Semi-State Workers demanding jobs for life - Wrong?

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
And how many times have you corrected scripts? Firstly, a teacher doesn't correct his or her own students for the Leaving or Inter Certs, secondly you get given a lot more than 90 scripts (try batches of 300 or so, together with all the usual Garda security and paperwork), and then there's the arrangements that are taken to ensure that scripts are corrected in a consistent manner.

Sorry Sparks, but in your enthusiasm to tell everyone how big a bum deal teachers get, you're starting to make no sense.

You argued previously that teachers cannot afford to not correct Inter and Leaving - that if they want to eat, they have to do this allegedly optional work.

Now, firstly, while that logic might hold true for the non-permie teachers, how can it hold true for both the permie and non-permie? If - as a permanent teacher - my salary over the summer months is not enough to live on, then surely its not enough to live on the whole year round....which makes no sense unless you posit that the couple of extra bucks the teachers will make from exam corrections is enough to balance their books on a meagre lifestyle. However, if you do that, then the non-permie teachers, who earn significantly less on account of not being paid during holiday time could not possibly afford to live. And yet they can.

So something is wrong there. Its simply hot possible that these two categories of people can not afford to do without this marking, and yet can survive once they do it. The math doesn't work.

Lets leave that aside though, and assume that you were correct (or can explain the flaw in the logic) and that almost all teachers do correct exams, because they can't afford not to.

Now, Regardless of whether they are correcting their own students papers, or someone elses, they should still be correcting approximately the same amount. If you have 10 teachers teaching 10 subjects to 10 students, then each of the teachers will have to correct 10 subject from each of 10 students...regardless of whether or not they are their own students. To have a higher count per teacher is impossible, unless less than 10 teachers are correcting...right?

So, by your posts, any individual teacher's students cover a minimum of 300 exam scripts each summer (them coming in blocks of 300).

For that to be true, each teacher would have to be teaching enough students to produce 300 exam papers in the Inter & Leaving each year - an average of 6 seperate subjects to classes of 50 students, in only two of five years of secondary school (inter- and leaving- year).

Because we are talking still about all teachers, we must also conclude that they teach a similar amount to non-exam classes, of which there are another 3 years (minimum).

So thats now saying that each and every teacher teaches an average of 15 seperate classes, each with an average of 50 students (note seperate subjects to the same students count as seperate classes), each and every school-week.

Sorry, but no way. Simply not possible. I doubt there are any teachers in the entire country teaching student loads that high, and if there are, it sure as hell is not the average.

So we must conclude that all teachers do not mark exams. So what happens to the others? Do they starve to death? You have alternately implied that the permies don't get paid enough, and the non-permies have no option but to do this or they don't get paid.....and yet the figures you produce to back this up seem to show that you are grossly exaggerating things. You have argued that they cannot afford not to mark exams, and yet it is patently obvious that this is not universally true - because nowhere near all teachers can be marking exams by the figures you've been using.

Look - if a teacher teaches 6 different classes in a week (seperate subjects to the same people counting as seperate classes...but having the same people for the same subject every day only counts as one class) to an average of 50 people per class, then there is scope for every teacher to mark exactly 300 papers at the end of each year, on average.

The further you get from those class-sizes, then either the 300 papers figure has to shrink, or the percentage of teachers marking exams has to shrink. But seeing as the bundles come in chunks of 300 - according to your figures - then it is only the percentage of teachers marking them which can be wrong.

So you tell me - you have relations in the game. How many distinct classes a week, and what average size? Most teachers I know tought between 3 and 5 exam-classes (i.e. not religion or anything else which doesn't have a formal exam subject at the end), each of which had less than 40 students. That gives me a max of 200 papers across 5 years, or 80 papers across 2 years. So, to be marking in bundles of 300, less than 30% of the teachers could possibly be marking exams.

So either teachers are now teaching far, far more than I have ever suspected, or your figures are highly contradictory to the argument that anywhere near the vast majority of teachers are financially obliged to mark exams.

jc

Sparks

Originally posted by bonkey
You argued previously that teachers cannot afford to not correct Inter and Leaving - that if they want to eat, they have to do this allegedly optional work.

