Only 25% of teachers are above 45 years of age. Why?

gaiscioch

This line stood out for me in an article by Carl O'Brien in this morning's Irish Times:

Speaking at the recent Hibernia College Teaching Fair in Dublin, Brian Mooney, a guidance counsellor at Oatlands College, Dublin, and Irish Times education analyst, said demographic factors means the issue is set to worsen.
The age profile of registered teachers is a concern with one quarter of all teachers aged 45 or over, he said.
“With far fewer teachers going all the way to the traditional retirement age of 65 than in the past, this is likely to exacerbate the teaching-shortage problem,” said Mr Mooney.

Teacher shortages in key subjects ‘set to get worse’


I have to say at one level I'm surprised at this: 75% of teachers are under 45. The "far fewer" part makes me wonder just how many more people are leaving teaching early now compared to, say, 1990 or 1980. We have a huge shortage of research in this area. Why are "far fewer" teachers staying until 65? What has changed? Are the other options for career much better? Do new teaching methods demand far more physical energy, something that is making it a "young person's game"? Is it the reams of paperwork and bureaucracy that have become part of the job (that would be my reason)? Is it that kids are less well-behaved than in, say, 1980 (are they even?)? Something else?

And what is this loss of experienced teachers doing to the quality of education? (I'm aware of other professions where the higher-paid older managers were pensioned off in large numbers during the past 9 years and now entire areas have new, younger managers who do not have the skills and accordingly staff morale is suffering - but this doesn't seem to be making the news).

In England, young teachers are leaving the profession early in large numbers -
4 in 10 teachers in England quit within a year. In Ireland, where older teachers would be better paid, it seems to be the opposite (although, once again, we don't have statistics on how many younger teachers are leaving). Why is this?

evolving_doors

From what i understand the Dept plan during the recession was to retire as much of the senor staff as possible to make way for cheaper labour and smaller pensions. (Which iz why all permanent jobs going are principals and deputies)
So those snapshot statistics mooney is quoting from I suspect are for that phase. Do the same snapshot in 10 yrs time and I suspect the numbers staying on will increase...

spurious

Under 45 means cheaper. I left after just short of thirty years. I'd had enough of the abuse in recent years - from a number of directions.

rainbowtrout

Fewer opportunities for promotion/salary increase?

A pre 2004 teacher can leave at 55 with 33 years service done. It is considered to be 35 years service as 2 years is given in lieu of time spent in college. But the pension is based on 33 years for calculation. And of course there is the Cost Neutral Early Retirement from 50 onwards.

I'd say there's a number of factors at play. All of the teachers that are over 45 (who started at 21 or 22) started teaching in the late 80s/early 90s at the very latest, with the exception of those who came to teaching late after a career change, but the majority have been in it for the long haul. Most A posts in schools are probably occupied by people in this category. All of those teachers will be permanent and plenty will have taken out AVCs.

A combination of post holder/AVC would certainly allow a lot of teachers in this demographic to go at 55 onwards rather than going the whole way to 65/40 years.

There are more women teaching than men, and i'd also bet that a fair amount of women have given up teaching to look after children over the years and never went back. That's just a guess on my part.

A variety of jobs would have popped up over the years (State Exams, Dept of Ed, Teaching Council, NCCA, PDST, unions etc) that some teachers would have moved sideways into, so are still part of the education system but not in the classroom. Those jobs generally go to people with experience, not people straight out of college.

People are also more likely to change careers now later in life than say 20 years ago. 10 years ago we had a sizeable proportion of teachers in late 50s - early 60s and they taught for 40 years and some of them more, and largely in the one job their entire life. That just doesn't happen now.


That and free education came in at the end of the 60s. I presume that number staying on at school and subsequent numbers of teachers rose for years. Those teachers were largely the 'job for life' category and started retiring in their droves in the mid 2000s. So the average age of teachers has probably fallen as a result.


There are about 30 teachers in my school not including P and DP. Of those 30, 6 are over 45. Of those 6, four are post holders. Fairly representative of the percentages quoted.

r93kaey5p2izun

Growing bureaucracy of the profession?

There are probably 27 out of 100 or so teachers over 45 in my place. It seems common to leave around 50 citing demands of the job, no longer able for the intense busy high energy work. Also increasing demands on post holders. Most don't have full pension leaving my school.

I think part time hours among younger staff also has an effect, with 3 teachers replacing one, thus increasing the proportion of younger teachers. There's probably only 25 full time jobs between the youngest 60 teachers in my school.

Liberal_irony

More discipline issues today?

Wasn't there an exodus of the grey brigade when the pension was threatened a few years ago? Then they all took up substitute positions replacing themselves

Crazyteacher

Fewer opportunities for promotion/salary increase?

I remember a mass exodus in the summer of 2014 .

doc22

Start teaching early 20's and retire after 33 years would mean retirement in 50's with pension. Add the boom in teaching posts in the 2000's with decrease in class sizes,increase in resource teachers and expanding school age population so much that they needed hibernia etc to fill the gaps, it's no surprise at the age profile

I don't get the point in the article with the "exacerbate the teaching-shortage problem" when in reality it is the opposite, decrease in child births, increase in pension age/number of years required for pension and a young workforce means they'll be less jobs then in the past. Unless I'm missing something?

jimmytwotimes 2013

Teaching is increasingly a 'young person's game'?

Big clear out during recession when the older staff were offered a chance to leave before their retirement terms got worse. Older teachers cost more so made financial sense for government to get rid of them. The loss of that experience on the ground though would not have been to benefit of most schools.

A lot of those older teachers also held posts of responsibility which cost money and a lot of those posts remain unfilled.

emily_123

I find it really interesting that there is such a big age difference between certain countries, when I was studying in Germany the situation was completely the opposite. There is an extremely high number of teachers above 50 and a big shortage of younger teachers, so it would in no means be a "young persons game".

amacca

emily_123 wrote: »

I find it really interesting that there is such a big age difference between certain countries, when I was studying in Germany the situation was completely the opposite. There is an extremely high number of teachers above 50 and a big shortage of younger teachers, so it would in no means be a "young persons game".

Perhaps its an old persons game there and a young persons game here and in UK etc

perhaps it would be interesting to figure out why (working conditions would be my guess)....interesting to find out if too much of a skew towards over representation by either age cohort is a good idea as well