What should Ruairi Quinn do about the oversupply of teachers?

delta_bravo

Any thoughts are what actions (if any) Quinn could take to help the problem of large scale teacher unemployment. I'm focusing here on 2nd level as I have more knowledge about this than primary.


Personally I think some drastic steps need to be taken. I think we should base teacher recruitment similar to that of the Gardai. If there is a need for Gardai, they recruit them and train them. As it stands the training of teachers is out of the hands of the state with some light touch regulation from the teaching council and the College and Universities are creaming millions in fees.

I'm not generally in favour of protectionism in markets but teaching is different to most standard markets.

I propose that the teaching council make publicly available the total number of teachers employed in each subject and those unemployed in the same subject. The stats would have to accomodate the idea of double counting where an unemployed maths and german teacher would appear twice as an unemployed german and maths teacher but I'm sure that can be sorted.

Using this information the teaching council will place a "call" for a certain number of graduates in those subjects and permit them to apply for the PGDE. If a persons subject is not included in the "call", they cannot apply that year.

Undoubtedly, this will not be received favourably by all but this is already being partially done to make it slightly more difficult for Business graduates to get onto the PGDE. Its time this was done on a wide scale. We are churning out 1,000+ teachers per annum in this country. Its simply too much. When I did the PGDE in UCD, about 70 of the students were doing English. How is that sustainable? I feel decisive action needs to be taken, the PGDE courses as usual were completely oversubscribed again this year. Its getting worse, not better

whiteandlight

I have to agree and well done on a good OP. It can be noted even by the number of threads on here with people finding it very very hard to find jobs even with experience and good qualifications.

The colleges are churning out graduates into a system which has no jobs for them. They then end up heading abroad and we lose our best and brightest or they end up subbing/temping for years losing motivation.

This causes all kinds of problems for students as well. I've just moved schools again and last year one of my students said he was on his 4th maths teacher in 5 years because they kept moving. He's now going to have a 5th teacher in LC because I had to leave to. This can cause untold damage to students, particularly in subjects like maths at the JC. If a weak student has to try and get used to a new teacher every year because they are temporary RPT contracts then they will struggle with the subject. We all have slightly different teaching methods and even though its the same course, we have different accents, different emphasis, different "turn of phrases" which can affect students

theLuggage

Musicmental85 wrote: »

This causes all kinds of problems for students as well. I've just moved schools again and last year one of my students said he was on his 4th maths teacher in 5 years because they kept moving. He's now going to have a 5th teacher in LC because I had to leave to. This can cause untold damage to students, particularly in subjects like maths at the JC. If a weak student has to try and get used to a new teacher every year because they are temporary RPT contracts then they will struggle with the subject. We all have slightly different teaching methods and even though its the same course, we have different accents, different emphasis, different "turn of phrases" which can affect students

I totally agree with this - it's so unfair on students especially as you say the student who struggles. I'm a maths teacher as I think you are Musicmental85? and I find students can get very confused if you use a different method to previous teacher.

I think more needs to be looked at then limiting numbers on the PGDE - don't forget that doing that would result in jobs being lost at 3rd level. The problem is with allocating teachers to schools, believe this is done in hours now as opposed to numbers of teachers. It's the allocation that results in hours lost for teachers and them having to move on. Of course that brings us round to the same old argument of cutbacks.

Perhaps some kind of "mentoring" (for want of better word) program could be put in place where teachers are taken on by the school they do teaching practice in for a year or two after they're qualified. At least they would get more experience before they needed to go looking for jobs.

Also heard they were planning on extending PGDE courses to two years which would delay NQTs entering the marketplace for jobs. That would give those out there now a bit of breather if that happened - akthough if things are as bad as they seem might not help much.

RedXIV

This was an idea I had on a different thread, but what about moving the teachers into different areas of teaching? As opposed to the massive waiting lists in secondary schools, we've plenty of unemployed people who need to be upskilled. Many cannot even read and write at an adult level. Math skills are also in huge demand in the IT industry and alot of IT courses simply do not do enough maths to make the most of them.

FAS (or now SOLAS) would be one way of hitting this market but private enterprise could be another? I'm not too sure about the likes of History and Geography teachers but surely the basics of English and Maths should be able to be easily incorporated into useful system for getting us back on track with this "knowledge economy".

Bandana boy

Take the Education budget that is affordable on the countrys income
Take the number of qualified teachers being employed by the state currently and paid the dole
Divide one by the other thats the new teacher salary as dictated by Supply & Demand and put them all to work.

Obviously there would be some movement on this base salary based on experience and responsibility.
Would be reasonably easy to calculate.

vamos!

The solution thus far seems to be to hire teachers on very low hours. Teacher employment figures dont reflect the reality but there are 3 of us doing what used to be one job. Lots of us earn 15k year after 4, 5, 6 years university and have to listen to the media and joe public telling us how overpaid we are and suggesting like the last poster that joe public should come up with a theory of how we are paid based on what they experienced when they were in school and what they imagine to be reality.

rainbowtrout

theLuggage wrote: »

Perhaps some kind of "mentoring" (for want of better word) program could be put in place where teachers are taken on by the school they do teaching practice in for a year or two after they're qualified. At least they would get more experience before they needed to go looking for jobs.

Not this. This is what Mary Coughlan was suggesting when she was our esteemed Minister for Education. It would be seen as a source of cheap labour. There would be no guarantee of work at the end and it would prevent more experienced teachers getting jobs because they needed to move or were let go from their schools due to cutbacks.

And to be honest while the majority of PGDE students are good and work hard while they are in the school there are some who are lazy and do as little as possible (they do exist!). I don't see why a school should be lumbered with a person like this if they can hire someone more competent. They may not even need a teacher for that subject combination, dip students are only ever covering another teacher's classes. We usually have a science student and a woodwork or metalwork student during the year. We couldn't keep on every dip in those subjects just for the sake of it.

A cap on numbers entering the PGDE programmes would probably be no harm. Perhaps not allowing graduates with only one teaching subject enter the PGDE programme for the moment would be no harm too. Two teaching subjects minimum. It would mean that those that qualify are automatically more flexible in the jobs they can apply for and it would lessen the number of graduates coming out saying 'I'm a qualified teacher and I can't get work, but I only have one subject/ my subjects are Ancient Greek and Italian'

theLuggage

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Not this. This is what Mary Coughlan was suggesting when she was our esteemed Minister for Education. It would be seen as a source of cheap labour. There would be no guarantee of work at the end and it would prevent more experienced teachers getting jobs because they needed to move or were let go from their schools due to cutbacks.


