CID; Paid for 22 even though only working 18 h 20m?

JD3112

A colleague has just got his CID (just over 18hrs and only timetabled for that). Does that mean he gets paid for 22 hours as stated in form H22?

Would it not then make sense to 'make' him work 22 hours if he is getting paid for 22 hours?

Peter Flynt

JD3112 wrote: »

A colleague has just got his CID (just over 18hrs and only timetabled for that). Does that mean he gets paid for 22 hours as stated in form H22?

Would it not then make sense to 'make' him work 22 hours if he is getting paid for 22 hours?

He gets paid for the time he's doing - 18 hours

vamos!

I though you got paid for full hours once you had a CID for 18+? Was this an urban myth? Why are people so anxious to get 18 hours on their CID?

Peter Flynt

vamos! wrote: »

I though you got paid for full hours once you had a CID for 18+? Was this an urban myth? Why are people so anxious to get 18 hours on their CID?

Because they are eligible for 22 hours once they receive a contract for 18 hours.

It does not mean they are going to get 22 hours.

Anyone who states they are on 18 hours and getting paid for 22 is, shall we say, being a bit careless with the truth.

Ballfro

It happened to me last year. I was on 18 hours but getting paid for 22, I got my CID after 3 years. Still getting paid for 22 but teaching 22 :-). There were 3 of us in the same boat.

happywithlife

I thought it was you only got paid for the full 22 hrs if you signed in your contract you were willing to be timetabled for the 22 hrs

implausible

Once you have a CID for 18 + hours, you get paid for 22. There is no such thing as a 19 or 20 hour CID any more. It is management's responsibility to timetable you up to the 22, not your problem if they can't.

Bear in mind that schools may not have allocated all their resource hours yet and they are often used to 'top up' teachers' hours.

mirrorwall14

From the ASTI

"A CID holder on 18 hours or more per week may be paid full time salary if they agree in writing to be timetabled for up to 22 hours per week" - See more at: http://www.asti.ie/asti-membership/new-to-teaching/hours-contracts-and-salary-explained/#sthash.sCpCn6Py.dpuf

You have to request/agree to full hours but yes you can be paid for 22 while teaching less

Moody_mona

implausible wrote: »

Once you have a contract for 18 + hours, you get paid for 22. There is no such thing as a 19 or 20 hour contract any more. It is management's responsibility to timetable you up to the 22, not your problem if they can't.

Bear in mind that schools may not have allocated all their resource hours yet and they are often used to 'top up' teachers' hours.

Only a CID contract. If you have a temporary contract for 19 hours you're paid for only that.

(Not sure if you're saying that, just in case someone is reading it and thinks they're owed money)

rainbowtrout

Ya, the H22 form says something to the effect that you will be paid for 22 with the agreement that the contract holder is willing to work up to 22 hours. Doesn't mean they will be timetabled for 22. Definitely not a myth.

JD3112

Then if they are getting paid for 22 hours surely the department would insist they work for 22 hours (top it up with resource, use the extra hours for "something useful" etc).

I'm not jealous of my colleague, just curious on how it works!

rainbowtrout

JD3112 wrote: »

Then if they are getting paid for 22 hours surely the department would insist they work for 22 hours (top it up with resource, use the extra hours for "something useful" etc).

I'm not jealous of my colleague, just curious on how it works!

No. Those are the terms of the agreement. In some situations it may not be possibly to timetable a person for 22 hours. In reality, schools probably do timetable for 22 hours or as close as possible

rainbowtrout

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Anyone who states they are on 18 hours and getting paid for 22 is, shall we say, being a bit careless with the truth.

No they are not. It does happen. So much so that there is a culture in some schools of giving non CID teachers contracts one class below 18 hours. Unfortunately it's a fairly standard CID in my school. I've seen people on 18+ hours in year 2 of their contract, dropped to 17:20 in year three, given CID for 17:20 and put back up to above 18 the following year

Pwpane

Same for permanent posts. Paid for full time job-max 22 class contact hours, min 18. Thus CID holders cannot be treated differently (even though they were until the unions kicked up).

Much pressure in recent years on principals to time table max hours no matter what the circumstances.

implausible

Moody_mona wrote: »

Only a CID contract. If you have a temporary contract for 19 hours you're paid for only that.

(Not sure if you're saying that, just in case someone is reading it and thinks they're owed money)

Apologies, yes of course, you're right - omitted CID in my post, will fix.

