I could easily refuse.

Management need to take a more professional approach to whom they decide is a good teacher. Sure ECA is important - for both teacher and student - but it should not be a sole reason for meriting a teacher's worth.

I would also suggest that it takes courage for a NQT to concentrate on their primary role - to become a better teacher - and to avoid or even refuse ECA.

teacherhead

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Are you in management? What ECA do you do?

Personally I don't think that NQTs should involve themselves in ECA. They should be given the time and space to develop their own teaching philosophy and resources (together with meeting the demands of teaching) and not running around some football pitch with the Principals sword of damocles hanging over their heads.

When I was an NQT I took on the First Year football team. I found that it helped me in my teaching, the students could see a different side to me and I was able to show an interest in them as individuals outside of the classroom. Now that I am a more experienced teacher I can offer that in the classroom as I don't need to put my energy in to heavy planning and classroom management. I still look after the football, I still enjoy it. I think that its one of the most positive things anyone can do and buys goodwill from the parents and students which will go a long way.

My school is big on extra curricular and it brings really good kids. I'd sooner spend an hour a week doing football than an hour a week doing discipline having seen our school numbers and quality eroded due to students going elsewhere.