Oh no definitely not what I meant! I guess mentoring wasn't a good word! I wasn't envisioning that these teachers would be paid any differently but appropriate to their place on the scale.

No it wouldn't guarantee work but then guaranteed work is hard to find at second level as it is unless you're permanent or have a CID. At least it might give NQTs a starting place and chance to gain experience before having to move on.

I don't see how it would prevent experienced teachers getting a job if NQTs were offered a place similar to what I'm describing. An NQT will always be cheaper as they are lower on payscale (especially now) but as you know experienced teachers are usually valued much more and tend to get the jobs. I'm not saying schools would be forced to take NQTs over more experienced teachers, it's something they would sign up to if interested.

And to be honest while the majority of PGDE students are good and work hard while they are in the school there are some who are lazy and do as little as possible (they do exist!).

Agreed and have seen it!

I don't see why a school should be lumbered with a person like this if they can hire someone more competent. They may not even need a teacher for that subject combination, dip students are only ever covering another teacher's classes. We usually have a science student and a woodwork or metalwork student during the year. We couldn't keep on every dip in those subjects just for the sake of it.

All true, these would be problems for people to think about if such a scheme were possible. And it's probably not - I don't see any way to predict the need for a teacher in any given school.

It just seems like such an unfair system where you have to go grubbing for hours year after year until you finally get sorted (if you're lucky that is!). There must be some better way of doing it?

A cap on numbers entering the PGDE programmes would probably be no harm. Perhaps not allowing graduates with only one teaching subject enter the PGDE programme for the moment would be no harm too. Two teaching subjects minimum. It would mean that those that qualify are automatically more flexible in the jobs they can apply for and it would lessen the number of graduates coming out saying 'I'm a qualified teacher and I can't get work, but I only have one subject/ my subjects are Ancient Greek and Italian'

I'm not too sure about capping numbers. People are aware (or should be) of how difficult it is to get a job in Ireland. But why should we prevent/limit the numbers who want to train here but go abroad to work? I haven't a notion how difficult/easy is it to get a job outside of Ireland. If difficult as well then look to capping numbers maybe. But I know if I was in the position of desperately wanting to be a teacher despite everything I knew and I couldn't get a place on PGDE because numbers were capped, I'd feel pretty sore about it. Who's to say I wouldn't be one of the lucky ones who gets a job on other end?

:pac:

rainbowtrout

theLuggage wrote: »

Oh no definitely not what I meant! I guess mentoring wasn't a good word! I wasn't envisioning that these teachers would be paid any differently but appropriate to their place on the scale.

No it wouldn't guarantee work but then guaranteed work is hard to find at second level as it is unless you're permanent or have a CID. At least it might give NQTs a starting place and chance to gain experience before having to move on.

I don't see how it would prevent experienced teachers getting a job if NQTs were offered a place similar to what I'm describing. An NQT will always be cheaper as they are lower on payscale (especially now) but as you know experienced teachers are usually valued much more and tend to get the jobs. I'm not saying schools would be forced to take NQTs over more experienced teachers, it's something they would sign up to if interested.

But the problem here would be if an NQT was guaranteed to be able to take up a teaching position in their dip school for a year or two, even if they were paid appropriately to their place on the scale is that they would be taking up a portion of the allocation to that school.

Schools would be put over their quota and it would mean that jobs weren't advertised and more experienced teachers would not be able to apply for these jobs. I'm also not in agreement with hiring an NQT simply because they are cheaper. To hire someone simply because they are cheaper means no value is placed on experience.

I have a friend who lost her job this year due to cutbacks where she was working. She has 10 years teaching experience. She's having great difficulty getting interviews never mind work for September because there's so little out there. If this system was operational NQTs would be walking straight into jobs and preventing experienced, more 'expensive' teachers applying for jobs.

Just because they have completed the qualification shouldn't mean that they are guaranteed work in that area (even if it is only for a year) ahead of other qualified (and perhaps more experienced) candidates.

Capping places on PGDE courses would be a very effective way of curbing numbers. You say that if you want to do the course you should be allowed do it. No problem there, but if you're good enough you'll get in, if you're not you won't. There's lot of people who would like to do Medicine, Dentistry, Pharmacy every year as well but there are only a certain number of places on those courses too and if you're not good enough you don't get in. No reason that teaching couldn't have the same system.

theLuggage

I see your point now about NQT getting ahead of teachers already in the field. Hadn't thought of that effect and I agree NQTs shouldn't get preferential treatment jobseeking.

Also hadn't thought of capping numbers in terms of natural selection if you like. You're right it doesn't stop someone still doing it if they're good enough. It also doesn't stop people training abroad either.

Okay I concede my "mentoring" idea! Far too many flaws

Btw hope you're friend gets sorted - I will be in my 6th year of teaching and fingers crossed CID bound and nobody has to tell me how lucky I am, I really do know!! It's awful out there, especially for people who have a lot of experience like your friend as these are the people who are more likely to have mortgages, families etc. Not as easy for these people to relocate to a new job.

Bandana boy

vamos! wrote: »

The solution thus far seems to be to hire teachers on very low hours. Teacher employment figures dont reflect the reality but there are 3 of us doing what used to be one job. Lots of us earn 15k year after 4, 5, 6 years university and have to listen to the media and joe public telling us how overpaid we are and suggesting like the last poster that joe public should come up with a theory of how we are paid based on what they experienced when they were in school and what they imagine to be reality.

The reality is when there is an oversupply of a commodity the price comes down.
We need the Goverment to get us our bang for our buck -That means decreasing the salary on offer to teachers and hiring more teachers for our Euro.

We would see class sizes drop significantly and less people drawing the dole.

Also in this enviorment I would like too see the Union allow problem teachers to be dealt with ,discplined and if no improvment is forth coming replacment.

implausible

Bandana boy wrote: »

The reality is when there is an oversupply of a commodity the price comes down. We need the Government to get us our bang for our buck -That means decreasing the salary on offer to teachers and hiring more teachers for our Euro.

We would see class sizes drop significantly and less people drawing the dole.