RealJohn

My understanding was that once you have an 18 hour CID that the school is obliged to try to bring you up to 22 hours, not that you'll get paid for 22 hours regardless of whether you're only working 18 or not. I would certainly hope that teachers aren't being paid for 22 hours when they're only working 18 other than in exceptional circumstances.

rainbowtrout

RealJohn wrote: »

My understanding was that once you have an 18 hour CID that the school is obliged to try to bring you up to 22 hours, not that you'll get paid for 22 hours regardless of whether you're only working 18 or not. I would certainly hope that teachers aren't being paid for 22 hours when they're only working 18 other than in exceptional circumstances.

No a teacher gets paid for 22 hours once they sign the H22 form and they have an 18+ hours contract. It's up to the school how they timetable them after that

RealJohn

rainbowtrout wrote: »

No a teacher gets paid for 22 hours once they sign the H22 form and they have an 18+ hours contract. It's up to the school how they timetable them after that

What a joke. I wonder how I can get an 18 hour CID rather than this pesky PWT I'm stuck with.

In all seriousness though, that's idiotic. If you're not working 22 hours, you shouldn't be paid for 22 hours, as a general rule at least.

mirrorwall14

RealJohn wrote: »

What a joke. I wonder how I can get an 18 hour CID rather than this pesky PWT I'm stuck with.

In all seriousness though, that's idiotic. If you're not working 22 hours, you shouldn't be paid for 22 hours, as a general rule at least.

As posted further up asfaik its because a PWT teacher such as you can be timetabled between 18-22 hours. The same right is given for CID holders. In practise every principal will try and max out at 22 for both types of contract

rainbowtrout

RealJohn wrote: »

What a joke. I wonder how I can get an 18 hour CID rather than this pesky PWT I'm stuck with.

In all seriousness though, that's idiotic. If you're not working 22 hours, you shouldn't be paid for 22 hours, as a general rule at least.

Why is it a joke? The vast majority of people in my experience that have an 18+ contract do get timetabled for 22 hours or as close to it as possible. This also applies to teachers with permanent contracts. I'd say it's more likely to happen in small schools rather than big schools where a certain number of teachers are employed to meet curricular need but there may not necessarily be enough hours to give all the permanent teachers 22.

I'm in what was an amalgamated school. The year we amalgamated we had way too many teachers, I taught about 18-19 hours that year, but was paid for 22 on a permanent contract. There simply wasn't enough hours to fill all the permanent teachers timetables. It's never happened me since, and I've always had 22 from that point on.

RealJohn

I would say that a person shouldn't be given a PWT contract unless there is a reasonable expectation that the hours to fill it are there in the long term and then, if it were to happen that there was the odd year they weren't, that would be a reasonable exception. If your contract states that you're contracted for 18 hours though, I don't see why should you should have any entitlement to be paid any more than that, unless you actually work more than that.

I wouldn't have a problem with someone on a 22 hour CID being paid for 22 hours even if their class time didn't quite make it up to 22 hours because their contract is for 22 hours but if the contract is for less than 22 hours, you're not entitled to expect to be paid for work you don't do beyond the hours you're actually contracted for if you ask me.

implausible

RealJohn wrote: »

I would say that a person shouldn't be given a PWT contract unless there is a reasonable expectation that the hours to fill it are there in the long term and then, if it were to happen that there was the odd year they weren't, that would be a reasonable exception. If your contract states that you're contracted for 18 hours though, I don't see why should you should have any entitlement to be paid any more than that, unless you actually work more than that.

I wouldn't have a problem with someone on a 22 hour CID being paid for 22 hours even if their class time didn't quite make it up to 22 hours because their contract is for 22 hours but if the contract is for less than 22 hours, you're not entitled to expect to be paid for work you don't do beyond the hours you're actually contracted for if you ask me.

There has been enough bother with schools and ETBs dropping teachers to 17.6 hours in their third year, besides offering another type of "objective reason" to prevent teachers getting their CIDs. The aim is a good one - to have schools with permanent teachers who are teaching a full timetable. This is surely much preferable to a school full of teachers who have contracts of 7 hours here and 5 hours there.

In reality, I doubt this happens all that often. Any principal can see the logic of fully timetabling a teacher. Besides, if a significant amount of hours are no longer viable, then redeployment kicks in.

rainbowtrout

implausible wrote: »

There has been enough bother with schools and ETBs dropping teachers to 17.6 hours in their third year, besides offering another type of "objective reason" to prevent teachers getting their CIDs. The aim is a good one - to have schools with permanent teachers who are teaching a full timetable. This is surely much preferable to a school full of teachers who have contracts of 7 hours here and 5 hours there.

