The Impact of Casualisation on Education

r93kaey5p2izun

I'm interested in discussing the impact of casualisation on education, with a focus on the Irish second level sector. I don't want to focus on the impact on casualised workers in this thread, except for how the effect on such workers may impact on the education system and the experience of students in the system.

I want to understand the drive for breaking up jobs and offering only part time hours. I am most interested in how this is being used as a long term policy - when teachers are given part time CID and possibly given some hours (often fixed purpose) as a top up - rather than the scenario of initially hiring part time teachers but moving them towards full time security where possible if they prove to be suitable for the role.

Why are managers (whether that be principals, BOMs, ETBs or other bodies) going down this route? Why do they feel it is a plus for their school and the system as a whole? What is their long term vision in this regard? I realise a new circular seeks to improve job security in education with reference to CIDs but I don't think this will have much impact where managers are following a policy of breaking up jobs.

The benefits I have heard touted are an increased supply of subs, increased competition between teachers leading to increased extracurricular offerings, and extra unpaid work and the ability to provide a wider range of subjects. Are there financial benefits to the system of having lots of part time CID teachers rather than fewer whole time ones?

Is there any research showing the benefits of this approach, particularly in the long term? I have found much academic discussion of this system at third level (mostly from other countries - particularly Australia) but little beyond union rumblings pertaining to second level (and all from Ireland). Where else is this policy widespread in a second level education system and has it been for the benefit of that system? This is a relatively recent (little over a decade) phenomenon in our system so what is the long term vision here by those who are driving this change?

The potential negative outcomes I heard discussed are mostly long term. These include teacher burnout leading to dropping out or becoming disengaged from the profession, loss of expertise due to reduced experience and lack of continuity in bringing students through the curriculum, and loss of talent from the profession (through drop out or the best candidates not entering) as it may become less attractive.

Are there other benefits or negatives? Is there any research on this sort of system of teacher employment?

mirrorwall14

I haven't heard of any research but I'd be very interested, must have a browse and see. I don't see the negatives as long term to be honest. These part time positions are having a real and tangible impact on schools now. The majority of my class are teaching abroad (some of the best teachers); we are losing teachers out of my current school to abroad (we have a very very high part time rate at least 50% staff). Dissillusionment is rapidly increasing in schools particularly with teachers in the 30-40 age group who still haven't obtained job security and have sustained paycuts/Haddington road/choke park. Our school is finding it increasingly difficult to get teachers who will do weekend trips in particular as teachers are just done giving extra with no appreciation from the top echelons in the Dept of Education, management or parents.

r93kaey5p2izun

Yes I too see disillusionment and there is certainly a loss of Irish teachers through emigration to work in other systems. However it has been said that this is actually a positive for our system as many of these teachers will want to return and will then bring a broader experience and added skills back with them. And there also seems to be an outlook that says those lost through disillusionment are easily replaced by newer, fresher, more enthusiastic recruits. And that seems to be what's happening.

The reason the negatives I mentioned have been seen as more long term is that some believe that it will take many years for it to be obvious to those outside the system that better hours with more security are not on offer no matter what you do, lesding to the profession becoming unattractive to new recruits to replace the jaded disillusioned incumbents.

I have also heard the view that this will never happen because the strong vocational side of the profession means it will continue to attract entrants. I have seen it suggested that eventually teaching as an occupation should become largely a seasonal vocation for those who can supplement their income through other work and that this is desirable for the system as a whole.

I'm just wondering what line of thinking the decision makers are following. Has the NAPD or ETBI or the JMB looked at this systematically? Have future outcomes for schools and students in this system been discussed by the leaders?

ustazjoseph

I haven't seen any studies but i suspect there was never a deliberate plan. I think the country , society , whatever has moved away from the one person , one job idea and into this idea of each of us being "self employed with perhaps one main employer" Charles handy was talking about his in the late 90 s. The great British approach of privatising , out sourcing and corporatising everything possible has had an impact on the Irish cultural mindset. The worship of " financial responsibility" and the joys of budgeting have also contributed. 90 s uk education was full of middle management types talking about "budgetary responsibility" "clients" and "responsibility to our stakeholders" . We re not immune.

r93kaey5p2izun

Yes you can see much of the nonsense buzzwords and corporate speak has seeped into the equation here. But the UK, for all its many faults, has never moved towards splitting teaching jobs so that's not the template in this instance at least.

