Posts of Irresponsibility

Great title! Another 'non postholder' here & also am an 'opt out'. Assigning of duties an issue for us, in that the P is reluctant to display duties & a lot of 'volunteers' doing things that were id as 'school needs'. We also have a situation where senior teachers didn't apply for posts, strange times

Posts are a joke!
Getting one is an even bigger joke......unless you are a member of a golden circle!
I know a school that had a Posts Review and staff fought hard to have a certain job included in the job description.The person that was supposed to get the Post didnt get it (as she was not a member of Golden Circle) but the person that got it had most of it delegated (without delegating the money for it!!!) to others as soon as the ink was dry on the paper.
Now ,after another review the same post is not even considered important enough to be an A Post and lo and behold another teacher has to do it with much more degraded conditions than it was initially heralded as.........yet the salary has not transferred or the lovely timetable ,for that matter.

There is so much more box ticking now its not worth it.....unless you delegate the bulk of it...........and make a lot of your colleagues angry in the process! There is so much money wasted,great pity M.O'LEARY wouldnt take over for a few weeks! Would you believe there is more money spent on "so called retired full pensioned" hangers on (this,on top of their pensions!0 than there is on young teachers on piddly hours......the race to the bottom is well and truly on.......................

So true Bobtheman, teaching & learning is the last thing on the list. Posts are in the gift of the Principal & the charade we went through for the best part of a year coming up with school needs was just that. Added to that the new JC, it is indeed a race to the bottom.

Do your post holders do meetings? The lack of clear, defined rolls is very evident in most schools, some jobs are simply more time consuming than others but if one person has three things the other does regardless of the nature of the three. I think the fact you ability in a classroom doesn't have any bearing on the post is the death knell really, the less time you spend focused on your classroom the better now really for progression. That's a very dangerous precedent to set and causes real division in staffrooms.

Icsics wrote: »

Completely AM, the more ‘events’ you organise the better! Vagueness in post duties is the norm, but they all seem to be well able to delegate!

I don't agree. Vagueness used to be the norm but not any more. I've had an A post for 28 years. I've always been a year head until now. When I got the post there was no job description and each year head put their own spin on the job. I remember older teachers had posts such as "chess master" and "quiz master". Posts used to be a kind of reward for long term service in a school and some of the duties, like the two I listed above, were a joke really. I got my post when my turn came up as it went just on seniority.
Things are very different now. As I'm job sharing next year my year head role was taken away from me. I'm thrilled with that. In a school where you get no time off to do your post, being an effective, dynamic year head is next to impossible in my opinion. Most of the work of the year head happens during the day. There was a long running joke that just outside my classroom door was like a railway station with kids constantly knocking looking for me. On 3 days of the week I had 8 40 minute classes. It was literally impossible to chase after the late comers or those that didn't turn up for detention etc as I was in class all day. I can't do these jobs after 4pm as the kids have gone home!
So I've been reassigned duties that I actually can do outside of school time but I've 3 new roles. As I'm taking early retirement once I hit the 33 years, I'll cope. I had to sign 3 contracts for these duties. Each one a double sided A4 page. Nothing vague at all.

am_zarathustra wrote: »

That's definitely the exception and not the norm from my experience. People have serveral vague titles now and a page of scoping is unheard of amount those I know. I'd love a more defined role, given it should only take 8-10 hours a week and there are 3 hours of meetings in that. At my pro-rata rate it's 128 hours a year of work. I can tell you in actual terms that's very far from the truth. Do you have to do weekly meetings?

Not sure if you're asking me that question?? We have AP1 meetings once a month. We used to have year head meetings every week, written into our timetable, but not any more. We've had 6 principals in the last 12 years and each one does things differently. I hated the YH meetings. I'd rather have had the period to chase up on kids, phone parents etc. There has been a big push towards defining the role for all the PORs in our school and now every role is very well defined. We have an ex principal on our staff. He went back to the classroom as being a Principal was leaving him with no life outside school. He told me he wouldn't ever apply for an AP1, that it wasn't worth it. I've got used to the extra money in my paycheck now but each time we have a review I had more and more duties. Last year I was Year head to the whole senior school with 32 class periods a week. It was exhausting. Having said that I'm in my 50s so haven't got the energy I used to have.

am_zarathustra wrote: »

Sorry yes I was, thanks for the response. Same here, multiple changes in management, all with a different was of working. I find 2/3 hours out of my time every week for meetings is really impacting my ability to actually do the job, it's seems overkill given it's an add on to my normal teaching.

Smart ex principal going back, I was looking for a mortgage and the extra money has certainly helped but I'm definitely considering if it's actually worth it now I'm drawing down. If I was left talone to do the job that would be grand, I was doing a lot extra anyway, but the constant meetings are just mind numbing and generally ineffective. If the AP1 was my normal job it would be like having a one hour meeting every day to assess your progress. I doubt any company would deem that an effective use of time.

Did the post holders in your school ask for better scoping, I've two clear roles and two very unclear so clearly defined tasks would be great

No, the issue about the job descriptions for the PORs arose from a WSE. The then Principal started the process and now we have job descriptions for each post. However, looking at the 3 contracts I've signed, the new Principal could have amended them. I'm happy to have been able to hold onto my post though. I was preparing for a battle I didn't have to fight! The Principal was surprised when I told him I wanted to take the contracts away to read them first before signing them. I'll manage the jobs but only because I'm relieved to still have the AP1. If I was younger I'd just opt to go in and teach.

