A message to wannabe teachers - Stay away from teaching.

Maryanne40

The teaching profession did very well in the Celtic tiger years - I know of one lady just retired and with all allowances etc her finishing salary was over 90 k- extraordinary money - Chief Executives in other roles are on less.....so said Marienbad (don't know how to use the quote function)

Marien,

Would you mind explaining how 'this lady' had a finishing salary over 90k, given that you have said she was neither a principal or a vice principal?

By my reckoning the absolute maximum she could have finished on was 72k approx, made up of basic salary of 59,359, special duties post of 3,769 (which she may or may not have held) qualification allowance of 6,140 (that is the mount payable for a doctorate....which is highly unlikely she would have held!...far more likely is an honours degree allowance of 4,918) and a long service allowance of 2,324 (which is payable after about 36 years service)

Am I missing something here? I have a feeling you are being somewhat disingenuous or else you are believing some exaggerated story you have heard? I am asking this as a teacher with 32 years service, plus a master's degree and a salary of just under 65k.

marienbad

Pwpane wrote: »

I ask you again - what evidence have you that current teachers' salaries were maintained at the expense of new entrants' salaries?

I'm not asking if current teachers' salaries were maintained. I'm not asking if new entrants' salaries were reduced. I'm asking for evidence that there is a connection. Do you have any?

And I ask you - is there a two tier system now operating in Irish education ?
If the answer is yes then there is your answer.

marienbad

Maryanne40 wrote: »

The teaching profession did very well in the Celtic tiger years - I know of one lady just retired and with all allowances etc her finishing salary was over 90 k- extraordinary money - Chief Executives in other roles are on less.....so said Marienbad (don't know how to use the quote function)

Marien,

Would you mind explaining how 'this lady' had a finishing salary over 90k, given that you have said she was neither a principal or a vice principal?

By my reckoning the absolute maximum she could have finished on was 72k approx, made up of basic salary of 59,359, special duties post of 3,769 (which she may or may not have held) qualification allowance of 6,140 (that is the mount payable for a doctorate....which is highly unlikely she would have held!...far more likely is an honours degree allowance of 4,918) and a long service allowance of 2,324 (which is payable after about 36 years service)

Am I missing something here? I have a feeling you are being somewhat disingenuous or else you are believing some exaggerated story you have heard? I am asking this as a teacher with 32 years service, plus a master's degree and a salary of just under 65k.

Not at all - she is all all those allowances and more and got a lumpsum on her retirement- extraordinary stuff. And by all accounts was the least effective and the biggest moaner.

By the way- do you think your salary of 65k is a good one ?

Maryanne40

Perhaps she is on all of those allowances.....but it still adds up to about 72k...it is the 'more' I am interested in.....18k more. Could you please tell me about these allowances, which I have never heard of and don't know about, despite spending my entire career in teaching? I am not asking here whether she was a good or bad teacher.....that is irrelevant for the purposes of my question.

As regards my own salary, I believe it is a reasonable one. It is enough to live on fairly well but not enough to go mad on. I submit that had I chosen accountancy as a career I would be earning far more at this stage. Or, taken a position as an EO in the civil service....there would have been promotion opportunities in that field....there were always very few in teaching and there are none now, outside of principal/deputy principal.

I have answered your question...now please answer mine and also tell us more about the 2 tier teaching system you are alluding to.

Maryanne40

And by the way it is not 'extraordinary stuff' to get a lump sum. It is not peculiar to the teacher you are talking about; it is not even peculiar to teachers. Every civil servant and many public servants finish with a lump sum. It is calculated in relation to years worked and final salary. You may well have an issue with lump sums but don't pretend this teacher got something she was not legally entitled to.

evolving_doors

pinkbear wrote: »

While technically the points made originally are true, my story is:

I am a permanent secondary school teacher. I work approx 50 hours per week in total, about 15 of these from home. Once a week I teach 2 hours and 40 minutes without a break. That is the longest it is possible in my school to teach without a break. I have one half day per week which gives me flexibility for appointments. I work ten minutes from home. I get 18 weeks paid holidays per year. I have the option to give grinds, act as exam supervisor or corrector, or supervise after school study for extra pay. I think I am incredibly lucky and love my job.

I am on better conditions than newer teachers (and worse than older) but I have never seen any sign of poverty among any of the staff members in my school, and the majority would be considered fairly well off. I worked for ten years before teaching, and this is - by a country mile - the best job I have ever had. I took a 50% pay drop to become a teacher, to suit my family life better.

