Cuts to Allowances

doc_17

Anyone hearing anything about a 5% cut in 2012, 5% again in 2013 and 10% in 2014?

This includes all allowances and supervision and substitution.

This ends Croke Park

trihead

sources?

please;)

doc_17

Just heard from the school rep and he got if from the branch chair who got it from the TUI executive. Looks like it is true

trihead

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0210/tui.html

:eek:

implausible

Holy f*ck! The Govt will try to get away with this because they maintain that allowances are not part of basic pay, when we all know that that is exactly how it is treated - taxable, pensionable etc. I for one do not divide my wages up into basic pay and salary..."ooh, I think I'll use my dip allowance to get my hair done this month...":rolleyes:

This is a paycut, pure and simple

solerina

This is a disgrace....we have already taken huge cuts, I for one am sick of getting flack for having huge wages when thats far from the truth !! This is a cut to basic pay no doubt about it.

vamos!

implausible wrote: »

Holy f*ck! The Govt will try to get away with this because they maintain that allowances are not part of basic pay, when we all know that that is exactly how it is treated - taxable, pensionable etc. I for one do not divide my wages up into basic pay and salary..."ooh, I think I'll use my dip allowance to get my hair done this month...":rolleyes:

Really?? Personally I use my MA allowance to fund the Yacht and the dip allowance to fund the staff:) Seriously though, I dont think that Croke Park is saving as much as it was intended to and wonder if they are trying to get
us to break it so there is zero public support, rather than admit a pay cut is needed. It may not be a popular opinion, but I maintain that a pay cut is needed. I wish it would be called a PAY CUT though and not allowance cut or levy. Call a spade a spade and stop the ludicrous misinformation about our wages and pensions.

Powerhouse

vamos! wrote: »

I maintain that a pay cut is needed.

Just curious - how much of a paycut (in percentage terms) do you think is needed?

vamos!

It may have been stupid of me to state that a pay cut is needed. I am not an economist. Maybe it would be better to say that a straight up pay cut is much preferable to another levy, allowance cut, increment freeze etc? also, any potential cuts should hit us all equally and not target a specific cohort, such as new entrants.

**I am not a new entrant.
**I am still on measly hours.
**I do not have a rich husband or parents to live off while suggesting pay cuts:).

dambarude

Would teachers here prefer an across the board cut on allowances, or removal of allowances for new entrants? Obviously neither is desirable, but which would you choose?

I say this as a student teacher about to finish my studies, who would obviously prefer the former.

James.

solerina wrote: »

This is a disgrace....we have already taken huge cuts, I for one am sick of getting flack for having huge wages when thats far from the truth !! This is a cut to basic pay no doubt about it.

You took a small cut, and since then you have got most if not all of it back in increments.

You will get another increment this year, so you will earn more this year than you did last year.

So that is a pay rise this year !

Fizzical

This is not new - it was flagged in the budget.

So, a 20% cut in allowances while you're working and another pension cut when you're finished.

Now I understand why the retirement deal was set for February and not summer time.

Fizzical

James. wrote: »

You took a small cut, and since then you have got most if not all of it back in increments.

You will get another increment this year, so you will earn more this year than you did last year.

So that is a pay rise this year !

Why aren't you a teacher, James? There's no end to the pay increases and it's such a soft job. Come on, join us on the gravy train...

dambarude

Fizzical wrote: »

Why aren't you a teacher, James? There's no end to the pay increases and it's such a soft job. Come on, join us on the gravy train...

And don't forget the holidays Fizzical. :rolleyes:

flatbackfour

So the better qualified yor are the bigger the pay cut is. Interesting.

vamos!

flatbackfour wrote: »

So the better qualified yor are the bigger the pay cut is. Interesting.

This is exactly why I think that a straight across the board cut would be preferable. It's ludicrous to have a system where those with better qualifications and more experience aren't better paid. With the pause on posts there are now very limited promotion opportunities for teachers. Why remove the incentive to a) do a dip and not work unqualified and b) do a masters and upskill? Al look to be an easy target because the general public will just say that allowances are not part of pay. Remove the canteen, gym, company car and health insurance in other sectors and there would be negative press.

