Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Teachers pay again

  • 18-07-2012 08:37AM
    #1
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,043 ✭✭✭


    Anne Fay from the INTO writes in the Irish Times today:
    Sir, – Mary Minihan’s interview with Ruairí Quinn (Home News, July 2012) refers to “teachers whose pay accounts for more than 80 per cent of the education budget”. This is factually incorrect.

    The cost of teachers’ salaries at primary and post-primary this year is €3.78 billion. This is roughly 44 per cent of the education budget of €8.67 billion, about half the percentage quoted by your reporter.

    Your readers can verify this in the revised estimates for the public service 2012 available on per.gov.ie/wp-content/ uploads/REV-2012-Final1.pdf – Yours, etc,

    ANNE FAY,
    President,
    Irish National Teachers’ Organisation,
    Parnell Square,
    Dublin 1.

    Several people here claim that teachers get 80% of the budget. I wonder does that include pensions and expenses which Anne Fay has left out.

    Thoughts?


«13

Comments

  • #2
    NIMAN
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,891 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    some topics just keep coming around ... and around .. and around.


  • #3
    Sleepy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,808 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    I'd presume her figure for Salaries doesn't include pensions, allowances, marking, supervision etc.

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • #4
    Welease
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    NIMAN wrote: »
    some topics just keep coming around ... and around .. and around.

    It probably wouldn't happen if people in this country (on both sides) would actually produce the real data with relevant information instead of producing figures that are intended mislead and benefit their argument based on omitting specific data..

    Case in point above.. either the 44% or 80% contains allowances, pensions etc or not. The information exists and is accessible.. time to start using it.


  • #5
    ardmacha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    It probably wouldn't happen if people in this country (on both sides) would actually produce the real data with relevant information instead of producing figures that are intended mislead and benefit their argument based on omitting specific data..

    We see plenty of examples of people here using figures out of context knowing they are misleading or at least uncaring that they are misleading. But this is an internet forum, the real problem is the low standard of journalism where these "facts" are thrown about all of the time, according to the witchhunt of the day, without journalists being in the least embarrassed that they are providing misleading information.

    These matters are complex and people have to be willing to disaggregate the date into its components and then adjust for things. For instance, people will happily add on the cost of teachers pensions, without allowing for pension contributions which may not cover the full cost, but do go some part of the way. Likewise we have all seen quotes where the proportion of education spending on salaries in Ireland is compared with Finland or some such place. The higher proportion represented by salaries in Ireland is always represented as saying something about salaries and not about the amount spent on other things. Even in Ireland many argue that spending should be reorganised to provide free books and school meals and spend less on back to school allowances and children's allowances. This would reduce salaries as a proportion of education expenditure without changing levels of salary at all!
    The information exists and is accessible.. time to start using it.

    Sadly the information is sometimes not accessible, the government needs to look at the classification of expenditure so that comparisons can be made


  • #6
    Dannyboy83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Thoughts?
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0711/1224319792595.html
    MORE THAN 400 second-level teachers and 32 Department of Education officials earn over €100,000 a year, according to new figures.

    The figures provided by Minister for Education and Skills Ruairí Quinn in the Dáil will raise fresh controversy about high levels of pay across the education sector.

    More than 70 per cent of the Government’s €9 billion education budget is absorbed by pay and pension payments, compared to an OECD average of 63 per cent.

    What are they spending the other 56% on ???
    €5 billion on Chalk is it?
    :confused:
    The figures show that 260 secondary school teachers and 146 VEC teachers earn over €100,000. Others earning a six-figure salary include three senior officials at the State Examinations Commission and two at the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.

    The figures tend to confirm findings by the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that teachers’ salaries here are among the highest in the world, even though overall spending on education remains low when compared to other countries.

    The figures reveal how a further 473 teachers earn more than €90,000 a year while 1,338 earn over €80,000. In most cases, they are principals of large schools.

    In recent years, the Department of Education has found it difficult to fill some school principal posts because of the heavy workload associated with the job.

    More than 6,000 teachers earn between €70,000 and €80,000 while more than 14,000 earn between €60,000 and €70,000.

    The high number of staff at the Department of Education earning over €100,000 is a striking feature of the list. The figure of 32 includes the secretary general, 10 assistant secretaries and other senior officials.

    High pay levels are also a feature of the third-level sector. Last year more than 1,200 employees earned over €100,000, while more than 200 earned over €150,000.