To those of you "wannabe teachers" at whom this thread is targeted, I would say go for it. If you are as lucky as me, you will have a wonderful happy career. I would be happy to encourage my own children down my route. I am a glass-half-full kind of person though.

You would encourage people to enter the profession based on your terms and conditions?
Your glass may be half full but new entrants glasses will only be quarter full.

evolving_doors

marienbad wrote: »

Not at all - she is all all those allowances and more and got a lumpsum on her retirement- extraordinary stuff. And by all accounts was the least effective and the biggest moaner.

By the way- do you think your salary of 65k is a good one ?

In terms of the thread title the lady who retired has nothing got to do with new entrants.

Peter Flynt

Maryanne40 wrote: »

The teaching profession did very well in the Celtic tiger years - I know of one lady just retired and with all allowances etc her finishing salary was over 90 k- extraordinary money - Chief Executives in other roles are on less.....so said Marienbad (don't know how to use the quote function)

Marien,

Would you mind explaining how 'this lady' had a finishing salary over 90k, given that you have said she was neither a principal or a vice principal?

By my reckoning the absolute maximum she could have finished on was 72k approx, made up of basic salary of 59,359, special duties post of 3,769 (which she may or may not have held) qualification allowance of 6,140 (that is the mount payable for a doctorate....which is highly unlikely she would have held!...far more likely is an honours degree allowance of 4,918) and a long service allowance of 2,324 (which is payable after about 36 years service)

Am I missing something here? I have a feeling you are being somewhat disingenuous or else you are believing some exaggerated story you have heard? I am asking this as a teacher with 32 years service, plus a master's degree and a salary of just under 65k.

I smell a rat here. . . Someone pretending to be a teacher with all the "glorious" benefits.

For what it's worth I wouldn't consider 65K to be a great salary for someone who has given a lifetime (32 years in your case) of service.

This thread is not about the past.

It's about the future.

marienbad

Maryanne40 wrote: »

Perhaps she is on all of those allowances.....but it still adds up to about 72k...it is the 'more' I am interested in.....18k more. Could you please tell me about these allowances, which I have never heard of and don't know about, despite spending my entire career in teaching? I am not asking here whether she was a good or bad teacher.....that is irrelevant for the purposes of my question.

As regards my own salary, I believe it is a reasonable one. It is enough to live on fairly well but not enough to go mad on. I submit that had I chosen accountancy as a career I would be earning far more at this stage. Or, taken a position as an EO in the civil service....there would have been promotion opportunities in that field....there were always very few in teaching and there are none now, outside of principal/deputy principal.

I have answered your question...now please answer mine and also tell us more about the 2 tier teaching system you are alluding to.

I can only tell you what she is on- I am not going to demand her payslip !
Whether she was a good teacher may not be relevant to you but it was to her students and their parents . The fact is she wasn't a good teacher but was impossible to get rid of - unlike most other professions/industries.And the fact the to-one in the profession acknowledge to the outside world that this is an overall problem does you no favours.

As regards your own salary being just reasonable ! You are in the top 5 for your profession for the whole of Europe and that is only reasonable ?

As what you may or may not have earned in accountancy -that is a complete red herring , I could say to you as is often said to anyone voicing a contrary opinion on teachers pay in these type threads- 'If you think teaching is so good why don't you do it' . So why didn't you do accountancy ?

As regards the 2 tier system - will someone entering the profession right now be on the same pay scales and conditions as you ?

marienbad

Maryanne40 wrote: »

And by the way it is not 'extraordinary stuff' to get a lump sum. It is not peculiar to the teacher you are talking about; it is not even peculiar to teachers. Every civil servant and many public servants finish with a lump sum. It is calculated in relation to years worked and final salary. You may well have an issue with lump sums but don't pretend this teacher got something she was not legally entitled to.

I never said it wasn't legal , dos'nt make it moral though does it ? How many remedial teachers would that pay for , or prefabs replaced ?

What ever way you analyse it - it is another 3kto 5k per annum .

Never mind the practice of bumping people up a grade towards the end to avail of a higher amount ,though I don't know if that was the case in the teaching profession.

The fact is most of the education budget goes on salaries thanks to the power of the unions over the years . And large class sizes and poor facilities are a natural extension of that. The budget is finite.

And now we into straightened times the younger entrants to the profession are seeing their prospects hollowed out because of budgetary constraints but also to safeguard as much as possible the older members.

marienbad

Peter Flynt wrote: »

I smell a rat here. . . Someone pretending to be a teacher with all the "glorious" benefits.

For what it's worth I wouldn't consider 65K to be a great salary for someone who has given a lifetime (32 years in your case) of service.

This thread is not about the past.

It's about the future.

