Why can't school holidays be shorter

Kaner2004

Robdude wrote: »

While I can't disagree with your logic (I would certainly *want* to get paid more); in practice, at least in the private sector - you'd either continue working at a reduced rate or go find a job with better pay/less hours.

The argument people are making against teachers is that they are grossly overpaid because they've created an effective monopoly. There is no competition for teachers or of their wages. People who feel teachers are overpaid are convinced that if public schools slashed salaries the existing teachers *couldn't* find better paying jobs, because there is no demand for them.

I might be grossly overpaid right now. But if I'm in the private sector, I'm not impacting the tax payers in a negative way if I am overpaid and better workers and more efficient companies will either displace me or displace the company that employees me.

I'm not saying teachers are overpaid, I'm just saying people who feel teachers are overpaid for the work they do aren't going to see it that way.

Which raises the point that, of all the people I hear demanding that this and that person get paid less or arent value for money etc. Not one of them is qualified to actually say what the value of the person they want cut actually is.

Kaner2004

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Do you want me to do the maths for you? Per hour rate for a teacher is a little over €40 for a graduate. If you work a normal year (ie one that doesn't have massive holidays) that hourly rate would equate to over €55k per annum.

Again, I thought that was pretty clear from my post.

Im beginning to think you are making everything up as you go along here.
Nothing is clear in any of your posts.

You get paid yearly, what you get paid yearly. You cant just go applying stupid rules to change the results to suit yourself. What about all the people now who work weekends or 12 hours a day but get yearly salaries. Are we now going to have to adjust their salary too.

evolving_doors

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The major cost in the education system is salary, Yes it would create a small increase in other ancillary costs, but these would be minor. These costs could be covered by firing poorly performing teachers.

Reforms would need to be a multi pronged approach.

Btw, healthcare is another protected system and is also in dire need of reform. Transparency and true competition is needed in fields like dentistry, pharmacy and consultant fees.

So that's your ace in the hole, cover an increasing cost by firing bad teachers? Presumably you would be suggesting that nobody would take over their job to maintain this cost cut...

By the way how do you measure a bad teacher?

Salary is always going to be the biggest cost anywhere you are using peoples skills..., health care, law, psychiatric services, teaching ,(anyone ever give out about lecturers these days?)..

P.s. Teachers have taken a pay cut.

Kaner2004

Armelodie wrote: »

So that's your ace in the hole, cover an increasing cost by firing bad teachers? Presumably you would be suggesting that nobody would take over their job to maintain this cost cut...

By the way how do you measure a bad teacher?

Salary is always going to be the biggest cost anywhere you are using peoples skills..., health care, law, psychiatric services, teaching ,(anyone ever give out about lecturers these days?)..

P.s. Teachers have taken a pay cut.

Everybody thinks they know how to do someone elses job better than them.

stripysocks85

Kaner2004 wrote: »

Everybody thinks they know how to do someone elses job better than them.

Essentially, this is it really.

Everyone thinks that because they've been in school for X amount of years, that they know how to do the job.

I've been to the dentist lots of times, doesn't mean I know how to do their job.

I've been in hospital, I don't know how to be a nurse or doctor.

Public sector jobs are ALWAYS going to be under public scrutiny. Tis just the line of business we're in

oppenheimer1

Kaner2004 wrote: »

Im beginning to think you are making everything up as you go along here.
Nothing is clear in any of your posts.

You get paid yearly, what you get paid yearly. You cant just go applying stupid rules to change the results to suit yourself. What about all the people now who work weekends or 12 hours a day but get yearly salaries. Are we now going to have to adjust their salary too.

There is no other profession in the public sector that has such a high hourly rate for graduates. None. Its not me making up the rules as I go along either, its just that the facts don't suit your argument. Can you name any profession (even just one) that works just on weekends and gets an annual salary? I can't.

Every profession has an hourly rate - and its €40 for graduates in teaching in Ireland. And this is reflected in the pay of substitute teachers who get this. For some perspective its over twice the average hourly rate of the average industrial wage.