Actually, I said that that was true of non-permanent teachers. Just to be clear, because the two situations are very different. When made permanent, you get a year-round salary. Until then, you don't get paid during the summer, and you're only paid for the hours you actually teach in the classroom.
Basicly, it's a bum deal.
(Which, by the way, is why you don't see the best and the brightest becoming the teachers for the next generation - why would they? They're smart enough to see the stress levels, the low pay levels and the long hours and long qualification times for teachers and to decide to do something that actually rewards that much effort. And you know what happens when the best and brightest don't go into teaching - the quality of teaching falls off unrelentingly over the successive years until we're really in trouble).

So something is wrong there. Its simply hot possible that these two categories of people can not afford to do without this marking, and yet can survive once they do it. The math doesn't work.

Permanent teachers can get by (though depending on your experience level, there are different levels of getting by).

Now, Regardless of whether they are correcting their own students papers, or someone elses, they should still be correcting approximately the same amount. If you have 10 teachers teaching 10 subjects to 10 students, then each of the teachers will have to correct 10 subject from each of 10 students...regardless of whether or not they are their own students. To have a higher count per teacher is impossible, unless less than 10 teachers are correcting...right?

No. You're assuming all teachers correct all the scripts. Those who can get by well enough on a permanent pay packet don't tend to mark scripts becuase it's a lot of work and hassle for not enough money.

For that to be true, each teacher would have to be teaching enough students to produce 300 exam papers in the Inter & Leaving each year - an average of 6 seperate subjects to classes of 50 students, in only two of five years of secondary school (inter- and leaving- year).

Or you could work the hours the teachers in my school worked. Year of just 150 students in five classes (not all 30 students, some classes were larger), and some teachers would teach two or three subjects for the entire year. That's 600 to 900 L.Cert/J.Cert scripts from each teacher. If there's one thing a school is good at, it's generating paperwork....

So either teachers are now teaching far, far more than I have ever suspected, or your figures are highly contradictory to the argument that anywhere near the vast majority of teachers are financially obliged to mark exams.

No, the vast majority of temporary teachers are financially obligated to mark exams. That's about half the teachers in the country. Plus the permanent teachers on the bottom salary levels. But it doesn't add up to all the teachers.

The thing is Bonkey, that it boils down to this:
Teachers get a poor perception publicly because all most people know about the job is what they saw of it as pupils. They don't see the hour or two of work that each hour of class generates. They don't notice that the teachers watching the kids at lunchtime are not being paid for it. They don't notice the fact that the teachers don't drive fancy cars, tend to brown-bag it for lunch all the time, don't wear new clothes, and they never see the stress levels that they cause those teachers. They don't see the temporary teachers signing up for the dole during the summer break because they're not being paid until the scripts are available to be marked. They never get to appreciate what it feels like to spend five years in college only to wind up teaching for three or four hours a week, while being randomly inspected by the Department of Education and the school, and while earning less per week than a Tesco shelf-stocker.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
Actually, I said that that was true of non-permanent teachers.

Yes, and then you went on in successive posts to apply your logic to "teachers" - of unspecified type.

Just to be clear, because the two situations are very different. When made permanent, you get a year-round salary. Until then, you don't get paid during the summer, and you're only paid for the hours you actually teach in the classroom.

Not true. I have a relation who is currently working as a part-time teacher while trying to get into an appropriate GradDip course to gain her qualifications. Last year, she was paid only during the term. This year - while still an unqualified, part-time teacher, she has been moved to an alternate pay-scheme where she will get paid out of term.

Basicly, it's a bum deal.

Im' not denying that. I'm saying that the logic you are using to show how bum a deal it is is completely flawed.

I mean, your defence of it is now apparently that you've only been talking about those teachers who don't have tenure.....not all teachers at all.

Maybe you could be clearer and specify when you're talking about all teachers, teachers with tenure (permanent teachers), and teachers without tenure (temporary teachers).

No. You're assuming all teachers correct all the scripts. Those who can get by well enough on a permanent pay packet don't tend to mark scripts becuase it's a lot of work and hassle for not enough money.

And yet you threw a complete wopbbly when someone suggested that teachers have long holidays...whilst he was clearly referring to teachers where they have job security which is amongst the best there is. I'm amazed you couldn't agree with this and then point out that this only covers some teachers....rather than insisting that its complete horse, that he doesn't know what he's talking about, and that teachers have it so hard.....only now to clarify that you're not talking about the teachers he was referring to at all, but rather the other teachers....those without tenure.