Smell all you like Peter - you always seem to when someone isn't on the same hymn sheet as you.

One thing I can never understand is this sense of entitlement length of service seems to convey ?

Why does one deserve more for just staying in the same job ? If anything the further one gets from their degree the less current their knowledge is and the experience gained peaks after a few year and one is in danger of being the ould codger in the corner repeating the mantra of 'it has always been done this way''

Inspector Coptoor

marienbad wrote: »

I can only tell you what she is on- I am not going to demand her payslip !
Whether she was a good teacher may not be relevant to you but it was to her students and their parents . The fact is she wasn't a good teacher but was impossible to get rid of - unlike most other professions/industries.And the fact the to-one in the profession acknowledge to the outside world that this is an overall problem does you no favours.

As regards your own salary being just reasonable ! You are in the top 5 for your profession for the whole of Europe and that is only reasonable ?

As what you may or may not have earned in accountancy -that is a complete red herring , I could say to you as is often said to anyone voicing a contrary opinion on teachers pay in these type threads- 'If you think teaching is so good why don't you do it' . So why didn't you do accountancy ?

As regards the 2 tier system - will someone entering the profession right now be on the same pay scales and conditions as you ?

Top 5 in Europe with one of the highest levels of taxation and one of the highest costs of living aswell but sure that a doesn't matter eh?

You are being deliberately obtuse here.

People get lump sums when they retire and a pension.

If we take your example, that retired teacher ended on 72k, she would have got a lump sum of €105k & a pension of €36k per annum, AFTER paying into a pension for over 30 years.

jonseyblub

marienbad wrote: »

The fact is most of the education budget goes on salaries thanks to the power of the unions over the years . And large class sizes and poor facilities are a natural extension of that. The budget is finite.

.

The fact is that the education budget has been slashed and that is in no way the fault of the unions but private sector greed. As a result the percentage paid on teachers salaries as a total of the budget is going to increase even with the slashing of teachers salaries by 20 odd percent. Now the only way to stop this happening is by sacking teachers (which I'm sure you'd agree with), increase Pupil teacher ratio to the point that classes are unteachable or stop paying the debts of the private sector banks so as increase the education budget again.

Peter Flynt

marienbad wrote: »

The fact is most of the education budget goes on salaries thanks to the power of the unions over the years

Approximately 48% of the education budget is spent on teacher salaries.

So the fact is you're wrong. . . .but that won't stop your clueless ranting I suppose.

Inspector Coptoor

And of that 48%, howuch do they take back off us in tax?

Loads..

ledgebag1

What type of pension do the longer serving teachers have defined or contributed? Just curious about that I am wondering what type of pension we might encounter?

In regards to that last post we are all paying loads of tax which was mentioned in previous posts and is not what this thread is about

Inspector Coptoor

They have a pension based on the average of their final 3 years gross salary that they pay into for up to 40 years..

For newer entrants, like myself, that has been changed to average career earnings, including years at the beginning when earrings would be quite low.

ledgebag1

Okay, are there options of transferring money paid into a private/ work pension into the teachers pensions scheme? If this makes sense?

marienbad

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Approximately 48% of the education budget is spent on teacher salaries.

So the fact is you're wrong. . . .but that won't stop your clueless ranting I suppose.

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1023115.shtml

itsaposter

It's natural that most of any country's education budget gets taken up in salaries, that is and will always be the main expense. There's no need to defend a high percentage, a low percentage on the other hand seems plucked out of the air to aid an argument.

There seems to be no shortage of applicants for teaching posts (I assume the quality of these is the same as ever - mixed), therefore there seems to be no indication that the genuinely sharp reduction in starting salaries is currently a significant problem.

New teachers are assuming that over time they'll win back some or all of the cuts, a calculated risk. However it'd really help their case if there was a shortage of applicants, so it's not unusual to see propaganda to help that along.

Many of the problems with Irish 2nd level education come down to the school calendar, long hours, long weeks, short year. Lengthen the year and you'll see everything else ease up.

Is there one Irish teacher who'd swap a few weeks of holidays for a more comfortable work week and a better education system, probably not.

Peter Flynt

marienbad wrote: »

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1023115.shtml

I said teachers pay. Teachers meaning teachers in PRIMARY & SECONDARY schools.

Lecturers in Universities, Carektakers, Secretaries, the DES Inspectorate, DES admin, cleaners, Admin in primary secondary and tertiaryetc. . . . . . all have to be paid. . .

marienbad

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

Top 5 in Europe with one of the highest levels of taxation and one of the highest costs of living aswell but sure that a doesn't matter eh?