Also in this environment I would like to see the Union allow problem teachers to be dealt with, disciplined and if no improvement is forthcoming replacement.

So we're a commodity now? Would you like to have been taught by a teacher who was earning 17k? How motivated do you think your kids' teacher would be if s/he couldn't pay the bills? It may have escaped your notice, but our salaries have already been substantially cut and new entrants are starting on 10% (don't know the exact figures, sorry) less.

I would agree with your point re: dealing with problem teachers. It needs to be done, but the unions are not preventing this, their focus is on assessment measures that are fair.

There needs to be a temporary cap on entrants to the PGDE. They have done this with nursing and medicine (even though we are exporting these graduates and importing cheaper graduates from other countries.)

theLuggage

Bandana boy wrote: »

We need the Goverment to get us our bang for our buck -That means decreasing the salary on offer to teachers and hiring more teachers for our Euro.

You're assuming teachers would be happy staying in a country where they are being paid less. They probably wouldn't. What you would see is teachers leaving the profession or country. Many teachers are struggling on the hours/pay they are getting currently.

Bandana boy

theLuggage wrote: »

You're assuming teachers would be happy staying in a country where they are being paid less. They probably wouldn't. What you would see is teachers leaving the profession or country. Many teachers are struggling on the hours/pay they are getting currently.

Back in the early 90s when i was choosing a college course.
Teaching was seriously underpaid ,I considered and jettisoned the idea of going into teaching based on the wages.
There has been a serious adjustment made since then and our teachers went onto be the best paid in Europe.

I am not denying that there has already been cuts serious cuts and of course any cuts hurt but I still would much rather see the numbers of teachers in employment stay static or increase and pay for this by spreading the pay cheque.

Every other profession sees salaries fall when supply outstrips demand -look at IT at the turn of the century.

And in fact Teachers probably have better means to supplement their salary if there is a real problem. Grinds summer school teaching etc.

I believe while painful there is more room to cut on the pay -and that long term this is far better for the country than cutting teaching numbers.

The Union is a big player in how "problem " teachers are dealt with -as in not at all.

Now that their is a scarcity of postions ,taking out those who do not meet standards and replacing with those who do seems like a win win for both the Teaching community and the tax payer.

mrboswell

theLuggage wrote: »

I'm not too sure about capping numbers. People are aware (or should be) of how difficult it is to get a job in Ireland. But why should we prevent/limit the numbers who want to train here but go abroad to work? I haven't a notion how difficult/easy is it to get a job outside of Ireland. If difficult as well then look to capping numbers maybe. But I know if I was in the position of desperately wanting to be a teacher despite everything I knew and I couldn't get a place on PGDE because numbers were capped, I'd feel pretty sore about it. Who's to say I wouldn't be one of the lucky ones who gets a job on other end?

I don't think that college education is subsidised in Ireland so that we can train graduates to emigrate and pay taxes in other countries. That in my opinion is one very valid reason why capping numbers might be important.

dambarude

Reduce places on all teaching courses in which the government has a say in, i.e. B.Eds in Primary Ed, the various concurrent secondary courses, the postgrad in primary ed, and the PGDEs.

This doesn't deny any one person access to the profession. If they're good enough and want it badly enough they'll succeed in getting in. As mentioned above plenty of other professions are difficult to get into, with the state it's in I don't see why teaching should be any different.

whiteandlight

Bandana boy wrote: »

Back in the early 90s when i was choosing a college course.
Teaching was seriously underpaid ,I considered and jettisoned the idea of going into teaching based on the wages.
There has been a serious adjustment made since then and our teachers went onto be the best paid in Europe.

I am not denying that there has already been cuts serious cuts and of course any cuts hurt but I still would much rather see the numbers of teachers in employment stay static or increase and pay for this by spreading the pay cheque.

Every other profession sees salaries fall when supply outstrips demand -look at IT at the turn of the century.

And in fact Teachers probably have better means to supplement their salary if there is a real problem. Grinds summer school teaching etc.

I believe while painful there is more room to cut on the pay -and that long term this is far better for the country than cutting teaching numbers.

The Union is a big player in how "problem " teachers are dealt with -as in not at all.

Now that their is a scarcity of postions ,taking out those who do not meet standards and replacing with those who do seems like a win win for both the Teaching community and the tax payer.

You've made several different points. I'll try and address them.

"Back in the early 90s when i was choosing a college course.
Teaching was seriously underpaid ,I considered and jettisoned the idea of going into teaching based on the wages.
There has been a serious adjustment made since then and our teachers went onto be the best paid in Europe.
I am not denying that there has already been cuts serious cuts and of course any cuts hurt but I still would much rather see the numbers of teachers in employment stay static or increase and pay for this by spreading the pay cheque."

This statement completely confirms theLuggages statement that if you reduce wages then teachers will leave. You looked at the wages of teachers and jettisoned the idea. If we reduce our wages much more even trained teachers are going to leave. With the current application system for the PGDE where you need a first class honours degree or a postgraduate qualification to get straight onto the course we have a very high calibre of teachers. There is nothing to stop them leaving the profession and pursuing another career except a liking of teaching which won't hold them if you reduce wages substantially.

Also we were never the highest paid teachers in Europe please check your statistics. We were in the fifth highest paid in 2007 and there have been significant cuts since then so we can expect to be much further down the table.

"Every other profession sees salaries fall when supply outstrips demand -look at IT at the turn of the century."
I'm not sure of this one. I thought it was more to do with companies being more picky about levels of qualifications because they could afford to? Not my area of expertise though.

"And in fact Teachers probably have better means to supplement their salary if there is a real problem. Grinds summer school teaching etc. "
In case you haven't noticed, theres a recession. First thing to go in a recession is discretionary spending such as grinds etc. And you could say that about any profession tbh.

"I believe while painful there is more room to cut on the pay -and that long term this is far better for the country than cutting teaching numbers."
What do you envisage is a suitable wage rate for teachers? I'd be interested to know.

"The Union is a big player in how "problem " teachers are dealt with -as in not at all.
Now that their is a scarcity of postions ,taking out those who do not meet standards and replacing with those who do seems like a win win for both the Teaching community and the tax payer."
It doesn't really help much with the oversupply of teacher though unless you think that a significant proportion of current teachers are unsuitable which I don't believe there are any significant statistics to back up. Could be wrong though, I haven't read everything

E.T.