    The OECD has pointed out how the Republic is close to the bottom of an international league table ranking overall education spending in relation to wealth or gross domestic product. The State is 27th of 31 countries surveyed.

    What motivation do the OECD have to misrepresent the truth?
    What motivation do the INTO have to misrepresent the truth?


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,990 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    "Pay" = money paid to people

    She only mentions salaries. She only mentions primary and secondary and not third level, or is third level not considered education?

    This is what I would call misrepresenting the truth.


  • #8
    ardmacha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    The OECD has pointed out how the Republic is close to the bottom of an international league table ranking overall education spending in relation to wealth or gross domestic product. The State is 27th of 31 countries surveyed.

    What motivation do the OECD have to misrepresent the truth?

    Quite. As the OECD ranking shows, financial problems in Ireland do not result from overspending on education. The root of the problems lie elsewhere.
    She only mentions primary and secondary and not third level, or is third level not considered education?

    This is what I would call misrepresenting the truth.

    The quote related to "teachers" and the woman provided data about teachers, thirld level had nothing to do with it. This is quite the opposite of misrepresentation, but a welcome inclusion of data in the debate.


  • #9
    Tipp Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,023 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    ardmacha wrote: »
    Quite. As the OECD ranking shows, financial problems in Ireland do not result from overspending on education. The root of the problems lie elsewhere.

    We have a huge annual budget deficit - education is part of the annual budget spend

    So having teachers with some of the highest salaries in the world is indeed part of the root of the problem - along with every other public sector salary that is too high

    20,000 teachers earning over 60k in a country that is stone broke and you think this in not part of the problem??:confused:


  • #10
    sarumite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,889 ✭✭✭sarumite


    Where does the budget for Third level education come from?


  • #11
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,990 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    ardmacha wrote: »
    The quote related to "teachers" and the woman provided data about teachers, thirld level had nothing to do with it. This is quite the opposite of misrepresentation, but a welcome inclusion of data in the debate.
    She appears to be implying that pay only makes up 44% of the education budget, whereas in fact the original interview was incorrect on a minor technicality.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Dannyboy83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    Tipp Man wrote: »
    We have a huge annual budget deficit - education is part of the annual budget spend

    So having teachers with some of the highest salaries in the world is indeed part of the root of the problem - along with every other public sector salary that is too high

    20,000 teachers earning over 60k in a country that is stone broke and you think this in not part of the problem??:confused:

    I think Ardmacha's point was not the amount of money being spent, but the distribution of the money available to be spent, so you are probably both making similar points.

    The birthrate at the moment is surging, I'm sure it must be near replacement levels, which is quite astonishing when you consider the nation has the highest emigration rate in the EU, double that of Lithuania which is in 2nd place.

    There is probably no way for the nation to reduce education spending (The nation will probably need to spend more in fact)...but there is no question that the nation needs to redistribute the money available to be spent far more carefully.

    Even if the nation continues to spend the same amount of money, the proportion consumed by pay and pensions will have to decrease to OECD levels at minimum.
    The fortunate aspect is that there are, evidently, a great number of people who are paid vastly above average, so the nation should have ample room to do this without reducing people to penury.

    At this stage, I believe there is only one way the nation will be able to effectively reduce the deficit, and that is by hitting social welfare.

    A billion deducted from public sector pay and pensions translates to a half billion saved at best.
    A half billion from social welfare is a half billion.


  • #13
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,990 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    Dannyboy83 wrote: »
    There is probably no way for the nation to reduce education spending
    Consolidate small rural schools. The pupil:staff ratio is very generous in the smaller ones, an order of magnitude more generous than urban schools.


  • #14
    NIMAN
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,891 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    n97 mini wrote: »
    Consolidate small rural schools. The pupil:staff ratio is very generous in the smaller ones, an order of magnitude more generous than urban schools.

    Easier said than done.

    I live in a rural location with a lot of small schools but if, for example, you closed 2 and forced all the children to go to say a 3rd mainone, you'd have to probably build an extension or buy ground to add prefabs and put on buses to bring the kids from their remote location to the main school, and this may well offset the advantage of saving on some teachers wages in the short term.


  • #15
    Sleepy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,808 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    NIMAN wrote: »
    Easier said than done.