In reality, I doubt this happens all that often. Any principal can see the logic of fully timetabling a teacher. Besides, if a significant amount of hours are no longer viable, then redeployment kicks in.

I would agree. Allowing a teacher to be paid for 22 hours once their contract is above 18, realistically means they will be timetabled for 22 hours. It means that stray hours - 2 hours here and 3 hours there are used to fill those timetables instead of employing teachers on small hours with poor prospects.

I started teaching before the concept of the CID came in and there were TWT and EPT (RPT) contracts. TWT were essentially what CIDs are now and it was rare to see anyone get paid for 22 and work 18. Schools tended to have mainly full time staff and one or two part timers with whatever hours are left over.

I can think of at least 10 members of the staff in my school who have 17:20 CIDs all to keep them below 18. There are certainly hours in some of those jobs which could have been divided up among some of them to provide 22 hour contracts over the years.

RealJohn

implausible wrote: »

There has been enough bother with schools and ETBs dropping teachers to 17.6 hours in their third year, besides offering another type of "objective reason" to prevent teachers getting their CIDs. The aim is a good one - to have schools with permanent teachers who are teaching a full timetable. This is surely much preferable to a school full of teachers who have contracts of 7 hours here and 5 hours there.

In reality, I doubt this happens all that often. Any principal can see the logic of fully timetabling a teacher. Besides, if a significant amount of hours are no longer viable, then redeployment kicks in.

I agree that having more full time teachers is preferable to having lots of part-timers but I don't agree that paying teachers for work they're not doing is the way to go about it. A teacher being paid for 22 hours and only working 18 is not preferable to having a teacher working 18 hours and getting paid for that and also having a part-timer working for four hours, or adding those four hours to a part-timer who's on less than 18.

rainbowtrout

RealJohn wrote: »

I agree that having more full time teachers is preferable to having lots of part-timers but I don't agree that paying teachers for work they're not doing is the way to go about it. A teacher being paid for 22 hours and only working 18 is not preferable to having a teacher working 18 hours and getting paid for that and also having a part-timer working for four hours, or adding those four hours to a part-timer who's on less than 18.

Well how about considering it this way: paying a CID teacher for 22 hours will encourage a principal to timetable them for 22 hours which be more economical in the long run.

In reality getting paid for 22 and not working 22 is rare. Teachers will be given filler subjects to make up the hours: religion, sphe, cspe, computers or maybe some resource classes

RealJohn

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I started teaching before the concept of the CID came in and there were TWT and EPT (RPT) contracts. TWT were essentially what CIDs are now and it was rare to see anyone get paid for 22 and work 18. Schools tended to have mainly full time staff and one or two part timers with whatever hours are left over.

I can think of at least 10 members of the staff in my school who have 17:20 CIDs all to keep them below 18. There are certainly hours in some of those jobs which could have been divided up among some of them to provide 22 hour contracts over the years.

First of all, TWT was not what CIDs are now. The first T stood for 'temporary' and that's what they are. Being on a 22 TWT was no guarantee of having a job at all the following year. They were fixed term contracts. CIDs are not.

And your second point just proves mine: teachers are being kept on less than 18 hours so that the hours/money allocated to the school can be maximised. Once they hit 18, they won't cost an extra 40 minutes, they'll cost an extra 4 hours and 40 minutes so it doesn't make sense to bump them up unless they hours to bring them up to 22 hours are there. How is that a good situation for anyone?

RealJohn

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Well how about considering it this way: paying a CID teacher for 22 hours will encourage a principal to timetable them for 22 hours which be more economical in the long run.

In reality getting paid for 22 and not working 22 is rare. Teachers will be given filler subjects to make up the hours: religion, sphe, cspe, computers or maybe some resource classes

I agree that it's rare but it shouldn't happen at all ideally. In PWT contracts it can't be avoided but in a CID of less than 22 hours, it can and it should.

Like has been pointed out, having to pay a teacher for 22 hours does encourage the school to fill those hours but it also discourages schools from letting them get to 18 hours in the first place.

implausible

RealJohn wrote: »

I agree that having more full time teachers is preferable to having lots of part-timers but I don't agree that paying teachers for work they're not doing is the way to go about it. A teacher being paid for 22 hours and only working 18 is not preferable to having a teacher working 18 hours and getting paid for that and also having a part-timer working for four hours, or adding those four hours to a part-timer who's on less than 18.