Teachers have it handy, where most professions will start after 5 years in university on €25k, (thats €13.50 per hour) teachers start on an annual salary of €27k (it used to be €30k) after just 3 years of teacher training. Add on top of this their enormous holidays and failure to keep our children literate and a sizeable minority of unsackable incompetent teachers (that we've all had to experience) you might understand why many people are not fond of teachers or their profession.

byhookorbycrook

Sub teachers get a higher rate per hour as they only get paid for days worked, no holiday pay.

oppenheimer1

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

Sub teachers get a higher rate per hour as they only get paid for days worked, no holiday pay.

Its €46.85 per hour for qualified substitution which includes 22% holiday pay.

Kaner2004

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

There is no other profession in the public sector that has such a high hourly rate for graduates. None. Its not me making up the rules as I go along either, its just that the facts don't suit your argument. Can you name any profession (even just one) that works just on weekends and gets an annual salary? I can't.

Every profession has an hourly rate - and its €40 for graduates in teaching in Ireland. And this is reflected in the pay of substitute teachers who get this. For some perspective its over twice the average hourly rate of the average industrial wage.

Teachers have it handy, where most professions will start after 5 years in university on €25k, (thats €13.50 per hour) teachers start on an annual salary of €27k (it used to be €30k) after just 3 years of teacher training. Add on top of this their enormous holidays and failure to keep our children literate and a sizeable minority of unsackable incompetent teachers (that we've all had to experience) you might understand why many people are not fond of teachers or their profession.

And there was me thinking that there are no jobs for teaching graduates at the moment. Since you have your calculator out, Whats is the hourly rate for any graduate teacher lucky enough to get a temp job? And new teachers coming in - Whats that they want to pay them again - zero was it?

There are plenty of professions that get €30k+ after 3 or 4 years at uni. They arent hard to find. Maybe you should bit the bullet and go and do one.

oppenheimer1

Kaner2004 wrote: »

And there was me thinking that there are no jobs for teaching graduates at the moment. Since you have your calculator out, Whats is the hourly rate for any graduate teacher lucky enough to get a temp job? And new teachers coming in - Whats that they want to pay them again - zero was it?

There are plenty of professions that get €30k+ after 3 or 4 years at uni. They arent hard to find. Maybe you should bit the bullet and go and do one.

The hourly rate for a substitute is over €46 as mentioned in my previous post.

There are sweet fa professions that pay €30k+ upon graduation and those that do are almost entirely in state funded healthcare. These courses take longer than 3 years I assure you. Upon graduation most professionals aren't even qualified and have to have 4 more years experience before they pass their professional exams.

I am still waiting for the name of that profession that only works weekends and gets an annual salary.

ShamoBuc

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Its €46.85 per hour for qualified substitution which includes 22% holiday pay.

But that is not a salary.

Also, you can only get work when the schools are actually open ( All those holidays are days you Cannot get work) so comparing them to the Average Industrial wage - (52 weeks a year?)is a bit nonsensical in the extreme - but work away fella.

oppenheimer1

ShamoBuc wrote: »

But that is not a salary.

Also, you can only get work when the schools are actually open ( All those holidays are days you Cannot get work) so comparing them to the Average Industrial wage - (52 weeks a year?)is a bit nonsensical in the extreme - but work away fella.

I never said it was a salary. I quoted the substitution rates which are a little higher than the graduate hourly rates (when calculated). Graduate rate is about €40/hr. I don't really have a problem with the substitute rate, although it is quite high. I do have a problem however with the amount of work full time teachers do versus their pay. I think its extremely bad value for money.

Why is it nonsensical to compare a teachers hourly rate to the national average hourly rate? Anyway the whole point of this thread is that the long teacher holidays should be abolished (with teachers providing alternative education opportunities for students during the summer).

byhookorbycrook

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Its €46.85 per hour for qualified substitution which includes 22% holiday pay.

No sub I know has worked a full school year.

ShamoBuc

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I never said it was a salary. I quoted the substitution rates which are a little higher than the graduate hourly rates (when calculated). Graduate rate is about €40/hr. I don't really have a problem with the substitute rate, although it is quite high. I do have a problem however with the amount of work full time teachers do versus their pay. I think its extremely bad value for money.