Powerhouse

vamos! wrote: »

It may have been stupid of me to state that a pay cut is needed. I am not an economist. Maybe it would be better to say that a straight up pay cut is much preferable to another levy, allowance cut, increment freeze etc? also, any potential cuts should hit us all equally and not target a specific cohort, such as new entrants.

Not necessarily stupid of you, if you believe it to be needed. I always just wonder where people think it should stop if they suggest a paycut, i.e. why 5 per cent and not 20 per cent? I just find it difficult to discuss paycuts in abstract terms.

On the assumption that most people probably would like to earn as much as possible for any given job I would think it is far more preferable for allowances and increments are tinkered around with than someone's overall earnings. At the end of the day it amounts to a paycut anyway but at least if it's allowances and increments they are picking at only a certain percentage of pay, for now anyway - I'm sure they'll get to the rest in good time.

I also would be sceptical of the view that "any potential cuts should hit us all equally and not target a specific cohort, such as new entrants". I don't think it would make life any easier for new entrants to have existing teachers punished also - and broadly speaking those already teaching are more likely to have mortgages and such commitments than new entrants who ultimately should benefit more from the downward financial adjustment than those who are already well in hock. People might need to be careful what they wish for as if they get to the stage of "treating us all equally" they will really be at the stage of wielding the axe big-time and it is extremely unlikely that any cohort will benefit.

Lord TSC

In terms of seeing teachers united, it would be nice if all teachers were faced with the axe in my opinion. I know established teachers will disagree, but it's frustrating as I sit here on a schoolday morning at home hearing not only how cuts are being made to new entrants, but also having some established teachers defend the creation of a two-tier system. Considering the talk of new entrants losing all their allowances, I feel little pity for those who only lose a fraction.

Powerhouse

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

having some established teachers defend the creation of a two-tier system.

I don't think that's a fair interpretation. Established teachers are not "defending the creation of a two-tier system" - they simply wish not to have their own pay slashed any further. New entrants might not realise the cuts that have already taken place. I reckon established teachers would prefer if nobody had their pay cut.

Anyway, the notion of a two-tier system is meaningless anyway given that the average staff-room will already have a variety of teachers on different contractual arrangements and with varying levels of security. Teachers are well used to working with people with different employment conditions. Not sure why this should now be seen as a show-stopper. There is a point where it could come across as begrudgery towards those who by a freak of chronology have better conditions.

I take the opposing view to you "in terms of seeing teachers united" - I think it would be nice if no teachers were faced with the axe. But I think being united in a race to the bottom serves nobody in the teaching profession.

Lord TSC

Powerhouse wrote: »

I don't think that's a fair interpretation. Established teachers are not "defending the creation of a two-tier system" - they simply wish not to have their own pay slashed any further. New entrants might not realise the cuts that have already taken place. I reckon established teachers would prefer if nobody had their pay cut.

Anyway, the notion of a two-tier system is meaningless anyway given that the average staff-room will already have a variety of teachers on different contractual arrangements and with varying levels of security. Teachers are well used to working with people with different employment conditions. Not sure why this should now be seen as a show-stopper. There is a point where it could come across as begrudgery towards those who by a freak of chronology have better conditions.

I take the opposing view to you "in terms of seeing teachers united" - I think it would be nice if no teachers were faced with the axe. But I think being united in a race to the bottom serves nobody in the teaching profession.

I do appreciate how alot of people don't want to see their own pay cut. I do understand why someone would argue it's not about two-tier systems but about a desire to retain their own wage at the maximum it can be. It's selfish, granted, but I fully appreciate if I was in the same position, I too would rather make sure I could get as much myself as possible. And yeah, it is begrudgery as well; I have no problem admitting that I get annoyed by people who will make more money than me not because of their level of education or such other controlable matters, but because they happened to sneak into the system a few years ahead of me; not because I didn't work hard or make sacrifices, but because of something completly outside of my control.

Not going to deny any of that. And I too would rather no teachers were faced with cuts of any sort.