I would just love to know more about how discussions on this topic go at senior managerial levels. Surely there must be a long term vision of how this will all pan out?!

evolving_doors

Mckenna Powerful Varnish wrote: »

Yes you can see much of the nonsense buzzwords and corporate speak has seeped into the equation here. But the UK, for all its many faults, has never moved towards splitting teaching jobs so that's not the template in this instance at least.

I would just love to know more about how discussions on this topic go at senior managerial levels. Surely there must be a long term vision of how this will all pan out?!

I think the 'how this is going pan out' question is rather moot in political terms, (just get through the term and get elected is the usual order of business). Have a look at John Walsh's article today now that he's back at the Indo. (former education advisor to RQ)... the high moral tone coming from him is making my ears ring, here's his closing statement of profound wisdom (I sincerely doubt he is worried about 'our' futures):

"Education is easier to handle and easier to cut. It's time for Labour to cry halt and demand greater investment for all our futures.

John Walshe was special adviser to Minister Ruairi Quinn"

In terms of the management perspective within school's Id say its provided a temporary solution to poor pupil teacher ratios/moratoriums on promotion/timetabling issues/keeping extra curricular running/redeployments. As regards the future.... I think it's just a case of make it through to next year and leave the worry about 'the teaching profesion' to the teachers.

In terms of University research!!! I dunno if it's 'research worthy'!

In terms of Unions, it's just one battle at a time, I get the sense that the mutterings of 'restoring pay parity' for newer entrants is not going down too well in the public. The issue of casualisation is on the cards alright though and Jan has said she's looking into it. The answer will probably be the CID changes (but of course we all know the devil's in the detail). I reckon what will happen is that once the school population rises there will be more teacher 'heads' counted to keep in line with the current PTR, this will be spun into "we have hired extra teachers this year and are aiming to hire more next year".

Just out of curiosity I wonder what have they done in the UK to prevent the part time hours scrapping that goes on for NQT's here?
Is it because they have a bigger budget?
Is it because the 'Teach First' is picking up a lot of the shortfall?

rainbowtrout

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Just out of curiosity I wonder what have they done in the UK to prevent the part time hours scrapping that goes on for NQT's here?
Is it because they have a bigger budget?
Is it because the 'Teach First' is picking up a lot of the shortfall?

I did a random google search because I had heard previously that staff pay comes from the school budget in the UK, unlike here where it is centralised to Dept of Ed/ETB.

I was pretty sure someone on here a couple of years ago mentioned that part of the problem in the UK is that it is cheaper to hire NQTs, and sometimes experience goes out the window.

I wasn't sure if that was true but this is a UK government report on school effficiency over there.

and I found this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/209114/Review_of_efficiency_in_the_schools_system.pdf

Spending patterns vary considerably between schools and the optimal mix will not be
exactly the same for every school. However, we can gain some useful insights into how
similar and successful schools spend their money from studying the 2011-12
expenditure data of all maintained schools in England. We found that among groups of
schools serving pupils with similar levels of deprivation and prior attainment, the higher
performing schools tended to spend proportionately more on teaching staff and less on
education support staff than their lower performing peers. This pattern is particularly
striking for schools with high expenditure. There is no similar correlation between school
attainment and spending on administrative or back office staff.

There are tons of other paragraphs similar to that, but my reading of it is that schools pay teachers out of their budget, so effectively they do have the same thing as we do with hours, only it is money based rather than hours based.

Our schools split jobs and hire two people to do the work of one.