    I live in a rural location with a lot of small schools but if, for example, you closed 2 and forced all the children to go to say a 3rd mainone, you'd have to probably build an extension or buy ground to add prefabs and put on buses to bring the kids from their remote location to the main school, and this may well offset the advantage of saving on some teachers wages in the short term.
    You make a good point that merging schools might require an investment in the infrastructure of one or the other. My preference here would be to use such a move to wrest control of our education system away from the Catholic Church.

    Why would you have to put on buses? If parents choose to live in remote locations that make bringing their children to school a hassle, that's their problem to deal with.

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • #16
    NIMAN
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,891 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    You can hardly ask all people living in remote places to now sell up, leave farms etc and move into population centres.

    Do you live in a rural location? Because as I said, it sounds easy on paper but not so easy to do in the real world.

    Locally here, if some small schools were closed, some families could be up to 10 miles from their new school. Thats a 40 mile daily trip to drop kids off and pick them up.


  • #17
    ardmacha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    Why would you have to put on buses? If parents choose to live in remote locations that make bringing their children to school a hassle, that's their problem to deal with.

    Such people may not live in a more remote location than those near the merged facility. Citizens have a reasonable expectation that the State will not disadvantage them relative to other citizens by placing a school elsewhere and then failing to provide transport.


  • #18
    Geuze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,970 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    It's probably the case that pay and pensions consumes 80% of the education spending.

    As you would expect it to.

    The union rep is pointing out that (primary and sec) teachers pay (note, not pensions) is 44% of the total education budget.


  • #19
    Sleepy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,808 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    NIMAN wrote: »
    You can hardly ask all people living in remote places to now sell up, leave farms etc and move into population centres.

    Do you live in a rural location? Because as I said, it sounds easy on paper but not so easy to do in the real world.

    Locally here, if some small schools were closed, some families could be up to 10 miles from their new school. Thats a 40 mile daily trip to drop kids off and pick them up.
    ardmacha wrote: »
    Such people may not live in a more remote location than those near the merged facility. Citizens have a reasonable expectation that the State will not disadvantage them relative to other citizens by placing a school elsewhere and then failing to provide transport.
    It's the opportunity cost of living somewhere that has much cheaper accommodation costs and population density: you get less convenient services as they're much more expensive to provide on a per capita basis.

    In an urban environment, there's the economies of scale and, simply put, the tax base, to cover the cost of local services. This doesn't exist in rural environments and, as such. those living in rural areas have to accept that there'll be a transport cost to accessing those services.

    Nothing stopping a local bus company from providing school run services but I don't see why rural dwellers should be subsidised by the urban taxpayer to the extent that they get better services than those subsidising them.

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • #20
    NIMAN
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,891 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    Sorry but I think your argument that we should all live in Dublin is a bit late.
    I think slightly too many people have settled over the country now to move.:rolleyes:

    You should not be punished for living in a rural location. Our services are a lot worse, we accept that, but for something like kids education, I think punishing the rural population is a step too far.


  • #21
    Sleepy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,808 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Why should urban taxes pay for school buses for rural dwellers when that service isn't provided to urbanites?

    My argument isn't that everyone should move to Dublin, that's a strawman and you know it.

    My argument is that money should not be wasted in keeping 4 schools open when 1 school would provide the same level of service to those students. Yes, the parents will have to arrange transport, whether by school bus, car pools or longer drop offs. That said, how long does a ten mile drive take in a rural environment? Certainly couldn't be any longer than the 30-45 minutes it takes me to commute that far to my job in Blanchardstown from Clontarf?

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • Advertisement
  • #22
    TheTurk1972
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 150 ✭✭TheTurk1972


    Any company I have ever worked in salaries always account for > 80% of the running costs.

    Its very rare to have a private company where salaries are not a massive proportion of the costs.


  • #23
    NIMAN
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,891 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    We all pay tax. To say urban dwellers taxes pay for rural schools is nonsense.

    By that logic you could say that rural taxes are paying for your waste disposal from your house, whereas I have to buy and maintain a septic tank.

    A ten mile drive in a rural location can take longer. We don't have billions pumped into our roads like you get. I think to expect a parent to drive 10miles to school, then 10 miles back, then 10 miles again to pick up then 10 miles back is hardly fair. You say you do that on a commute, and so do I , but thats for me in a car, not my kids. Do Dublin children have to drive far to their local schools?


  • #24
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 9,864 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    TheTurk1972 wrote: »
    Any company I have ever worked in salaries always account for > 80% of the running costs.