Why is it nonsensical to compare a teachers hourly rate to the national average hourly rate? Anyway the whole point of this thread is that the long teacher holidays should be abolished (with teachers providing alternative education opportunities for students during the summer).

Teachers can only get those rates of pay on 183 days out of 365 for primary subs and less for secondary days. The average industrial hourly wage can be earned over an entire year - hence more earnings over a 12 month period - bit clearer now?

micropig

ShamoBuc wrote: »

Teachers can only get those rates of pay on 183 days out of 365 for primary subs and less for secondary days. The average industrial hourly wage can be earned over an entire year - hence more earnings over a 12 month period - bit clearer now?

em...here's an idea, we could shorten the holidays to give teachers more time and opportunity to find work over the entire year

oppenheimer1

ShamoBuc wrote: »

Teachers can only get those rates of pay on 183 days out of 365 for primary subs and less for secondary days. The average industrial hourly wage can be earned over an entire year - hence more earnings over a 12 month period - bit clearer now?

I don't dispute the bit in bold and I don't rally have a problem with substitution as there is a premium to be paid for having work on hand at a moments notice. The only reason I brought sub-pay into this was to illustrate that there was a quotable source for an hourly rate for teachers, rather than take my word for it.

Someone on the average industrial wage (€36k) would earn less than a teacher that subbed for the entire school year (€50k approx.). I do take your point that there are more available days to earn an industrial wage as the school year is restricted. But as I said the point of this thread was that the school year should be lengthened. This would work to subs favour.

ShamoBuc

micropig wrote: »

em...here's an idea, we could shorten the holidays to give teachers more time and opportunity to find work over the entire year

em... a sub teacher could then cost earn more:eek:

ShamoBuc

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I don't dispute the bit in bold and I don't rally have a problem with substitution as there is a premium to be paid for having work on hand at a moments notice. The only reason I brought sub-pay into this was to illustrate that there was a quotable source for an hourly rate for teachers, rather than take my word for it.

Someone on the average industrial wage (€36k) would earn less than a teacher that subbed for the entire school year (€50k approx.). I do take your point that there are more available days to earn an industrial wage as the school year is restricted. But as I said the point of this thread was that the school year should be lengthened. This would work to subs favour.

Incorrect.
After a sub does 30 ( I think that's right) Continuous days of subbing they go on a pro rata rate of whatever salary they would be on for a given year. So for someone out of college that would be 27k approx plus any allowances (to be slashed anyway shortly).

micropig

ShamoBuc wrote: »

em... a sub teacher could then cost earn more:eek:

Well, there will always be a certain amount of subs needed.

I think the real problem with that is if teachers are only working 183 days a year, why so many subs needed?

It's costing the state more, than to keep them on permanent rates..



. ..or do rates of absenteeism also need to be looked at?:pac:

ShamoBuc

micropig wrote: »

Well, there will always be a certain amount of subs needed.

I think the real problem with that is if teachers are only working 183 days a year, why so many subs needed?

It's costing the state more, than to keep them on permanent rates..



. ..or do rates of absenteeism also need to be looked at?:pac:

Apparently, teachers are human and get sick:eek:
Being in a confined pace with 30 kids can do that alot;)

Teachers are allowed 7 days a year ( 3 if continuous I think) where they can ring in sick - without getting a cert, so a trip to the doc is necessary alot. Absenteeism is actually not bad apparently. On the first day of uncertified sick leave, no sub will be paid for. The class would be split into the other classrooms, no teacher likes that, hence "pulling a sickie" for the day is not really done alot.

dillo2k10

ShamoBuc wrote: »

Apparently, teachers are human and get sick:eek:
Being in a confined pace with 30 kids can do that alot;)

Teachers are allowed 7 days a year ( 3 if continuous I think) where they can ring in sick - without getting a cert, so a trip to the doc is necessary alot. Absenteeism is actually not bad apparently. On the first day of uncertified sick leave, no sub will be paid for. The class would be split into the other classrooms, no teacher likes that, hence "pulling a sickie" for the day is not really done alot.