It's not the teacher's fault if the school cannot find the hours. Like I say, if it was a longterm thing, redeployment would kick in. You have to remember that being on 18.5 hours, 20.8 hours etc does not make a teacher equivalent to a 22 hour CID when it comes to their pensions etc. How then would you work out a teacher's CP obligations and their s/s timetable? It'd be a logistical nightmare.

And, at the end of the day, a teacher on 18.7 hours is bound to be in the school all day, every day, like their 22 hour counterparts. It would be deeply unfair to penalise them for something that is out of their control.

I very much doubt that, in the very few cases where this happens, any teacher is getting 'overpaid' for any more than a year or two. It's in the school's interests to timetable them fully.

rainbowtrout

RealJohn wrote: »

I agree that it's rare but it shouldn't happen at all ideally. In PWT contracts it can't be avoided but in a CID of less than 22 hours, it can and it should.

Like has been pointed out, having to pay a teacher for 22 hours does encourage the school to fill those hours but it also discourages schools from letting them get to 18 hours in the first place.

What about the case of my school. Several of those 17:20 contracts could have easily been divided up and used to provide 22 hour contracts to existing teachers. Now they are just being used to prevent teachers ever having a chance of having a full time position.

There's no incentive for a principal to ever bring them up to full time hours. Just employ another part time teacher. It's not a case that the hours don't exist. For the 17:20 teachers that are there the longest they can see that if another 7 or 8 have been employed after them that surely four of those hours could have been allocated to them in the longterm.

mirrorwall14

Also CID is essentially the new permanent. You could probably count on one hand the number of permanent jobs advertised this year. Everyone has to work up the hours, this is a good incentive to principals to timetable properly and given PWTs could also be timetabled for18hrs I don't see why you have an issue with CIDs having the same right

paddybarry

Some teachers are on 22hrs but could have relatively smaller classes compared to a colleague on less than 22hrs. For example, a teacher could have 30 in a leaving cert class while others in same option may only have half those. Some teachers may have a timetable with four senior cycle classes while others have a timetable made up of TYs and JC classes.

Point I'm making is that timetables are inherently inequitable in many schools. I would not bemoan a colleague (s) having less than 22 hrs as the cumulative total of students and workload may well exceed those on 22 hrs.

RealJohn

implausible wrote: »

It's not the teacher's fault if the school cannot find the hours. Like I say, if it was a longterm thing, redeployment would kick in. You have to remember that being on 18.5 hours, 20.8 hours etc does not make a teacher equivalent to a 22 hour CID when it comes to their pensions etc. How then would you work out a teacher's CP obligations and their s/s timetable? It'd be a logistical nightmare.

Hardly a nightmare but even if it was, that's why principals and DPs get paid more money: they have to figure that sort of thing out. Similarly, the DES/ETB finance departments are there to work these things out when it comes to pensions etc. Not much of an excuse.

implausible wrote: »

And, at the end of the day, a teacher on 18.7 hours is bound to be in the school all day, every day, like their 22 hour counterparts. It would be deeply unfair to penalise them for something that is out of their control.

A teacher on twelve hours is also likely to be in the school every day for most of the day. Maybe not from 9 to 4 every day but it's not like they can go off and get a part time job either. It's not about class time or even time spent in the building and you know it.

implausible wrote: »

I very much doubt that, in the very few cases where this happens, any teacher is getting 'overpaid' for any more than a year or two. It's in the school's interests to timetable them fully.

It is but we've established that it's also in the school's interests not to let them get to 18 hours.

rainbowtrout wrote: »

What about the case of my school. Several of those 17:20 contracts could have easily been divided up and used to provide 22 hour contracts to existing teachers. Now they are just being used to prevent teachers ever having a chance of having a full time position.

There's no incentive for a principal to ever bring them up to full time hours. Just employ another part time teacher. It's not a case that the hours don't exist. For the 17:20 teachers that are there the longest they can see that if another 7 or 8 have been employed after them that surely four of those hours could have been allocated to them in the longterm.

I'm not sure how this is an argument in favour of paying teachers on 18 hours as though they're on 22. I would say it supports my position.
Maybe some of those contracts should be divided up to bring some teachers up to full hours, at least in subjects that are very likely to fill 22 hours every year. It sounds to me like they should but that's a matter for the school's management.