But I'm not in those positions. I'm not in a position where I can sit back and go "Well, isn't it well for them that they get to keep their allowances. Sure, I don't have a job, and when(/if) I do, I won't make as much money as them, but at least someone else is doing ok." Through no fault of our own, new teachers are going to be cut and it strikes me alot of older teachers are happy to let that happen. And again I say, I appreciate and understand that. But that doesn't mean I have to like it. And it doesn't mean I have to have pity for the older teacher having to take cuts when we've already taken hard cuts as well.

I know you say you've got bills and mortages. And for that, I envy you. And I begrudge you. Cause it's not looking like I'll be getting them any time soon.

implausible

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Considering the talk of new entrants losing all their allowances, I feel little pity for those who only lose a fraction.

Do you not think there's a difference between cutting allowances, which have always been part of basic pay for current teachers and not giving allowances to new teachers who have never had them?

Your reference to a two-tier system is meant to be emotive but surely you know that schools have 10 and 12 tier systems? Every day in the staff room, I sit beside teachers who earn less than me and more than me and most of the time, we are doing the same job.

This news of threatened strike action is surely good for the new entrants - this is what they have been looking for. Now that the Govt has f*cked up by effectively breaking the terms of Croke Park, all teachers will get the chance to have their voices heard in a ballot.

Lord TSC

implausible wrote: »

Do you not think there's a difference between cutting allowances, which have always been part of basic pay for current teachers and not giving allowances to new teachers who have never had them?

Your reference to a two-tier system is meant to be emotive but surely you know that schools have 10 and 12 tier systems? Every day in the staff room, I sit beside teachers who earn less than me and more than me and most of the time, we are doing the same job.

I don't see much of a difference to be honest. Are things going to be cheaper for me in the shops because I'm a new entrant? Am I not as entitled to that allowance as a teacher working the same job as me with the same qualifications?

I'm not talking about the basic pay tier system, because that's a seperate issue. We're not talking about the fact that with each year or whatever you work, you get a pay increment, because as far as I can tell, that section of the pay scale doesn't seem to be changing as much. I know there's been cuts and push backs in terms of where people start, but this topic is about allowances. At least you know on a basic level that if you're sitting beside someone a year ahead of you on the payscale, next year you'll be earning what they are now. That Level Up system is based on something you can control; namely, you stay working, you get rewarded. It all boils down to the fact, for me, we're being hit for something we cannot control, while your arguement is that people are already on different pay levels for stuff they can control. Meanwhile, I worked my socks off getting my MA, getting the best education I can, only to be told at the last second "whoops, sorry, we're not rewarding people for that any more. Sucks to be you!"

This is now turning into me trying to defend why I want to keep my potential pay at a maximum level while being expected to accept why others want to do the exact same thing!

This news of threatened strike action is surely good for the new entrants - this is what they have been looking for. Now that the Govt has f*cked up by effectively breaking the terms of Croke Park, all teachers will get the chance to have their voices heard in a ballot.

Hey, I'm thrilled with the news. Why wouldn't I be? But let's face it, it's taken an attack accross the board for the threat of strike action to take place. When it was just an attack on new entrants, there was the unions voicing displeasure, but we had conversations on here where people admitted strikes would never take place unless the attacks were accross the board.

Powerhouse

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

Not sure anyone thinks you have to like it. I don't like having to cook up reasons to have meetings to cover 33 hours when important stuff will be dealt with at ad-hoc meetings anyway. We had a subject inspection recently and not one of the meetings about it is included in the Croke Park hours. I don't like that. I don't like that I had to give up private health insurance after 15 years with it this year because I could not afford it anymore. But I do know that wishing the same on everyone else will not do me any good, even if the warm feeling of collegiality has certain attractions.

solerina

James. wrote: »

You took a small cut, and since then you have got most if not all of it back in increments.

You will get another increment this year, so you will earn more this year than you did last year.

So that is a pay rise this year !

You are obviously not in a position to know how much I have lost per month but I am and I can tell you it was a huge cut, and I have gotten none of it back in increments, you dont get an increment every year and I havnt gotten one in a year or so and am not due one this year either. So dont presume to know things about another persons wages when you dont have a clue.