No its not, but when they get sick, they get really sick and take a good bit of time off.

ShamoBuc

dillo2k10 wrote: »

No its not, but when they get sick, they get really sick and take a good bit of time off.

...and only teachers get really sick?:rolleyes:

micropig

ShamoBuc wrote: »

Being in a confined pace with 30 kids can do that alot;)

I have solutions which could a long way in helping this, but most of them involve, cutting teachers wages and instead spending the money on purpose built buildings, fit for purpose, more teachers employed permanently to reduce class sizes, more SNA's (and give them the power to actually help the child with their lessons) but it might drag the thread off topic

byhookorbycrook

Subs are needed for sick days, but can only be employed if teacher has a cert from their doctor. If a school has a teaching principal, the sub can be employed to cover a certain number of days to allow the principal to do some of the admin work. Teachers can attend courses that are only run during school hours by the likes of the HSE but will generally not get sub cover.Some teachers are on secondement to the DES so there may be some cover for those and of course our wonderful teacher tds who do not resign their teaching posts have them kept open for them as long as they want.

In our school in the next few weeks 2 teachers will be taking a team away overnight to a football trip to the Gaeltacht. No sub cover for that either, so other teachers will take the extra kids.Likewise our sixth will be going away for 2 nights, three teachers will go with the 60, so another class will be divided -no sub cover either.

dillo2k10

ShamoBuc wrote: »

...and only teachers get really sick?:rolleyes:

No, not only teachers get really sick, but a teacher doesnt generally take a day or two off, when they get sick they are gone for weeks(some not all), but some will stay in even when really sick, I just think that teachers tend to take longer sick leave.

micropig wrote: »

But it might drag the thread off topic

Its a bit late to drag this thread off topic, its already been dragged and stretched so many ways

ShamoBuc

micropig wrote: »

I have solutions which could a long way in helping this, but most of them involve, cutting teachers wages and instead spending the money on purpose built buildings, fit for purpose, more teachers employed permanently to reduce class sizes, more SNA's (and give them the power to actually help the child with their lessons) but it might drag the thread off topic

The Gov might be interested in your ideas but probably not.
They have already cut the teachers wages ( 19% approx) so box ticked there. Purpose built buildings - we've not even come close, Especially during the Celtic tiger building years. They are cutting the number of teachers. They have increased the pupil teacher ratio ( 2nd or 3rd biggest class size in europe I think). They have cut the number of SNA's and made it very difficult to get hours for the children that really need it.

But all that is off topic so it doesn't really count....
G'night.

ShamoBuc

dillo2k10 wrote: »

No, not only teachers get really sick, but a teacher doesnt generally take a day or two off, when they get sick they are gone for weeks(some not all), but some will stay in even when really sick, I just think that teachers tend to take longer sick leave.




Its a bit late to drag this thread off topic, its already been dragged and stretched so many ways

I would imagine if a teacher is out for weeks ( with a cert obviously) then they must be fairly sick - that can happen to anyone really.

Some stay in even when they are sick - Hands up here, bad habit really.

micropig

ShamoBuc wrote: »

The Gov might be interested in your ideas but probably not.
They have already cut the teachers wages ( 19% approx) so box ticked there. Purpose built buildings - we've not even come close, Especially during the Celtic tiger building years. They are cutting the number of teachers. They have increased the pupil teacher ratio ( 2nd or 3rd biggest class size in europe I think). They have cut the number of SNA's and made it very difficult to get hours for the children that really need it.

But all that is off topic so it doesn't really count....
G'night.

Unfortunately very true. The people managing our education system and budget and our government (past & previous) have an awful lot to answer for.

dillo2k10

ShamoBuc wrote: »

I would imagine if a teacher is out for weeks ( with a cert obviously) then they must be fairly sick - that can happen to anyone really.

I know that, logically in my mind, but when I think back about school I remember teachers going missing quite a lot for long periods of time, a lot more common that most people, but maybe I'm just imagining it. I do like to complain about things

I just noticed that this thread is in AH, so there really is no point in having a debate about anything. No one will ever win.

micropig

Absenteeism has drop significantly in the last few years, so we'll go with the lack of recruitment of full time permanent teachers, the government needs to get their finger out and start allowing permanent teachers to be appointed.