Bandana boy wrote: »

Back in the early 90s when i was choosing a college course.
Teaching was seriously underpaid ,I considered and jettisoned the idea of going into teaching based on the wages.
There has been a serious adjustment made since then and our teachers went onto be the best paid in Europe.

I am not denying that there has already been cuts serious cuts and of course any cuts hurt but I still would much rather see the numbers of teachers in employment stay static or increase and pay for this by spreading the pay cheque.

Every other profession sees salaries fall when supply outstrips demand -look at IT at the turn of the century.

And in fact Teachers probably have better means to supplement their salary if there is a real problem. Grinds summer school teaching etc.

I believe while painful there is more room to cut on the pay -and that long term this is far better for the country than cutting teaching numbers.

The Union is a big player in how "problem " teachers are dealt with -as in not at all.

Now that their is a scarcity of postions ,taking out those who do not meet standards and replacing with those who do seems like a win win for both the Teaching community and the tax payer.

I won't go into all of the things that are incorrect in your post - Musicmental has addressed those.

What jumps out at me is, you chose not to go into teaching because you felt the money wasn't good enough. Many others went into teaching, despite the pay being low. Now that (as you see it) teachers are "the best paid in Europe", you're giving out about it. Sour grapes?

rainbowtrout

Bandana boy wrote: »

Back in the early 90s when i was choosing a college course.
Teaching was seriously underpaid ,I considered and jettisoned the idea of going into teaching based on the wages.
There has been a serious adjustment made since then and our teachers went onto be the best paid in Europe.

I am not denying that there has already been cuts serious cuts and of course any cuts hurt but I still would much rather see the numbers of teachers in employment stay static or increase and pay for this by spreading the pay cheque.

Every other profession sees salaries fall when supply outstrips demand -look at IT at the turn of the century.

And in fact Teachers probably have better means to supplement their salary if there is a real problem. Grinds summer school teaching etc.

I believe while painful there is more room to cut on the pay -and that long term this is far better for the country than cutting teaching numbers.

The Union is a big player in how "problem " teachers are dealt with -as in not at all.

Now that their is a scarcity of postions ,taking out those who do not meet standards and replacing with those who do seems like a win win for both the Teaching community and the tax payer.

Yes, but there is a big difference between teaching and IT/Construction/insert whatever industry has had a crash in the last 10 years here.

The laws of supply and demand in IT and all the other industries are dictated by the demand for those industries.

The demand for teaching is relatively constant as there are a constant supply of children to teach. This does fluctuate a certain bit with population rising and falling but overall it doesn't fluctuate wildly like say IT did 10 years ago or Construction and it's associated industries in the last 3 or 4 years.

The other factor aside from population that dictates the number of teaching jobs is the government if they decide to increase/decrease pupil teacher ratio, number of resource hours given to children with special needs etc.

So I don't see why they would reduce teacher wages drastically just to employ more teachers. Private companies can increase/decrease their wages to be competitive or when they know lots of people are applying for one job. Private companies don't decide when there's a recession to slash wages in half to hire more staff. They might cut wages by a percentage to retain current staff, or as has happened in many places, they will simply let people go. Teaching works in a similar manner.

There is a set salary scale in teaching. Different schools don't offer different rates of pay. Halving our wages and doubling the number of teachers is not going to attract the best teachers to the profession. I have seen many opinions on these boards that suggest teachers should be paid minimum wage and even that is too much for us. We should be glad to get it. Is that how little society values the education of its children? Placing it on par with the most basic jobs that require little or no skill or knowledge?

Operating schools where one year students are in classes of no more than 15 because there is a recession on and the government are trying to get teachers off the dole, so they cut wages and hire extra bodies and then a few years down the line those same students are back in classes of 30 because the country is booming again so those employed as teachers now flock to more lucrative careers is hardly going to contribute to a stable education system.

My plumber came out on an emergency call a few months back. It cost me €70. No problem. I didn't hear him say 'Rainbowtrout, there's going to be two of us doing this job for €35 each so it'll keep another person off the dole' though. He wasn't hiring extra people for a lower wage to keep people employed. He was charging the rate the market would bear for him and no one else.

People can apply for any course they want in college, they have no guarantee of a job after it. There is a huge expectancy among a cohort of PGDE students that because they've done the PGDE that'll they'll get a teaching job and it doesn't work that way. It's as competitive as any other sector of employment. It's also one sector that the government can intervene in directly by cutting the number of places on teacher training courses in government funded colleges.

There is a moratorium in place on hiring in the public service but teaching is an exception to that rule because at the end of the day the children still have to be taught. So the only other way of capping the number of qualifying teachers is to nip it in the bud at entry level. Just like Garda recruitment.

It would seem far more prudent to do this and have people consider other career options carefully before going headlong into a PGDE where there is very little chance of employment at the end. Because people do have that notion when they complete a third level course that they will get work from it, otherwise why would they have done it?

If there are 1000 teachers graduating every year, to the man on the street the first thing they are going to think is 'Well they wouldn't be allowing that many do the course if there weren't jobs from it, sure i'll apply'

If there were say 250 places available per year, it might make people think a little harder about the job prospects 'Only 250 graduate, so there can't be that many jobs available in this area' and they might consider other careers first.

Colleges have a lot to answer for too, taking in graduates with obscure subject combinations. The fact that they get into the course gives them hope that they will get a job at the end of it. A quick look at the number of students sitting a given subject in the Leaving Cert and Junior Cert every year on the SEC website should give a person a very clear idea of their job prospects.

Some examples: (approximate figures sitting subjects in 2010)

Latin : 140
Classical Studies: 850
Spanish: 3000
Italian: 300
Applied Maths : 1300 *I would ignore this one as most teachers teaching this tend to be teaching Maths or Physics already
Japanese: 150


There are other subjects hovering around the 3000 mark but like Applied Maths tend to be complemented by other subject combinations : Economics teachers tend to be qualified in another business subject, DCG teachers are qualified in either Woodwork or Metalwork etc.

But if anyone has any of the above subjects realistically they have to take a long hard look at their options before heading into the PGDE and their employment prospects on completing it. If it's their only teaching subject they might as well collect the forms for the social welfare with their parchment.