Tigerandahalf

I feel sorry for new entrants as their pay has been completely slashed. The unions let new entrants badly down. Their bottom line is protecting people in permanent positions. Yet in the future they will expect these young teachers to be the backbone of the union. I remember Sheila Nunan saying the future years would be spent trying to claw back the cuts for new entrants. I wouldn't agree. I feel a line has been drawn now and permanent teachers will be brought down in pay. Pay cuts will be inevitable over the next 5 years. A 10% cut would not be outside the possibilities. Retired public servants' pensions will also be cut and that's only fair. How many young teachers will be retiring at 55 or 60? I'd agree that older teachers took pain in the past with high interest on mortgages etc.
However, there is an inevitability about what's coming down the line. The budget will have to be balanced and pay cuts will be a part of that picture.

Powerhouse

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

I feel sorry for new entrants as their pay has been completely slashed. The unions let new entrants badly down. Their bottom line is protecting people in permanent positions. Yet in the future they will expect these young teachers to be the backbone of the union. I remember Sheila Nunan saying the future years would be spent trying to claw back the cuts for new entrants. I wouldn't agree. I feel a line has been drawn now and permanent teachers will be brought down in pay. Pay cuts will be inevitable over the next 5 years. A 10% cut would not be outside the possibilities. Retired public servants' pensions will also be cut and that's only fair. How many young teachers will be retiring at 55 or 60? I'd agree that older teachers took pain in the past with high interest on mortgages etc.
However, there is an inevitability about what's coming down the line. The budget will have to be balanced and pay cuts will be a part of that picture.

This post implies that all non-new entrants are permanent teachers which is ludricously misguided.

Also it seems strange to criticise unions for letting down new entrants while acknowledging that "there is an inevitability about what's coming down the line". What precisely is a union supposed to do about an inevitability?

mr_october

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/action-against-cuts-to-newly-qualified-teachers/signatures/page/9

Please sign attached link...existing, new teachers-we are all in this together and need to stand as a united profession. Please sign and share with colleagues and friends alike. Greatly appreciated

Powerhouse

vamos! wrote: »

This is exactly why I think that a straight across the board cut would be preferable. It's ludicrous to have a system where those with better qualifications and more experience aren't better paid. With the pause on posts there are now very limited promotion opportunities for teachers. Why remove the incentive to a) do a dip and not work unqualified and b) do a masters and upskill? Al look to be an easy target because the general public will just say that allowances are not part of pay. Remove the canteen, gym, company car and health insurance in other sectors and there would be negative press.

In all fairness it is highly doubtful that people need to be incentivised financially to do a Dip since there are thousand of unemployed teachers out there and it is the entry level qualification. Presumably there is at this stage zero chance of any job without actually being qualified.

A Dip allowance has merit really only in the sense that it has been taken as de facto part of basic salary for years. But I think an argument that, as things currently stand, it encourages people to do the Dip is very weak. It would be impossible to justify any such payment in a green field situation as it is normally assumed that getting a job is reward enough for your qualification.

Not saying I support its removal (because of its broader repercussions and clear contempt for the spirit of the CP agreement on the government's part) but I think objections need to be founded in reality.

Miss Lockhart

Powerhouse wrote: »

In all fairness it is highly doubtful that people need to be incentivised financially to do a Dip since there are thousand of unemployed teachers out there and it is the entry level qualification. Presumably there is at this stage zero chance of any job without actually being qualified.

I work with 5 teachers who have no Dip.

Two of those were interviewed by VEC and given Pro-Rata contracts only last October. They don't have unusual subject combinations or any other mitigating factor.

They are not relatives of anybody with "pull" or anything like that.

I'm really not sure why unqualified people are still being given contracts but they are.

Fizzical

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

I work with 5 teachers who have no Dip.

Two of those were interviewed by VEC and given Pro-Rata contracts only last October. They don't have unusual subject combinations or any other mitigating factor.

They are not relatives of anybody with "pull" or anything like that.

I'm really not sure why unqualified people are still being given contracts but they are.