    Its very rare to have a private company where salaries are not a massive proportion of the costs.
    Based purely on a google search, and I'm claiming no expertise on this as it is a US study:

    "The three industries with the highest median percentage of salaries as a percentage of operating expense were health care services (52%), for-profit services (50%) and educational services (50%).2 Durable goods manufacturing (22%), construction/mining and oil/gas (22%), and retail/wholesale trade (18%) had the lowest median percentages of salaries as a percentage of operating expense."
    - link:


  • #25
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,990 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    NIMAN wrote: »
    Easier said than done.

    I live in a rural location with a lot of small schools but if, for example, you closed 2 and forced all the children to go to say a 3rd mainone, you'd have to probably build an extension
    That would be a one-off cost that would be quickly recouped in the saved wages. Three schools require three principals, one school requires only one. That's a huge saving in itself.

    I think secondary and primary schools should be roughly equal in size and number, and probably in location. If you co-located them on the one site (but obviously separate) economies of scale would save even more.


  • #26
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,990 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    NIMAN wrote: »
    You should not be punished for living in a rural location.
    You probably shouldn't, but if there are extra costs associated with living there you should be willing to pay them all, not just some of them.


  • #27
    TheTurk1972
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 150 ✭✭TheTurk1972


    Manach wrote: »
    Based purely on a google search, and I'm claiming no expertise on this as it is a US study:

    "The three industries with the highest median percentage of salaries as a percentage of operating expense were health care services (52%), for-profit services (50%) and educational services (50%).2 Durable goods manufacturing (22%), construction/mining and oil/gas (22%), and retail/wholesale trade (18%) had the lowest median percentages of salaries as a percentage of operating expense."
    - link:


    And yet I have worked in the finance departments of a fair few companies, including US companies, and have a completely different experience.

    Glad i'm not a public sector worker tbh.
    Everyone assumes they know everything about them.

    One of my friends who is a teacher is down €4,000 in his take home pay in the last 5 years. I am up €15,000.

    I don't know any public sector worker whose take home hasnt fallen in the last 5 years.
    And I don't know any private sector worker whose take home has fallen in the last 5 years.

    And my pension is better than theirs. Kinda feel sorry for the abuse they get.

    I only know 2 people who lost their jobs and couldn't get another quickly in the last 5 years.
    And hose two I don't know how they ever got a job in the first place anyway.


  • #28
    NIMAN
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,891 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    n97 mini wrote: »
    You probably shouldn't, but if there are extra costs associated with living there you should be willing to pay them all, not just some of them.

    I really pray that the full property tax when it comes in is based on value alone, and then we will see how all the Dubliners start their moaning about how the chulchies are getting it too cheap.:D


  • #29
    TheTurk1972
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 150 ✭✭TheTurk1972


    NIMAN wrote: »
    I really pray that the full property tax when it comes in is based on value alone, and then we will see how all the Dubliners start their moaning about how the chulchies are getting it too cheap.:D

    Property tax should be like the council tax in the UK. Paid by the person living in the house, who is consuming the local services.


  • #30
    rainbowtrout
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,528 ✭✭✭✭rainbowtrout


    NIMAN wrote: »
    You can hardly ask all people living in remote places to now sell up, leave farms etc and move into population centres.

    Do you live in a rural location? Because as I said, it sounds easy on paper but not so easy to do in the real world.

    Locally here, if some small schools were closed, some families could be up to 10 miles from their new school. Thats a 40 mile daily trip to drop kids off and pick them up.

    What I've never understood about this argument is that parents complain about small schools closing and their child will have to go to another primary school 5 - 10 miles away instead of the one half a mile down the road, yet when they go to secondary school in a rural area there tends to be only one school which would have a 10-15 miles(and sometimes larger) catchment radius for all those small schools and there never seems to be an issue in getting the students to school. So what's the big deal about having all the children in a catchment area attending one large primary school when they are perfectly capable of doing it for secondary school?

    As for small schools. I live in a small town, population around 2,500. There are three primary schools in the town, a boys national school, girls national school and a mixed COI school. Just looking at the stats on them there. Total combined students for three schools: 327. I would say 500m is the greatest distance between any two of the schools.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Diarmuid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,979 ✭✭✭Diarmuid


    NIMAN wrote: »
    We all pay tax. To say urban dwellers taxes pay for rural schools is nonsense.

    I'm afraid you're wrong


Advertisement
Advertisement