Or you could work the hours the teachers in my school
worked. Year of just 150 students in five classes (not all 30 students, some classes were larger), and some teachers would teach two or three subjects for the entire year. That's 600 to 900 L.Cert/J.Cert scripts from each teacher.

Incidentally, how did the teachers manage this? 5 classes of 3 subjects is 15 class/subject combinations. For it to generate 600-900 scripts, we're clearly talking about exams which have 2 papers apiece...which means that they must be subjects which are taught for a minimum of an average of 4 lessons a week. So thats 60 lessons per week just to cover that workload. At 5 days, thats 12 lessons per teacher, per day.

Are you sure that those figures are correct? If so, then your school had the shortest lessons I've ever seen timetabled, or it didn't teach the major subjects in sufficient detail. Either way...would you not agree tha this extreme situation it is most definitely not representative of the national average, and therefore not terribly relevant. After all, as you yourself pointed out, they don't mark their own papers. So whats relevant is the average generated per teacher.

The thing is Bonkey, that it boils down to this:

I have never questioned any of that. Go back and look at what I criticised. I said your argument was beginning to contradict itself - you were getting so worked up in your indignation that you were presenting a picture which was blatantly impossible.

You are very quick to detail the plight of the temp teacher, whilst ignoring the fact that the vast majority of people mentioning teachers have been doing so in terms of having tenure etc. In other words, you're telling us how badly off group B is when someone says how group A has it quite cushy. And you have repeatedly done it by using ambiguous references, so that it appears as though your description of group B is applicable (and being applied) to both groups.

Now you are admitting the two situations are very different I'd suggest you go back and look at the initial comment you took so much indignation from, and see which group it was referring to. From my reading, it is clearly not the temp teachers.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
No, the vast majority of temporary teachers are financially obligated to mark exams. That's about half the teachers in the country.

Incidentally, where do you get this "half" figure from?

ASTI describes itself thusly (http://www.asti.ie/ab_main.htm):

The ASTI is Ireland's main second level teachers union and represents 17,000 teachers in community schools, community colleges, comprehensive schools and voluntary secondary schools attended by 80% of all second-level students.

Now, assuming the average holds...17,000 for 80% should give approximately 21,250 teachers in total for Secondary Education.

Now....taken from The Irish Examiner in September '03

There are more than 3,000 non-permanent teachers in the country's 750 second-level schools, most of them represented by the Association of Secondary Teachers Ireland (ASTI).

Now, I think its reasonable to assume that when they say "over 3000", they don't mean "10, 625", but rather somewhere between 3,000 and 3,500.

So, 3 months ago, about one in six secondary school teachers were classified as non-permanent, not one in two as you have been asserting.

So, given that you've just clarified in your last post that you weren't talking about the permies, it would appear that you were clearly defending the criticism of teachers based on the plight of a relatively small minority of them, without knowing the actual figures involved....which is kinda amusing when you're posting saying about how so many people don't seem to understand the situation!!!

Like I said earlier....there's no sense in that.

jc

Victor

Looks like they just might get jobs for life, just not the way they intended

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/2412836?view=Eircomnet

New Bill will extend careers of civil servants
From:ireland.com
Monday, 26th January, 2004

The Government will shortly publish a Bill to remove the compulsory retirement age of 65 from newly recruited public servants and to increase the minimum pension age for new-entrant civil servants, teachers, gardaí and others.

The Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill is among 25 Bills to be published between now and the end of April, Government Chief Whip Ms Mary Hanafin announced yesterday.

The Bill will be published early in this Dáil session and the Government hopes to have it passed into law by the end of March. It will implement, from April 1st next, the changes to the public service pension regime announced by the Minister for Finance, Mr McCreevy, in the Budget in December.

As well as ending compulsory retirement at 65, it will increase the minimum ages at which various public servants can retire on pension.

New-entrant civil servants will no longer be able to retire early at 60 and must stay until 65. The minimum retirement age for Garda retirement will increase from 50 to 55, with their compulsory retirement age going up to 60. Minimum pension ages for new-entrant teachers, prison officers and firefighters will also go up.

The Government said yesterday that a Disability Bill was now at the top of its legislative agenda and would be published shortly.