According to the indo


"The 1,084 teachers who got warning letters account for just 2pc of the 52,000 teachers working in primary and secondary schools. Teachers who are on sick leave during weekends and school holidays also have this included in their sick leave tally. The Department of Education said this was "in line with civil service norms".



The average absenteeism rate for primary teachers is eight days, and 7.4 days for secondary school teachers -- compared to 11.3 days for civil service staff."

cianisgood

i liked school but i would have killed my self if i didn't get a proper summer holiday

dillo2k10

micropig wrote: »

The average absenteeism rate for primary teachers is eight days, and 7.4 days for secondary school teachers -- compared to 11.3 days for civil service staff."

Supprised its even that high, most of my teachers never missed a day, but as I said they tended t milk it so maybe that small few teachers pushed that up so high.

I would have expected 2-3 days average.

micropig

cianisgood wrote: »

i liked school but i would have killed my self if i didn't get a proper summer holiday

Ah yeah, but teaching styles have changed a lot since then...still not enough though.........Is there any way we can make school more attractive for children to learn, where they can enjoy learning so they would not be suicidal and need 3 months to recover?


:pac:Something going seriously wrong in schools if it makes any child feel like that. We wouldn't force them to do any extra curricular class if it made them feel like that. Why would we send them in to institutions for the best part of their young lives if that's what it's doing to some/ any of them?

micropig

dillo2k10 wrote: »

Supprised its even that high, most of my teachers never missed a day, but as I said they tended t milk it so maybe that small few teachers pushed that up so high.

I would have expected 2-3 days average.

2% of teachers taking longer pushed it up for the others..but they have been warned:D

Jesus Wept

Kids should be in school less, not more.
It's just our way of indoctrinating them.

micropig

This very informative page from the ASTI entitled "Understanding your salary and payslip" http://www.asti.ie/pay-and-conditions/non-permanent-teachers/understand-your-salary-and-payslip/


States
22 hours = full time hours




22 hours contact time, that leaves 17 hours in the week for planning & preparation & correcting for the poster who disputed it wasn't factored in to the timetable

ash23

vamos! wrote: »

As for your point about teachers having the audacity to be in a coffee shop... surely you see how sad and petty it is when it comes up on your screen???

That was in response to someone saying they were responsible for the kids at all times, only having 30 mins for lunch and having to supervise the children during that time.
Don't take my posts out of context please.
I never uttered a word about them having the audacity to be in a coffee shop. I simply said that they are allowed to leave the school on breaks.

Lord TSC

Just to go back to something a few pages back....

The comments on how the starting pay for a teacher is higher than the starting pay for other graduate jobs.....some people seemed to be under the illusion that as soon as graduating from a teacher training course, the teacher would then waltz into a job where they were being given €30k a year. The truth is that the vast majority of graduates don't get into such jobs; at best they get offered a small amount of work in a school that comes in well under full hours. At worst, and this sadly seems to cover a majority, they have to emigrate or sit on their asses at home claiming the dole, because these jobs are one in a thousand. To try and say that new teachers are getting paid crazy money straight out of Uni is insulting, since the majority....
1. Sit around for years waiting for an anyway stable job.
2. Start by getting maybe one sub day a month if they get lucky.
3. Build up a relationship with a school over a long period of time.
4. Get in for a larger amount of sub time.
5. Eventually may get asked to do a small number of hours.

Personally, I'm on 12 hours a week. I've not had a pay cheque yet, but I would imagine I'll be on a fair bit less than 30k a year. And in six weeks time, my job is gone and I'm back on the dole. So please don't be fooled into think that's the real starting pay for a new teacher, since there's a few years worth of hoops you'll be jumping through before you get near that figure. And please don't paint the new teacher as some lucky person who has found an amazingly high paying, easy to find job.