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

Also CID is essentially the new permanent. You could probably count on one hand the number of permanent jobs advertised this year. Everyone has to work up the hours, this is a good incentive to principals to timetable properly and given PWTs could also be timetabled for18hrs I don't see why you have an issue with CIDs having the same right

A CID isn't the same as permanent though. You're right that this government (and apparently the previous one) were doing their best to get rid of permanent contracts but replacing them with CIDs makes no sense to anyone, except that it means you can be permanent without being full time which is obviously good for the government and the schools financially but not good for the teachers or the students in the long run.

I'm not disputing that it encourages principals to timetable them for 22 hours if they get up to 18 hours but we've established that principals are also incentivised not to allow them to get to 18 hours in the first place.
Not to mention that if your contract states you only work 18 hours, why should you expect to be paid for 22? You should be paid for what you're contracted for or what you work, whichever is better for you. Paying teachers for work they're not doing when they're not even contracted to do it is a waste of money in any sensible person's book.

paddybarry wrote: »

Some teachers are on 22hrs but could have relatively smaller classes compared to a colleague on less than 22hrs. For example, a teacher could have 30 in a leaving cert class while others in same option may only have half those. Some teachers may have a timetable with four senior cycle classes while others have a timetable made up of TYs and JC classes.

Point I'm making is that timetables are inherently inequitable in many schools. I would not bemoan a colleague (s) having less than 22 hrs as the cumulative total of students and workload may well exceed those on 22 hrs.

I agree, except that if they're not contracted to work 22 hours then I would begrudge them being paid for hours they're not even contracted for. You're right that some subjects mean a higher workload and some schools have higher workloads than others. There's nothing we can do about that. It's the nature of the job. Being paid for hours you don't actually work and that you haven't signed up for is not in the nature of any profession.

I genuinely can't see any good reason for paying a teacher for more than they're contracted for no matter how many hours the contract is for. I can only imagine what certain members of the press would say to it.

mirrorwall14

Short question.

You as a PWT can be timetabled for 18hrs and paid for 22hrs. Have you as big an issue with PWT being allowed to be paid for 22 and timetabled for 18?

RealJohn

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

Short question.

You as a PWT can be timetabled for 18hrs and paid for 22hrs. Have you as big an issue with PWT being allowed to be paid for 22 and timetabled for 18?

I don't think it should happen ideally but if you're contracted for 22 hours, you're entitled to be paid for 22 hours, whether the school can give you 22 hours or not. The same applies to 22 hour CIDs. If you're contracted for less than 22 hours though, I don't see why you should be entitled to be paid for more than is in your contract unless you work more.

gaiscioch

I always thought if you had a 22-hour contract in the year before you were awarded your CID, you are paid for 22 hours in your CID contract, even if you may only now be teaching 18 hours. If you had 18 hours in the year prior to your CID, you only got a CID for those 18 hours.

Can anybody answer why they just don't call a CID a permanent contract? Does the DoES benefit in any way by maintaining that distinction? As a teacher on a 22-hour CID, I don't even know how to explain the distinction between that and permanency so any ideas will be enlightening.

seavill

If there were no hours you can be let go on a CID, permanent you can't.

Using myself as the example if everyone stopped picking Woodwork and I was CID there are no hours there for me so the school have no longer any use for me so I will be moved on, permanent I won't. Thats my understanding of it anyway, open to correction

evolving_doors

I think it's unfortunate that we've been reduced to hours watching. The hours are just contact time. In my view once you are above 18 your doing pretty good to catch your breath these days. Plenty of work to be done outside class contact time.

I think the worst thing we can do as a profession is to start nit picking and gossiping over our fellow colleagues hours. Maybe this is why principals want to max out the hours for each full timer, to avoid bickering.

It's not so bad for core subjects but minority subjects should be supported for the greater good. We've seen how physics has been edged out of some schools because of low numbers, possibly there is an issue with finding a teacher but I don't like the way things are going.

On the issue of topping up with resource hours... I think it's deplorable. There is the positive aspect of getting a lot of staff involved with sen issues. However, we all know it's primarily done to suit the timetable and not the student.
The main focus for resource is supposed to be literacy and numeracy , hence English and Maths should be the main focus. In my experience, This is what the parents want and the students need. But... What ends up happening with this 'slush fund' approach is that a student who might be doing well in say woodwork (and failing English) is slotted in for a one-to-one of guess what?.... More woodwork....just so the teacher is bumped up to the 22.
Also the 2007 dept guidelines on SEN specifically recommend that resource hours should be consolidated to make a full or part time position (for v. good reasons which I won't go into). If principals are being instructed to top-up with resource by the dept. then they should be made aware of the depts. own guidelines.

mirrorwall14

seavill wrote: »

If there were no hours you can be let go on a CID, permanent you can't.