I met a girl over the summer who was starting the PGDE this September, another teacher friend of mine was with me when she told us this. We asked her what her subjects were: French and Italian. My friend looked at me and I know her initial thought was 'Good luck with that, you won't be getting any work teaching Italian any time soon, realistically you'll only be able to teach French'

jh79

Is that how little society values the education of its children? Placing it on par with the most basic jobs that require little or no skill or knowledge?


Teachers should be paid appropriate to their level of qualification. From looking at the TUI website they are very well paid considering how secure the job is and the long holidays. A chemistry techers teaching at a very basic level gets paid more than a researcher in a multi-national pharma company. If paid was in line with the average for graduates in the private sector then more teachers could be hired within the same budget.

The post above says that some people view teaching as a basic job, well alot of parents out there have degrees etc these days so they don't see it as different from their own jobs. It is basic if you've gone trough 3rd level.

But they do see the lack of accountability. If teachers have the best interest of students at heart why allow the union to protect the bad teachers, you've already failed the pupils before you've even started.

rainbowtrout

jh79 wrote: »

Is that how little society values the education of its children? Placing it on par with the most basic jobs that require little or no skill or knowledge?


Teachers should be paid appropriate to their level of qualification. From looking at the TUI website they are very well paid considering how secure the job is and the long holidays. A chemistry techers teaching at a very basic level gets paid more than a researcher in a multi-national pharma company. If paid was in line with the average for graduates in the private sector then more teachers could be hired within the same budget.

The post above says that some people view teaching as a basic job, well alot of parents out there have degrees etc these days so they don't see it as different from their own jobs. It is basic if you've gone trough 3rd level.

But they do see the lack of accountability. If teachers have the best interest of students at heart why allow the union to protect the bad teachers, you've already failed the pupils before you've even started.

Do you have a link to back up this claim? Not saying you're wrong, but enough people come on here and make claims about teachers wages v. private sector wages.

You're also only looking at my point from one side, the point I was making was that plenty of people would have us work for minimum wage if possible so I am comparing teaching will low skilled jobs requiring no qualifications.

You also need to do a little research before you start making assumptions about security and holidays. Yes, there are many teachers who are secure in permanent jobs, I am one of them. But there are vast numbers who are not secure and not in full time employment and only work part time hours. There are many who are not paid for the summer.

I have a number of friends who have been subbing or completed sick leaves/maternity leaves so don't have a contract of their own and are on the dole at the moment. They are signing on all summer as they don't get paid during the holidays and still have to listen to comments when they pick up their social welfare payment from people working the post office 'Isn't it great for you, off for three months, when do you start back?' People who don't even make the connection that the person collecting their dole payment doesn't have a wage coming in, hence the dole payment, but assumes they have it great because they are a teacher. Some people don't seem to be able to differentiate between employed qualified teacher and unemployed qualified teacher.

implausible

jh79 wrote: »

Nobody in the private sector who goes through 3rd level is quaranteed a job why should teaching be different

Nobody on this thread has said that teachers should be guaranteed a job. However, the Government is allowing 1000s of postgrads into an already saturated market. Teaching, like nursing or medicine is different - there will always be a demand for these professions, but the Govt. can measure the demand and regulate the supply.

jh79

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Do you have a link to back up this claim? Not saying you're wrong, but enough people come on here and make claims about teachers wages v. private sector wages.

You're also only looking at my point from one side, the point I was making was that plenty of people would have us work for minimum wage if possible so I am comparing teaching will low skilled jobs requiring no qualifications.

You also need to do a little research before you start making assumptions about security and holidays. Yes, there are many teachers who are secure in permanent jobs, I am one of them. But there are vast numbers who are not secure and not in full time employment and only work part time hours. There are many who are not paid for the summer.

I have a number of friends who have been subbing or completed sick leaves/maternity leaves so don't have a contract of their own and are on the dole at the moment. They are signing on all summer as they don't get paid during the holidays and still have to listen to comments when they pick up their social welfare payment from people working the post office 'Isn't it great for you, off for three months, when do you start back?' People who don't even make the connection that the person collecting their dole payment doesn't have a wage coming in, hence the dole payment, but assumes they have it great because they are a teacher. Some people don't seem to be able to differentiate between employed qualified teacher and unemployed qualified teacher.

Personal experience, I would be better off if I was a teacher

The fact that you are premanent is not good for the pupils. Your entire class can fail and you still get paid and your yearly pay rise. I had an alco 2nd level teacher who slept off his hang-overs all day instead of teaching yet he never got the sack? How does that benefit the pupils? The union and the teachers by association are more interested in salary preservation for the premanent teachers and that is understandable, but don't pull the "importance of educating our children" card, you could take a 10% cut , still be on above average pay for a undergrad degree and new teachers could be employed reducing the pupil / teacher ratio. I wouldn't take a pay cut if at all possible but lets not pretend the union is thinking of the students.

Nobody in the private sector who goes through 3rd level is quaranteed a job why should teaching be different

implausible

jh79 wrote: »

The fact that you are premanent is not good for the pupils. Your entire class can fail and you still get paid and your yearly pay rise. I had an alco 2nd level teacher who slept off his hang-overs all day instead of teaching yet he never got the sack? How does that benefit the pupils? The union and the teachers by association are more interested in salary preservation for the premanent teachers and that is understandable, but don't pull the "importance of educating our children" card, you could take a 10% cut , still be on above average pay for a undergrad degree and new teachers could be employed reducing the pupil / teacher ratio. I wouldn't take a pay cut if at all possible but lets not pretend the union is thinking of the students.[/FONT]

Nobody in the private sector who goes through 3rd level is quaranteed a job why should teaching be different

Let me just summarise: you had a crappy teacher. Therefore, from your wide-ranging educational experience, security of tenure is bad. Have I missed anything?

If what you say is true, nobody would be getting 600 points as we are so busy lying back on our lazy asses, getting paid to not give a sh*t about our students and our jobs.

We have taken serious cuts over the past few years. And as for us taking another one so we'd be on "be on above average pay for a undergrad degree", why would we? We don't just have undergrad degrees. Should I just forget about my postgrad?

I've already addressed your last point, so why you're repeating it is beyond me

jh79

deemark wrote: »

Nobody on this thread has said that teachers should be guaranteed a job. However, the Government is allowing 1000s of postgrads into an already saturated market. Teaching, like nursing or medicine is different - there will always be a demand for these professions, but the Govt. can measure the demand and regulate the supply.