As far as I know, the H.Dip was never a requirement for teaching under a VEC. It wasn't when I started teaching anyway. The H.Dip allowance was recognition that the person had a higher qualification. All the allowances have a basis - either for greater knowledge of subject or of teaching theory, or for special conditions of the job.

Allowances are not extras, but part of the remuneration package recognising the differences inherent in the job and the teacher. Pay = basic + allowances.

And what's all this talk of the unions failing teachers?

Note:
1) The unions gained all the improvements in pay and conditions over the years by the now older, permanent teachers putting themselves on the line.
2) It's the government who are now decimating pay, pension and conditions of older and newer teachers. And trying to conquer by dividing.

Identify the correct enemy, please.

And JOIN THE UNIONS AND HELP!

Miss Lockhart

Fizzical wrote: »

As far as I know, the H.Dip was never a requirement for teaching under a VEC. It wasn't when I started teaching anyway. The H.Dip allowance was recognition that the person had a higher qualification. All the allowances have a basis - either for greater knowledge of subject or of teaching theory, or for special conditions of the job.

I know - and the Dip is still not a requirement for the VEC and teachers can still register with the TC as qualified for the VEC Sector.

Why these people are considered the best applicants over those with the Dip though is what I really find puzzling.

While this situation remains I cannot see how the Dip allowance can be seen as unncecessary.

yosser hughes

Fizzical wrote: »

As far as I know, the H.Dip was never a requirement for teaching under a VEC. It wasn't when I started teaching anyway. The H.Dip allowance was recognition that the person had a higher qualification. All the allowances have a basis - either for greater knowledge of subject or of teaching theory, or for special conditions of the job.

Allowances are not extras, but part of the remuneration package recognising the differences inherent in the job and the teacher. Pay = basic + allowances.

And what's all this talk of the unions failing teachers?

Note:
1) The unions gained all the improvements in pay and conditions over the years by the now older, permanent teachers putting themselves on the line.
2) It's the government who are now decimating pay, pension and conditions of older and newer teachers. And trying to conquer by dividing.

Identify the correct enemy, please.

And JOIN THE UNIONS AND HELP!

I am speechless,I really am. If ever a post demonstrated how completely out of touch some people are, then this is it.

Powerhouse

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

Why these people are considered the best applicants over those with the Dip though is what I really find puzzling.

While this situation remains I cannot see how the Dip allowance can be seen as unncecessary.

In a sense you've contradicted your own argument. Given the cases you have outline it is fair to ask if unqualified people can be employed and registered fully in a particular sector (it sounds like it's still the 1950s in the VEC!) then why on earth should an employer have to pay extra to people for what is clearly in their view an unecessary qualification? In the VEC anyway the Dip allowance is clearly unnecessary since the Dip itself is clearly unnecessary.

Lord TSC

Fizzical wrote: »

And what's all this talk of the unions failing teachers?

Note:
1) The unions gained all the improvements in pay and conditions over the years by the now older, permanent teachers putting themselves on the line.
2) It's the government who are now decimating pay, pension and conditions of older and newer teachers. And trying to conquer by dividing.

Identify the correct enemy, please.

And JOIN THE UNIONS AND HELP!

Oh lordy. If I hadn't had the whole big debate about how frustrated I am with unions a few weeks back, I think I'd rise to the bait. I won't though. Enough has been said about the matter....

Miss Lockhart

Powerhouse wrote: »

In a sense you've contradicted your own argument. Given the cases you have outline it is fair to ask if unqualified people can be employed and registered fully in a particular sector (it sounds like it's still the 1950s in the VEC!) then why on earth should an employer have to pay extra to people for what is clearly in their view an unecessary qualification? In the VEC anyway the Dip allowance is clearly unnecessary since the Dip itself is clearly unnecessary.

Well, as far as I'm aware the Dept of Education provides VECs with the money to run their schools. The Dept of Education have repeatedly stated that they want fully qualified teachers and the government have spent money establishing the TC and drawing up legislation to ensure that teachers are suitably qualified. We have heard endless discussions about how it is shocking that there are so many unqualified maths teachers etc etc.