You are being deliberately obtuse here.

People get lump sums when they retire and a pension.

If we take your example, that retired teacher ended on 72k, she would have got a lump sum of €105k & a pension of €36k per annum, AFTER paying into a pension for over 30 years.

http://www.eapn.ie/eapn/policy/resources-on-taxation/tax-in-ireland-and-Europe

We do not have one of the highest tax levels - in fact for a developed country the reverse is true.

And the cost of living is high but by no means the highest . I can get the stats on that also if you like.

Nothing obtuse about it at all .Time to look out of the bubble people .

Everyone pays into a pension ,everyone pays tax , what exactly is your point ?

marienbad

Peter Flynt wrote: »

I said teachers pay. Teachers meaning teachers in PRIMARY & SECONDARY schools.

Lecturers in Universities, Carektakers, Secretaries, the DES Inspectorate, DES admin, cleaners, Admin in primary secondary and tertiaryetc. . . . . . all have to be paid. . .

When the stats don't suit get another set eh?

marienbad

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

And of that 48%, howuch do they take back off us in tax?

Loads..

No , and no more or less than anyone else.

Inspector Coptoor

We, as public sector workers, Pay more tax when you include the pension levy & we don't get bonuses or benefit in kind like private sector workers.

The pensions aren't as gold plated for us as people like to make out.

That's my point.

Peter Flynt

marienbad wrote: »

When the stats don't suit get another set eh?

Nope.

I'd be very wary of quoting a website like finfacts with a clear anti-public sector agenda.

Look at this article. . http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1026508.shtml

It supports the idea of the myth of the 'world class' education system. This article appeared in September 2013. . . just three months before the PISA published results showed that Ireland had produced the best result among EU countries for reading with dramatic improvements in Maths & Science. . . Not bad for an under resourced sector. These results were far greater than what was produced in the UK.

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/rel...6education.pdf

The link above to Chapter 6 (Education) of the Statistical Yearbook of Ireland, 2011

Table 6.4 on page 98 refers to gross expenditure within each sector of education for the year ending 31 December 2009 which, in total, came to €9335.6 million.

These figures are not entirely detailed but the breakdown is as follows:
Administration and other services €533.2 million

First level education grants and services €3,133.3 million

Second level and further education grants and services €3,101.7 million

Third level and further education grants and services €1,820.9 million
Capital services €766.5 million

Gross expenditure €9,355.6 million

Now first and second level (where teachers are employed) expenditure accounts for €6235 million or approximately 66.6 % of total education expenditure.

Now teachers wages would not account for the entirety of this money as other costs (as listed above) would have to be considered.

Even if the wages of teachers were to account for 80 % of the €6235 million spent in 2009 then teachers wages would account for just over half of the entire education budget for 2009.

And we all know there have been several pay cuts for teachers since 2009. . . .

donegal11

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

They have a pension based on the average of their final 3 years gross salary that they pay into for up to 40 years..

For newer entrants, like myself, that has been changed to average career earnings, including years at the beginning when earrings would be quite low.

That career average earnings only started last year for new enterants, have you not been a teacher longer then that?

Peter Flynt

donegal11 wrote: »

That career average earnings only started last year for new enterants, have you not been a teacher longer then that?

That's not the point. This thread is about the future of the profession and every entrant now enters the pension scheme and it is based on career average earnings.

marienbad

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

We, as public sector workers, Pay more tax when you include the pension levy & we don't get bonuses or benefit in kind like private sector workers.

The pensions aren't as gold plated for us as people like to make out.

That's my point.

This is just a short term , historically the public sector pensions have been an extraordinary deal and even with levies and such they still are.

I don't have too much of a problem with that ( with some caveats) it is the constant refusal to recognise that reality that annoys people.

There is no point saying you don't get BIK or bonuses like others, they don't get your guaranteed pension, lumpsum,and long holidays - and so we go round and round.

Compare like with like and on that basis you are better off than most of your counterparts in Europe . As are all public sector and semi-state workers in Ireland.

Peter Flynt

marienbad wrote: »

This is just a short term , historically the public sector pensions have been an extraordinary deal and even with levies and such they still are.

I don't have too much of a problem with that ( with some caveats) it is the constant refusal to recognise that reality that annoys people.

There is no point saying you don't get BIK or bonuses like others, they don't get your guaranteed pension, lumpsum,and long holidays - and so we go round and round.

Compare like with like and on that basis you are better off than most of your counterparts in Europe . As are all public sector and semi-state workers in Ireland.

I pay for my own pension. . .10-12% of a salary deducted over 40 years . . . What do you think that comes to?