Excuse my ignorance, but why would you go into a saturated market, use your primary degree for something else, the fact that there is such a demand for these professions suggest that the condtions are so desirable especially with teaching. Above average pay, long holidays and no accountablility.

I understand people wanting to earn as much money as possible, its just the suggestion that altruism comes into play with teaching and nursing that bugs me. Both are paid well for the qualifications held, teachers are protected by their union no matter what the consequences to the pupils. Doesn't sound very altruistic to me.

Teachers are very lucky with the pay and security they have, (bet they don't have to convince the bank manager that much to get a mortage?)
I do think personal safety is a bigger issue for teachers and more needs to be done.

rainbowtrout

jh79 wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance, but why would you go into a saturated market, use your primary degree for something else, the fact that there is such a demand for these professions suggest that the condtions are so desirable especially with teaching. Above average pay, long holidays and no accountablility.

I understand people wanting to earn as much money as possible, its just the suggestion that altruism comes into play with teaching and nursing that bugs me. Both are paid well for the qualifications held, teachers are protected by their union no matter what the consequences to the pupils. Doesn't sound very altruistic to me.

Teachers are very lucky with the pay and security they have, (bet they don't have to convince the bank manager that much to get a mortage?)
I do think personal safety is a bigger issue for teachers and more needs to be done.

Again, more conjecture on your part. Just making assumptions about teachers, their job security and pay. No amount of hard facts about teachers working part time or not getting paid for the holidays will convince you otherwise, you will believe what you choose to believe.

whiteandlight

jh79 wrote: »

deemark wrote: »

Nobody on this thread has said that teachers should be guaranteed a job. However, the Government is allowing 1000s of postgrads into an already saturated market. Teaching, like nursing or medicine is different - there will always be a demand for these professions, but the Govt. can measure the demand and regulate the supply.

Excuse my ignorance, but why would you go into a saturated market, use your primary degree for something else, the fact that there is such a demand for these professions suggest that the condtions are so desirable especially with teaching. Above average pay, long holidays and no accountablility.

I understand people wanting to earn as much money as possible, its just the suggestion that altruism comes into play with teaching and nursing that bugs me. Both are paid well for the qualifications held, teachers are protected by their union no matter what the consequences to the pupils. Doesn't sound very altruistic to me.

Teachers are very lucky with the pay and security they have, (bet they don't have to convince the bank manager that much to get a mortage?)
I do think personal safety is a bigger issue for teachers and more needs to be done.

Please go and read up on the topic and get some facts and figures before coming back. Here are some that I posted in another thread.
In case you don't read the post please note: we teach way above the OECD average hours a year and have one of the highest pupil teacher ratio in the OECD.

Back in 2007 yes the OECD report showed that Ireland had the 5th highest pay. However obviously there have been cuts since then so that will no longer be the case. .

On Newstalk this morning I heard again that 83% of the education budget is spent on teachers salaries so they should be cut etc etc. However when I go and read up on it we actually don’t spend huge amounts of money on education in relation to other countries. Perhaps if we did then it would no longer be 83% on salaries!

We rank 13th on the table of expenditure on education in the OECD report (http://www.oecd.org/document/55/0,3746,en_2649_37455_46349815_1_1_1_37455,00.html) but again these tables are slightly skewed if the government is providing free fees for higher education. The UK is actually spending more than us on this table in spite of charging fees to higher level education.

We were spending 0 .5% as a percentage of total public expenditure above the OECD average on education including all levels in 2007 (13.5%) which wasn’t all that great given we were supposed to be pushing the knowledge economy. In the last four years we have slashed education so we can expect this to have dropped considerably. The highest spenders were Iceland and Norway. As a percentage of GDP, the EU average in 2007 was 5.2%. In Ireland we were spending 4.9%, below the average.

We are constantly told, we get paid too much (addressed above) and our holidays are too long. Rather than writing my own essay (I have read the reports from the OECD and EU) here is some explanation for our holidays being reasonable.

Quoted from: http://www.asti.ie/index.php?id=38&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=430

"In his article “Teachers’ summer shutdown should not be a closed book” (June 9th, 2011), Brian O’Connell refers to an OECD table which shows that Irish second-level teachers are expected to be present in schools for 735 hours per annum compared to the OECD average of between 1,116 hours and 1,192 hours. The ASTI wishes to point out the following:


For 12 out of the 14 countries represented in this table, the aggregate number of hours includes time spent teaching and time spent carrying out non-teaching duties. In the case of two out of the 14 countries – Ireland and New Zealand – time spent carrying out non-teaching duties is not included. As a consequence, the stated number of hours for Ireland and New Zealand are significantly lower than they are for other countries.


Irish second-level teachers are required to teach for 735 hours per annum which is well above the OECD and European average of 682 and 646.5 hours respectively.


In addition, Irish second-level teachers are required to be present in their schools for additional time and are required to carry out a wide range of non-teaching duties. These duties include administrative tasks required by law, lesson planning, subject and whole school planning, liaising with external personnel (e.g. special educational needs organisers and school inspectors), setting and marking exams, and meeting with parents. This does not include voluntary work such as organising musicals, coaching teams and running the photography club which usually take place outside the school day or at weekends. Irish schools and teachers are renowned for their commitment to extra-curricular activities and research has shown that these activities benefit young people both personally and educationally.


There is no evidence to suggest that Irish teachers spend less time at school than the OECD average. In addition to teaching 735 hours per year, Irish second-level teachers carry out the same or similar non-teaching duties as their OECD counterparts."

implausible

jh79 wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance, but why would you go into a saturated market, use your primary degree for something else, the fact that there is such a demand for these professions suggest that the condtions are so desirable especially with teaching. Above average pay, long holidays and no accountablility.

I understand people wanting to earn as much money as possible, its just the suggestion that altruism comes into play with teaching and nursing that bugs me. Both are paid well for the qualifications held, teachers are protected by their union no matter what the consequences to the pupils. Doesn't sound very altruistic to me.

Teachers are very lucky with the pay and security they have, (bet they don't have to convince the bank manager that much to get a mortage?)
I do think personal safety is a bigger issue for teachers and more needs to be done.

That's a damn good question. The answer - because people think it's easy, they think they'll get a job for life in the school down the road, they think that because they sat in a classroom that they'd like to do the job. It is the one profession that every single person has been in contact with and therefore, they think they know what the job entails.