I have to assume that the government wants the VEC to employ qualified teachers. Unless the government wants to perpetuate a two-tier system where students in secondary schools are guaranteed qualified teachers while students in VEC schools are not offered such a guarantee. The need for the old VEC Dip exemption is long since gone.

Either way, I was merely replying to your statement that:

Powerhouse wrote:

it is highly doubtful that people need to be incentivised financially to do a Dip since there are thousand of unemployed teachers out there and it is the entry level qualification. Presumably there is at this stage zero chance of any job without actually being qualified.

I disagree and think that there are still people who need to be incentivised financially do a dip, that the Dip is not the entry level qualification for many many schools around the country and that there is actually a reasonable chance of getting a job without a qualification.

Powerhouse

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

I disagree and think that there are still people who need to be incentivised financially do a dip, that the Dip is not the entry level qualification for many many schools around the country and that there is actually a reasonable chance of getting a job without a qualification.

Fair enough. I had the impression that there was a shortage of jobs around but this, in honesty, is purely anecdotal. If there a "reasonable chance of getting a job without a qualification" then maybe you are right and there is a strong argument for creating some kind of financial incentive for people to bother with the Dip.

I have to say that your posts have really opened my eyes to a reality which I knew little about. I am amazed that there are "many many schools around the country" which are not concerned about whether a teacher is trained or not. Then again, my assumption was based on the seemingly erroneous view that there was a surplus of teachers available and that the employers could be more discerning.

As a result I thought that the objective argument for this allowance was, at this point, quite weak but I suppose if they have the need to get more teachers to qualify it makes sense to incentivise them to do so. If any degree holder (I am assuming that they would be expected to be a graduate of something at least) has a reasonable chance of landing a teaching job without any teaching qualification then there is a need to off-set the significant cost of the Dip with additional payments.

I am genuinely astonished by all of this but there you go.

Miss Lockhart

Sarcasm aside Powerhouse, (and I assume you are being sarcastic - it's very hard to tell on the internet) there is of course a surplus of teachers, so employers can indeed be more discerning. For some reason though, some employers seem to have decided that in many circumstances unqualified teachers (but yes, with a relevant degree) are more suitable candidates than qualified teachers. I can assure you that there were many qualified people interviewed for these positions.

And yes, since the VEC runs many schools, they can still choose to employ unqualified teachers for those schools.

I am not saying we need more teachers to qualify - and I do see your point here. However, if the VEC keeps giving these unqualified staff pro-rata contracts then it is surely better if they are at least encouraged to get qualified.

Or perhaps the government should fully enact the relevant legislation before removing the incentive to get qualified.

Either way, I'm simply pointing out that unqualified people are still being hired, often at the expense of qualified staff. This situation certainly still exists.

vamos!

Powerhouse wrote: »

Fair enough. I had the impression that there was a shortage of jobs around but this, in honesty, is purely anecdotal. If there a "reasonable chance of getting a job without a qualification" then maybe you are right and there is a strong argument for creating some kind of financial incentive for people to bother with the Dip.

I have to say that your posts have really opened my eyes to a reality which I knew little about. I am amazed that there are "many many schools around the country" which are not concerned about whether a teacher is trained or not. Then again, my assumption was based on the seemingly erroneous view that there was a surplus of teachers available and that the employers could be more discerning.

As a result I thought that the objective argument for this allowance was, at this point, quite weak but I suppose if they have the need to get more teachers to qualify it makes sense to incentivise them to do so. If any degree holder (I am assuming that they would be expected to be a graduate of something at least) has a reasonable chance of landing a teaching job without any teaching qualification then there is a need to off-set the significant cost of the Dip with additional payments.

I am genuinely astonished by all of this but there you go.

I am actually surprised that people are still being hired for more than subbing without a dip but it is still happening. I saw it in action 2 years ago. A very young graduate was hired , for a common subject. I cannot prove it, but cannot imagine that there were no qualified applicants. This was in school where quite a lot of the staff were related to each other or to a certain county football team. She is still working and is unlikely to risk leaving her hours for a year to do her dip if it will not be rewarded financially. I wonder how many more like her are in our schools? Why would they bother getting the qualifications if they aren't paid for it.