A Disability Bill to provide measures for equal participation of people with disabilities in society has been promised by the Government since 1999.

One was published in December 2001 but was withdrawn after severe criticism from the disability sector over the difficulty of enforcing rights and the time scale for the delivery of some provisions.

Disability campaigners believed the Bill fell short of their demand for an approach which would set out rights for those with disabilities which could then be enforced through the courts if necessary.

A new one was to be published before the May 2002 general election, but this did not happen. It was listed last January for publication in the first half of last year and then last autumn as due to be published before the start of the current Dáil session.

It is now listed to be published at some stage during this session.

The Driver Testing and Standards Authority Bill, setting up a public sector agency to run the driver testing service, will be published on schedule during this session.

The Government will also publish promised legislation reviewing health and safety at work.

As part of the series of measures to try to reduce insurance costs, another Bill will reduce the period in which a claim for personal injury can be made from three years to one year after the event.

It will also provide for a fine or up to 10 years' imprisonment for submitting a false claim.

As usual, much of the new Dáil session will be dominated by debate on the Finance Bill and Social Welfare (miscellaneous provisions) Bill giving effect to the changes announced in the December Budget.

Other Bills will include measures modernising the regulation of the veterinary profession, removing councillors and professional representatives from health boards, and promised legislation to deal with Garda complaints and to reform the criminal law.

The Minister for Justice, Mr McDowell, is also expected shortly to introduce legislation designed to close the loophole in immigration law resulting from a High Court judgment last week.

gandalf

Originally posted by Sparks
My parents have worked in the public sector for decades, in Eircom, the Civil Service and in Teaching. So have most of my extended family in fact.

Hardly a scientific study then to say that the average Civil Servant etc earns just 60% of the average wage Sparks. Provide better data please or retract the statement.

Indeed? And when you say "teachers", who do you mean? Remember, not all teachers have permanent jobs, in fact it's heading for the situation where at least half are on contract. And they get lousy hours, lousy pay and no job security. And no, they do not get 3 months off for summer, unless you count invigilating and then correcting a thousand scripts to be a holiday.

No they don't but why should teachers who are on part time contracts be kept on them by ones who are just making up the numbers and cannot do their jobs properly. From my point of view anyone who cannot reach a certain standard of teaching should be removed from the job. BTW my Irish teachers were also the worst teachers during my school years.

And I needed honours maths to become an engineer. Doesn't life just suck?

I think the point that you need Irish to become a teacher is quite valid. For most teaching posts it is not required and excluding otherwise qualified candidates.

Indeed? You seem to be forgetting that the better pay they were looking for was not 100% of the private sector wage, but more than the 40% or so they had at the time. The private sector had taken off, wages had skyrocketed, the cost of living had gone up with it, but public sector pay wasn't increasing to match it, so in effect, public sector workers were taking pay cuts while the private sector had a boom period.
If the government takes the entire boom to sort out an agreement and then finds it's in the post-boom slump when it's time to pay up, is that the fault of the people who signed up? Or are they just meant to take it in the shorts when the private sector does well and when it does badly?

Again where do you get these figures from. They get job security. Most cannot be fired. From the figures I have heard they are paid well for what they do. Unless they are prepared to accept proper accessment of their work and weeding out those who do not pull their weight then they should be paid less. Btw my personal belief is that most State Employees are paid well for what they do (except for Gardai, Nurses, Prison Officers).

As for wages skyrocketed mine havent infact thanks to being made redundant and having to accept a job with lower wages I'm worse off now than I was 5 years ago. If this happened to any State Employees we would know about it rapidally. Sparks I think you need a reality check from the other side!

Gandalf.

bonkey

Originally posted by gandalf
I think the point that you need Irish to become a teacher is quite valid. For most teaching posts it is not required and excluding otherwise qualified candidates.

Not only that, but I believe they have changed the rules in recent times (or are planning on doing so in the near future) so that this only applies to Irish citizens. Foreigners can apply for teaching posts without any qualification in Ireland.

Once such a distinction is made, it is fair to say that the requirement is a load of toss.

I can see it now....

"I'm sorry Mr. Gandalf...even though you're better qualified to teach this subject than Herr Bonkey, you need Irish and he doesn't....and seeing as neither of you speak it, we have to give him the job".

jc