When I went into teaching, it wasn't saturated.

And as for your suggestion that there is no altruism in teaching, that is staggeringly cynical. If I didn't love my job and care about my students, I would be completely sh*t at it, like that teacher you had. Dealing with hundreds of hormonal teenagers a day if you hate it would be hell. There is no joy in marking 30 5 page essays if you don't care about either your subject and your students. Only being in the job for a wage would have had me running for the door the first time a student shouted "f*ck you" at me.

I don't know what your problem is with the union. Any union's job is to protect the pay and conditions of its members.

Again, with the security. Have you been reading the posts on this forum? If you have, then you will see the numbers who are unemployed, on 8 and 11 hours contracts, who don't get paid for holidays and summers. Every teacher knows someone who has been teaching 10 years without a permanent job.

With a permanent job (at the time) 4 banks refused to give me a mortgage when they saw my net salary.

delta_bravo

I don't intend to divert this but the intention of my topic was to discuss what effective steps the minister could take to remedy the problem of the oversupply of teachers. Not to, once again talk about how terrible us teachers are and that we are pure leeches on the state, have more holidays than work days and more great barstool lines. I was hoping for a constructive discussion of what can be done at entry level to sort out the education sector.

jh79

deemark wrote: »

That's a damn good question. The answer - because people think it's easy, they think they'll get a job for life in the school down the road, they think that because they sat in a classroom that they'd like to do the job. It is the one profession that every single person has been in contact with and therefore, they think they know what the job entails.

When I went into teaching, it wasn't saturated.

And as for your suggestion that there is no altruism in teaching, that is staggeringly cynical. If I didn't love my job and care about my students, I would be completely sh*t at it, like that teacher you had. Dealing with hundreds of hormonal teenagers a day if you hate it would be hell. There is no joy in marking 30 5 page essays if you don't care about either your subject and your students. Only being in the job for a wage would have had me running for the door the first time a student shouted "f*ck you" at me.

I don't know what your problem is with the union. Any union's job is to protect the pay and conditions of its members.

Again, with the security. Have you been reading the posts on this forum? If you have, then you will see the numbers who are unemployed, on 8 and 11 hours contracts, who don't get paid for holidays and summers. Every teacher knows someone who has been teaching 10 years without a permanent job.

With a permanent job (at the time) 4 banks refused to give me a mortgage when they saw my net salary.

I looked up the wages on the TUI website, and they look good to me and its what i'm basing my opinions on.

My problem is not with the good teachers, but with a system that doesn't distinguish between the good and the bad. The bad teacher I had might be retired by now, but it was borderline criminal that the principal even let him through the gates, the parents knew and the staff he was drunk, but he's permanent! Hard not to be cynical.

Are teachers in favour of this system where if made full time your un-sackable. Surely if the teaching was run like any other industry the best teachers would be kept and the bad ones replaced thereby making space for the graduates. Unions are there to protect workers rights, not to ensure even the most incompetent workers keep their jobs.

I agree it takes a certain type of person to teach kids / teens. I wouldn't have the patience so there is a level of alturism to it. But the permanent teachers don't want the system to change because its so good for them eventhough its not good for the students or the graduates looking to get a teaching post. The TUI blamed the poor maths results on the teacher / studio ratio, maybe some of the teachers are not good enough, if you have the students best interest in mind, why not let the schools replace the under-preforming teachers instead of protecting them. There are always people bad at their jobs even in teaching.

If the students interest are the most important issue, which we are told is the reason to lower the teacher / pupil ratio, why not properly asses teacher performance and sack the ones not up to the job.

jh79

delta_bravo wrote: »

I don't intend to divert this but the intention of my topic was to discuss what effective steps the minister could take to remedy the problem of the oversupply of teachers. Not to, once again talk about how terrible us teachers are and that we are pure leeches on the state, have more holidays than work days and more great barstool lines. I was hoping for a constructive discussion of what can be done at entry level to sort out the education sector.

If that refers to me, i never said any of that, how can you sort a sector out without highlighting the problems with it. What you want to hear is hire more teachers at any cost because children are our future, not so worried about the students when even the worst teachers have no accountability.

The minister has to work inside a budget, the system doesn't give him much room for manoeuvre, because of the protections the permanent staff have.

Dionysus

Musicmental85 wrote: »

This causes all kinds of problems for students as well. I've just moved schools again and last year one of my students said he was on his 4th maths teacher in 5 years because they kept moving. He's now going to have a 5th teacher in LC because I had to leave to. This can cause untold damage to students, particularly in subjects like maths at the JC. If a weak student has to try and get used to a new teacher every year because they are temporary RPT contracts then they will struggle with the subject. We all have slightly different teaching methods and even though its the same course, we have different accents, different emphasis, different "turn of phrases" which can affect students

I very much agree with this. Numerous students have said the same to me about most of their subjects. They are downhearted and plainly lacking in trust that you'll stay with them. As well as that kids get used to a way of teaching, a routine, and expect certain things - e.g. summary notes of each chapter, a synopsis of previous exam questions on this topic, etc. It's not necessarily that somebody is a great teacher but rather that he/she and his/her teaching method represents stability and that facilitates learning.

Dionysus

Capping the numbers on PGDE courses is the most obvious, immediate solution. The universities make millions from it, so how is the government going to deal with that?

More specifically, capping them as the op suggests so that we do not have a ridiculous number of "English and History" PGDE students, for example, when the demand in teaching at the moment - if "demand" is the correct word - is for Irish, Maths and other such teachers.

The PGDE courses should be there to service the demands of the education system, not the demands of the finance department of their respective universities. This latter situation, the current situation, is not sustainable.

When I did the PGDE I had, I think, 15 points over the required number. What's the point in having a points system when my university allowed 238 people on to the PGDE course in the middle of a recession? Moreover, surely there is a better system than the points system as it's currently constructed? How about, aside from capping university places, a system which gives bonus points for the subjects which are in demand in the year you apply? This revolutionary thought would not go down well with the universities' finance departments, however.

rainbowtrout

Dionysus wrote: »

Capping the numbers on PGDE courses is the most obvious, immediate solution. The universities make millions from it, so how is the government going to deal with that?