Oh and there is a jobs shortage. And a lovely system of jobs being split among 2 or 3 part timers who earn a pittance.

Powerhouse

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

I'm simply pointing out that unqualified people are still being hired, often at the expense of qualified staff. This situation certainly still exists.

I would have never doubted that this happened - notwithstanding my comments that the Dip is the entry level qualification. I took the latter comment to be a reasonable generalisation. There will always be an exception.

What astonishes me is your comment "that the Dip is not the entry level qualification for many many schools around the country and that there is actually a reasonable chance of getting a job without a qualification".

I would have thought it was exceptional, as presumably the VEC is drawing from the same pool of teachers as the rest so even if they did not legally require a Dip I assumed they would have looked favourably on teacher training. The "many many" schools suggests otherwise.

And while the word 'reasonable' will mean different things to different people I'd have thought from anecdotal evidence that even people who were qualified did not have a "reasonable" chance of a job such were the numbers applying.

I suppose it's the quantitative words you are using which amazes me.

Miss Lockhart

Powerhouse wrote: »

I would have never doubted that this happened - notwithstanding my comments that the Dip is the entry level qualification. I took the latter comment to be a reasonable generalisation. There will always be an exception.

What astonishes me is your comment "that the Dip is not the entry level qualification for many many schools around the country and that there is actually a reasonable chance of getting a job without a qualification".

I would have thought it was exceptional, as presumably the VEC is drawing from the same pool of teachers as the rest so even if they did not legally require a Dip I assumed they would have looked favourably on teacher training. The "many many" schools suggests otherwise.

And while the word 'reasonable' will mean different things to different people I'd have thought from anecdotal evidence that even people who were qualified did not have a "reasonable" chance of a job such were the numbers applying.

I suppose it's the quantitative words you are using which amazes me.

Well, I work for one of the largest VECs in the country. They advertise for staff for all their schools every year and then hold interviews from the pool of applicants. My school has ended up with unqualified teachers from this process every year for the last 5 years.

I know that the same is true for several of their other schools.

This is in Dublin where I can only assume there is no difficulty attracting plenty of applicants.

What I am saying is that the VECs can and do hire unqualified staff. The VECs are responsible for many many schools around the country so the Dip is not the entry level qualification for those schools.

Powerhouse

vamos! wrote: »

Why would they bother getting the qualifications if they aren't paid for it.

But that's inverting the argument completely. There is an allowance for the qualification and these people still don't bother qualifying. So the financial incentive is not working in those cases so that weakens the argument for it.

P.S. I am still trying to rationalise the idea of schools taking on unqualified people in this day and age. I wonder if suits schools to do so as they can offer an unqualified person (who might not have the grades to get within a Brendan Cummins' puck of a ball of doing the Dip and are hoping to pick up the necessary experience to make up the points) piss-poor hours knowing that they (a) will almost certainly take the job for lack of alternatives and (b) will be unlikely to move on for the very same reasons while simultaneously providing a source of on-demand subbing within the school.

I was in a very large community school a few years ago briefly and notice a few floaters like this, though I would never have thought of them as being of such statistical significance as is being implied on this thread. I certainly would never have thought of this cohort as having the clout to justify an argument for paying thousands of teachers a Dip allowance.

Powerhouse

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

What I am saying is that the VECs can and do hire unqualified staff.

I think we have established that - it is just the implied numbers that amazes me. Strictly speaking of course if there is no qualification requirement in the sector then it is a misnomer to describe these staff as "unqualified".

It also puts the apparent folly of increased numbers of places for the Dip through Hibernia into stark relief if it conveys no significant advantage in many many schools.

Miss Lockhart

Powerhouse wrote: »

But that's inverting the argument completely. There is an allowance for the qualification and these people still don't bother qualifying. So the financial incentive is not working in those cases so that weakens the argument for it.

In my experience most of them do end up getting qualified.