UK schools take a sum of money that could hire a very experienced teacher and instead hire two less experienced teachers for the same amount of money. Hours don't come into it in the same way as they do over here. A 2-for-1 deal if you like.

If you were a UK principal would you hire a teacher with 25 years experience on 50k per year or two NQTs for 25k each per year?*




*I'm making up figures to illustrate example

evolving_doors

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I did a random google search because I had heard previously that staff pay comes from the school budget in the UK, unlike here where it is centralised to Dept of Ed/ETB.

I was pretty sure someone on here a couple of years ago mentioned that part of the problem in the UK is that it is cheaper to hire NQTs, and sometimes experience goes out the window.

I wasn't sure if that was true but this is a UK government report on school effficiency over there.

and I found this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/209114/Review_of_efficiency_in_the_schools_system.pdf




There are tons of other paragraphs similar to that, but my reading of it is that schools pay teachers out of their budget, so effectively they do have the same thing as we do with hours, only it is money based rather than hours based.

Our schools split jobs and hire two people to do the work of one.

UK schools take a sum of money that could hire a very experienced teacher and instead hire two less experienced teachers for the same amount of money. Hours don't come into it in the same way as they do over here. A 2-for-1 deal if you like.

If you were a UK principal would you hire a teacher with 25 years experience on 50k per year or two NQTs for 25k each per year?*




*I'm making up figures to illustrate example

I suppose that's the nub of it really, but I presume their budget per-school is still higher than in Ireland. It should be interesting to see what they will do in northern Ireland with the severe cuts in the education budget there. I wonder will they follow the 'Irish Model' with using part-timers?

rainbowtrout

I have no idea. I didn't read all of it, but I got the general gist and they seem to get funding on a per head basis because it mentioned that rural schools fare out worse given their smaller numbers and higher running costs.

I don't know an awful lot about teaching in NI. I think I've only ever seen one poster post about it on here, where there are plenty that have had the UK experience.

implausible

This push towards hours rather than jobs seems to have coincided with the moratorium on promotional posts and an oversupply of teachers. In addition, the CID system seems to have made principals and ETBs hyper-cautious about giving hours that may lead to a CID - keep the hours low and even if the teacher gets a CID, it'll be for feck all hours.

It's a very short-sighted move to avoid 'automatic' permanency and keep costs low. Nobody is thinking about the toll on students, the system and the brain drain as we export our teachers abroad.

amacca

implausible wrote: »

It's a very short-sighted move to avoid 'automatic' permanency and keep costs low. Nobody is thinking about the toll on students, the system and the brain drain as we export our teachers abroad.

Agreed

Its exploitative and shortsighted imo.

If the powers that be are really concerned with education and not cutting costs to the bone at the expense of standards they'd do well to remember newtons 3rd law.

There are so many things that could be prioritised in order to improve outcomes that have been forgotten in favour of what some spokesperson/advisor/academic in an ivory tower/spin doctor or minister wishing to secure either some sort of vain glorious legacy or the next plum job believes should be done (unfortunately its usually not a belief held for the right reason imo)

Dickie10

if this continues are the current teachers over 40 years of age the last of the teaching profession to have permanant teaching jobs until they retire?
will all newly qualifed recruits be really having to supplemeent their teaching jobs with bar tending or working in a shop? if this is the way teaching is going then ireland will suffer in 50 years time. these students in college studying sciences or maths will not go on to teach, there could be a huge drop in NQT and they will be of a poor standard. this really sounds worrying for the future of the country as a whole.

Triangla

We had a teacher in secondary school who was also a bouncer in a local bar/night club.

That's just wrong. I want my kids to be educated by someone who is paid properly and not messed around.

Common sense would dictate that a relaxed and rested teacher can better handle a class full of kids.

Dickie10

i agree the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater and this country willl suffer badly in decades to come. Asia will bypass us and the UK in a few years. the old teacher bashers have finally broken this profession it seems.