More specifically, capping them as the op suggests so that we do not have a ridiculous number of "English and History" PGDE students, for example, when the demand in teaching at the moment - if "demand" is the correct word - is for Irish, Maths and other such teachers.

The PGDE courses should be there to service the demands of the education system, not the demands of the finance department of their respective universities. This latter situation, the current situation, is not sustainable.

When I did the PGDE I had, I think, 15 points over the required number. What's the point in having a points system when my university allowed 238 people on to the PGDE course in the middle of a recession? Moreover, surely there is a better system than the points system as it's currently constructed? How about, aside from capping university places, a system which gives bonus points for the subjects which are in demand in the year you apply? This revolutionary thought would not go down well with the universities' finance departments, however.

Far too simple for the universities to follow through. I wouldn't mind but the PGDE is so oversubscribed that even if the number of places in the universities was not reduced but quotas were brought in for subjects there would still be enough applicants to fill the course. A few more Irish teachers, a few less English etc.

whiteandlight

delta_bravo wrote: »

I don't intend to divert this but the intention of my topic was to discuss what effective steps the minister could take to remedy the problem of the oversupply of teachers. Not to, once again talk about how terrible us teachers are and that we are pure leeches on the state, have more holidays than work days and more great barstool lines. I was hoping for a constructive discussion of what can be done at entry level to sort out the education sector.

Sorry. I get frustrated! I shouldn't have risen to the bait. If there's a mod about please feel free to delete my post so we can get back on topic!

evolving_doors

I think the question needs to be asked..

Why should Ruairi Quinn care about teachers... or for that matter why should Ruairi Quinn care about unemployed teachers.. they're just another statistic out of hundreds of thousands.

Ruairi's actually in a good situation with oversupply, as previously permanent teachers' posts are being divvied up, teachers are becoming more desperate to accept anything. This whole thing is just going to be a mess and it's getting worse..

Also .. Why do Universities care.. they're getting a pretty penny every year.. they may as well be teaching construction studies..

Can anyone actually see a situation in the future where people come out of teacher training and get a permanent position where they can build on a profession... those days are well over.. I just saw a post advertised for 2 hours a week in the paper today.. 2 hours????? What is the story.. and the sad thing is, is that the job is probably gone with hundreds applying for it.

Ruairi Quinn should do something, anything.. but no watch this space.. same auld teacher bashing in the media this time next year again.

Obvious solution is for the Dept of Education (to hell with the teaching council) to figure out what is needed where and take control of the training like the gardai training. I think the whole problem is that the Dept only deals with money when it comes to education,, they then pass off everything else as being the Schools responsibility.

This situation reminds me of when the taxi market was deregulated, it's great having loads of taxi's around but a nightmare if you're a taxi driver trying to earn a living.

looksee

jh79 wrote: »

I looked up the wages on the TUI website, and they look good to me and its what i'm basing my opinions on.
My problem is not with the good teachers, but with a system that doesn't distinguish between the good and the bad. The bad teacher I had might be retired by now, but it was borderline criminal that the principal even let him through the gates, the parents knew and the staff he was drunk, but he's permanent! Hard not to be cynical.

Are teachers in favour of this system where if made full time your un-sackable. Surely if the teaching was run like any other industry the best teachers would be kept and the bad ones replaced thereby making space for the graduates. Unions are there to protect workers rights, not to ensure even the most incompetent workers keep their jobs.

I agree it takes a certain type of person to teach kids / teens. I wouldn't have the patience so there is a level of alturism to it. But the permanent teachers don't want the system to change because its so good for them eventhough its not good for the students or the graduates looking to get a teaching post. The TUI blamed the poor maths results on the teacher / studio ratio, maybe some of the teachers are not good enough, if you have the students best interest in mind, why not let the schools replace the under-preforming teachers instead of protecting them. There are always people bad at their jobs even in teaching.

If the students interest are the most important issue, which we are told is the reason to lower the teacher / pupil ratio, why not properly asses teacher performance and sack the ones not up to the job.

Have you read any of the answers that contradict your entrenched opinions?

It has been explained to you that many - probably a majority - of teachers at this stage are not permanent and therefore the figures on the TUI website cannot be used as a reflection of the actual situation.

Teachers who are not permenant have no job security and are very likely to be working less than full hours. In practical terms this can mean turning up at school to teach the first hour (or whatever teaching period applies), hanging around for an hour then teaching another hour. Maybe then having a break of two or three hours and working a couple of hours. So you are in school all day but only getting paid for four hours. Some of the time would be used for preparation, marking etc, but teachers on full time would be doing that in the evenings.

If there are two similar school close by and co-operative head teachers you could work in two schools, but if they are any distance apart it does not work as the travelling time eats into the teaching time.

Teachers with a CID (contract of indefinite duration) - which is as near as you are likely to get to a permenant position at the moment - do get paid all year, though possibly for less than 14 hours - but many teachers are paid as casual part timers and have a few hours here and there, often for only a term or less.

These are the teachers that create the '4 maths teachers in two years' situations. This is not the fault of the teacher, it is very difficult and frustrating to try and pick up where someone else has left off and complete a course. This is government policy and the result of trying to save money.

Timetabling a school, with the combination of subjects, classes, accommodation and teachers is extremely complex and takes several months of work every year. Then the department throw a spanner in the works with the almost unworkable 'extra hour' idea, which seems great to the public but makes absolutely no sense in real terms and does not save any money at all.

To bring this back to the OP's point, the government are making money saving efforts but many of them are in fact creating the problems that are emerging. While there are, no doubt, situations where greater efficiencies could be achieved, this is true in any field, including the private sector.

Even if potential teachers were accepted in proportion to the demand for their subjects, this could result in people offering subjects that were not their strongest areas, ultimately reducing the quality of teaching.

solerina

jh79

A chemistry techers teaching at a very basic level gets paid more than a researcher in a multi-national pharma company.
This is total rubbish.....I am a Chemsitry Teacher and have 3 friends working in Pharma Industries who graduated with me and with the exact same qualifications. We have compared our wages and I am on the lowest take home pay of the 4 of us...the least paid of them earns 300 more a month than I do. They actually didnt believe me when I told them my exact take home pay because they like you have bought into the whole teachers have fabulous wages. Before all the deducations I am doing OK after them I am way behind what they earn...(this doesnt include stock options which 2 of them get and are doing quite nicely from).