Powerhouse wrote: »

P.S. I am still trying to rationalise the idea of schools taking on unqualified people in this day and age. I wonder if suits schools to do so as they can offer an unqualified person (who might not have the grades to get within a Brendan Cummins' puck of a ball of doing the Dip and are hoping to pick up the necessary experience to make up the points) piss-poor hours knowing that they (a) will almost certainly take the job for lack of alternatives and (b) will be unlikely to move on for the very same reasons while simultaneously providing a source of on-demand subbing within the school.

Points are no longer given for subbing when applying to most of the colleges (through PAC).

I suppose it will still enhance applications to Trinity, DCU and Hibernia though.

Powerhouse

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

1) In my experience most of them do end up getting qualified.

2) Points are no longer given for subbing when applying to most of the colleges (through PAC).

1) And you are convinced that this is because of the financial incentive of the Dip allowance and not to enhance more secure future employment prospects?

2) Are you absolutely sure about this? I was told the opposite by one of the dippers in my own school at the moment.

Miss Lockhart

Powerhouse wrote: »

1) And you are convinced that this is because of the financial incentive of the Dip allowance and not to enhance more secure future employment prospects?

2) Are you absolutely sure about this? I was told the opposite by one of the dippers in my own school at the moment.

1) I wouldn't say I'm convinced, no. However if the VEC are willing to offer pro-rata contracts to people with no Dip then they will get CID eventually if they stay where they are.

2) This link says that teaching unqualified cannot be used to gain points for entry.

http://www.pac.ie//pdeinfo/PointsCalc.php?inst=pe

Powerhouse

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

This link says that teaching unqualified cannot be used to gain points for entry.

But how can people be "unqualified" if their subbing is done in the VEC sector where the Dip is not a requirement?

Surely this makes it the one place where teaching experience can be garnered and make it a likely place for such people to be taken on by principals?

Miss Lockhart

Powerhouse wrote: »

But how can people be "unqualified" if their subbing is done in the VEC sector where the Dip is not a requirement?

Surely this makes it the one place where teaching experience can be garnered and make it a likely place for such people to be taken on by principals?

I agree that they are not unqualified for the VEC sector.

Colleagues without the Dip applying through PAC this year have said they are not entitled to any points.

However, if you say dippers in your school have said otherwise then perhaps my colleagues were mistaken.

Powerhouse

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

Colleagues without the Dip applying through PAC this year have said they are not entitled to any points.

However, if you say dippers in your school have said otherwise then perhaps my colleagues were mistaken.

I'm not sure to be honest. I heard a last year that the points for teaching experience were being dispensed with - in fact I think I might have even seen that on the PAC website in the past. But one day I mentioned it in passing to one of the dippers in my school (there were two of them present at the time) and he corrected me and said the decision had been reversed. `

That's all I can go on (he could easily have been wrong too) but the wording of that thing on the PAC site is very strange as it opens the door to experience from the VEC sector as the applicant will by definition not have been unqualified when getting the experience. But at the local secondary down the road they could not count any experience towards the Dip unless of course - ironically - they already had the Dip and so were not unqualified! You couldn't make it up really.

spurious

Didn't the VEC/Dip. situation arise from an impossibility to do the H.Dip. for years in a range of subjects, at the time almost exclusively offered in the VEC schools?

Ms.M

I know this is an old thread.
But, just want to mention that teamshadowclan was advocating that the cut be spread across all teachers equally.

He/She was obviously not advocating that more established teachers take the same cut, rather that everybody shares the cut, i.e that it is spread across the board, thus minimising the impact on wages across the board.

He/She is not bitter or begruging in saying so. And whatever difficulties people get into with finances are their own. They should not be used in an argument to justify (or more aptly lessen the injustice of) another person's loss of income. Although we're all on different pay packets this reduction is massive and cannot be compared to differences in pay among current staff.

I for one am absolutely horrified at what is happening to new entrants. It is the worst thing to happen to the teaching salary since the recession began and the unions' relative silence on the issue is making teachers look bad. The lack of compassion in some of these posts, likewise, is shocking! I detect a similar tone to the teacher-bashing ones I generally ignore....

Tut tut tut!