Using myself as the example if everyone stopped picking Woodwork and I was CID there are no hours there for me so the school have no longer any use for me so I will be moved on, permanent I won't. Thats my understanding of it anyway, open to correction

I'm don't think you are correct here

As per the ASTI website
"Teachers employed on contracts of indefinite duration (CID) have all the same rights and entitlements as permanent teachers.

The only difference between a contract of indefinite duration and a permanent contract is that CID holders who teach less than 18 hours are paid at an hourly rate for the number of hours they teach each week. CID holders on 18 hours or more per week are paid a full-time salary."
- See more at: http://www.asti.ie/pay-and-conditions/non-permanent-teachers/cids-explained/#sthash.Pw1uc4OQ.dpuf

And in relation to your specific above, you would be redeployed-not out of a job
e.g.
"The Government has given a commitment in the Public Service Agreement (Croke Park Agreement ) that compulsory redundancy will not apply to permanent/CID teachers." TUI


There was an excellent post in the past by ulysses32 here


As CID of 18hrs+ is equal to a PWT the same rights of employment are allocated. Thus as a PWT can be timetabled for as little as 18 but paid for 22, so can a CID holder of 18hrs+

seavill

I meant out of a job in that school.

However I'm not sure about your quote from ASTI website, if it were the exact same why change the name? I thought that was the only difference between the two but as I said could be wrong

mirrorwall14

I thought you might, but the reality is that a permanent teacher can be redeployed too (my mother was 15 years ago).

It was to bring us in line with EU legislation and is their term. CID is the legal speak for permanency in The European legislative context (asfaik and quoted from Ulysses). It was due to pressure from the EU that Fixed Term Acts, etc were introduced. They are designed as protective legislation. It meant that teachers being employed on short hours long term had to be granted some security, just not necessarily a full time job

Probably more telling is that the Department treat them interchangeably and redeployment etc applies to PWT/CIDs equally

gaiscioch

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

I thought you might, but the reality is that a permanent teacher can be redeployed too (my mother was 15 years ago).

It was to bring us in line with EU legislation and is their term. CID is the legal speak for permanency in The European legislative context (asfaik and quoted from Ulysses). It was due to pressure from the EU that Fixed Term Acts, etc were introduced. They are designed as protective legislation. It meant that teachers being employed on short hours long term had to be granted some security, just not necessarily a full time job

Probably more telling is that the Department treat them interchangeably and redeployment etc applies to PWT/CIDs equally

OK, so what is the point in giving a teacher a 'Permanent' contract a year after she/he gets a CID, as happened in my school?

mirrorwall14

gaiscioch wrote: »

OK, so what is the point in giving a teacher a 'Permanent' contract a year after she/he gets a CID, as happened in my school?

Was it a full time CID?

RealJohn

gaiscioch wrote: »

OK, so what is the point in giving a teacher a 'Permanent' contract a year after she/he gets a CID, as happened in my school?

I would think because schools are 'entitled' to a certain number of PWT contracts, depending on pupil numbers so by upgrading a 22 CID they crossed that off the list without having to hire a new teacher and give a bunch of part-timers the boot to accommodate the new teacher (who would have to be given 22 hours or close to it since that's what they'd be getting paid for).

On the question of why PWT contracts aren't given instead of CIDs, I would think that it's because a CID doesn't have to be 22 hours whereas a PWT does as far as I know.

gaiscioch

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

Was it a full time CID?

Yes, full time 22-hour CID.

RealJohn wrote: »

I would think because schools are 'entitled' to a certain number of PWT contracts, depending on pupil numbers so by upgrading a 22 CID they crossed that off the list without having to hire a new teacher and give a bunch of part-timers the boot to accommodate the new teacher (who would have to be given 22 hours or close to it since that's what they'd be getting paid for).

This answer would seem to be the most sensible explanation of the CID-PWT issue.

RealJohn wrote: »

On the question of why PWT contracts aren't given instead of CIDs, I would think that it's because a CID doesn't have to be 22 hours whereas a PWT does as far as I know.

In my own case, for instance, I received a CID rather than a permanent contract for the full 22 hours, a 22-hour week which I had done in each of the previous four years so perhaps that might go back to your earlier point, namely that there is a set number of PWT contracts available depending on school size and if you have 22 hours teaching you will get a Permanent contract if one of those contracts is available from the school's set number, but in the interim you will get a 22-hour CID contract.