I haven’t had a post yet and I really don’t know if I ever want to have one. Our principal is a pain and it’s not worth having to constantly be dealing with him. I always think that it’s a hell of a lot easier to do a grind a week for the extra money (based on what I see other teachers having to do for their posts and the hassle that goes with them)

To be fair, for an extra nearly ten grand a year (pensionable) and teaching time reduced by what, four hours, in order to do it, I’m not sure an AP1 should be “handy”. I wouldn’t apply for an AP2 (again ) for the extra hassle, fairly small pay-rise, and no reduction in hours, but for the benefits of an AP1, I’d apply alright.

RealJohn wrote: »

To be fair, for an extra nearly ten grand a year (pensionable) and teaching time reduced by what, four hours, in order to do it, I’m not sure an AP1 should be “handy”. I wouldn’t apply for an AP2 (again ) for the extra hassle, fairly small pay-rise, and no reduction in hours, but for the benefits of an AP1, I’d apply alright.

Yes but there is no reduction in teaching hours for many. I can’t remember the exact definition but I think that only schools covered by TUI give any hours reduction to AP1s.

RealJohn wrote: »

Didn’t realise that. Surely that can’t be right as it’s stated though, right? Sure that would relate to an agreement arranged by the TUI so surely, any TUI member ought to be entitled to it, regardless of what union represents the majority of the teachers in the school?
Obviously, that could potentially disadvantage people if schools decided they didn’t want to give the job to someone who’d be entitled to reduced hours, and open to abuse, if people tried switching unions when the posts came up. It doesn’t seem fair or right that ASTI people don’t get the reduction but TUI do (and I’m TUI, but that’s not on).

I thought it was an ETB Vs Voluntary thing, rather than TUI Vs ASTI

Undoubtedly PoRs are the most divisive elements of school organisation. Over the years they have caused more trouble than any other in-school issue.
I worked as a Principal in both voluntary and ETB sectors.
The variations in how management approaches posts is quite bewildering.
There was a tradition and practice of posts being rewards for seniority / adhering to the 'ethos' in the voluntary sector that continues to this day, though mercifully it is dying. Many teachers expect this culture to continue despite a host of circulars that have tried to change the modes of appointment/roles/evaluations and create a genuine middle management structure.
In the Voluntary sector posts are all too often part of the wild west management style that seems to dominate many schools.
The posts in the Voluntary sector are in the gift of the Principal and no amount of paperwork/interview formats/structures etc. can mask that.
The VEC/ETB sector tends to be rather different. First is the 4 hour allowance for AP1. I would argue strongly that post-holders have been / are held to some account and work has always been expected. There has been a centralised approach by ETBs for better or worse but generally better.
Give me the ETB any time, though I'm sure there are exceptions in application of standards.

Good Principals have always endeavoured to develop fair job descriptions and create effective middle management structures. which should add to the teacher's sense of job fulfilment. As earlier posts have mentioned, when an effective Principal moves on, the successor can undo much good good work and co-operation.
I became Principal of a school where the 'posts' consisted of supposedly educational roles (all posts are supposed to be 'educational' in some way) like 'lockers', 'organising tea break', 'cleaning supplies', etc. Oddly enough the holders had to do these jobs effectively for obvious reasons. The real wasters were the guys in school planning', 'games co-ordinator'.... and several others who had nebulous job descriptions usually involving the word 'co-ordinator', none of which were ever effectively done. They always seemed to be the AP1 posts for some reason. I took me quite a while to change matters. Soon the BoM I worked for expected a detailed written report from each post holder. The only teachers who resented having to justify themselves were the ones who tried to do as little as possible and, in fairness, they were few.
For post holders themselves who complain about being 'taken away from the classroom'.... I suggest that is exactly what a post should do. After all, no post consists of extra teaching time though they should be genuinely educational and good schools have moved this way in recent years.
Should you apply for a post?
Yes if you are prepared to take on extra work without complaint and feel it will not adversely effect your teaching. But it is extra paid work so get on with it! Given the levels of actual responsibility in most posts, they pay better than teaching rates.
Whether you work hard at your post or do little, it matters naught if your Principal is a clown. Then you hope s/he moves on/retires/ runs away with the local lothario.......

solerina wrote: »

As I said, the money is in no way enough when you look at how much you get to do, now I am not in an ETB school so I get no reduction in hours, if I had 4 hours per week to do the post then I would imagine I would think differently, but I have an enormous amount of work to do on top of a full teaching TT so to me I wouldn’t think the money compensates and I wouldn’t go for an AP 1 again if I was starting over. I will stick it out now for the pension benefits.

I’m in the same boat. I have often considered ditching the AP1. In my case it’s mainly due to what someone above referred to as a clown of a principal. It is a significant amount of money which I’d have to be doing a lot of grinds to match. But the whole idea of being part of a school “leadership team” is a nonsense when other members of the team have zero or close to zero teaching hours and you have a full timetable.