As for sub pay then, it may sound like a lot but the truth is alot of the time, I nearly felt like I'd be making more staying on the dole; for 2 years, all I got was one day a month sub work. For that day, I got 150€-ish. Sounds good for a day's work? Except then I got hit hard for tax. The dole was cut for the week I worked a single day. Can't afford a car so was relying on taxis in and out of the school (costing 15-20€ per working day). Lunch costs. By the end of it all, the total profit for that days work was about €15 Euro.

I know that could lead to an arguement that welfare is too high. But let's not paint teacher's pay as being amazing when you're a sub teacher when the truth (at least for me, and I was lucky. I had sub work. A lot don't) was I was profiting to the tune of about 15 quid a month...

micropig

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

1. Sit around for years waiting for an anyway stable job.
2. Start by getting maybe one sub day a month if they get lucky.
3. Build up a relationship with a school over a long period of time.
4. Get in for a larger amount of sub time.
5. Eventually may get asked to do a small number of hours.

Shortening or lengthening summer holidays, will not solve the poroblem of the lack of permanent positions available

I know lots of people who can't find permanent work in their sector

They either
1. Sit around for years waiting for a anyway stable job and get called dole scroungers
2. Pick up part time work / getting the odd day in their field, if they're lucky
3. Transfer their skills to some other type of work - they are flexible and adaptable
4. Emigrate

Lord TSC

micropig wrote: »

Shortening or lengthening summer holidays, will not solve the position of the lack of permanent positions available

Was anyone arguing it would? :S
And I know the same problems exist in all sectors at the moment. But I just hate the way some people seem to be under the belief that teaching is an easy job to get into and pays a crazy amount straight off the bat. That was my point.

micropig

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Was anyone arguing it would? :S
And I know the same problems exist in all sectors at the moment. But I just hate the way some people seem to be under the belief that teaching is an easy job to get into and pays a crazy amount straight off the bat. That was my point.

But that's the question asked in the OP

I think eveyone in the country at this stage understands it is a major problem for teachers to secure permanent role. It is an issue that needs to be addressed by government, but it can't be used as a counter argument in every debate going.:p

NQT's have been hit but are still one of the highest graduate earners. If the government did sort out the recruitment issues, the permanent teaching jobs that all would be getting, would be overpaid. Most entrants in the profession before 2011 are being overpaid.

Would you be willing to cut your summer holidays to 4 weeks, for a permanent , full time position?

monkeypants

Freddie59 wrote: »

Annnnnnnnnd: teachers allowing (recently) retired teachers to prevent newly-qualified teachers from accessing employment by returning to work after retirement. Only in Ireland.:rolleyes:

Eh, that was a directive from the department. They haven't been so keen to make that public knowledge.

Lord TSC

micropig wrote: »

But that's the question asked in the OP

Yes, but I wasn't the one who then brought up teacher's pay. I was responding to people who were giving out about pay. Yeah, it has nothing to do with the topic in the topic title, but then this turned into another teacher bashing thread a while back, and I was simply responding to comments brought up by others.

I think eveyone in the country at this stage understands it is a major problem for teachers to secure permanent role. It is an issue that needs to be addressed by government, but it can't be used as a counter argument in every debate going.:p

NQT's have been hit but are still one of the highest graduate earners. If the government did sort out the recruitment issues, the permanent teaching jobs that all would be getting, would be overpaid. Most entrants in the profession before 2011 are being overpaid.

I guess that all boils down to what you consider "over-paid". But that's another debate altogether. My point, again, was that despite "ifs" and "buts", newly qualified teachers are not in the positions some people are portraying them as (that is to say, newly qualified teachers are not walking into 30k a year jobs).

Would you be willing to cut your summer holidays to 4 weeks, for a permanent , full time position?

Provided pay was adjusted to compensate for the fact that I would be working two extra months, yes. Obviously. I'm not some scrounger who wants to sit at home on the dole. But nor am I going to do a tonne more work for what would turn out to be less pay per hour. I know people will resent that, but only an idiot would volunteer to work 11 months for the price of 9....

micropig

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Provided pay was adjusted to compensate for the fact that I would be working two extra months, yes. Obviously. I'm not some scrounger who wants to sit at home on the dole. But nor am I going to do a tonne more work for what would turn out to be less pay per hour. I know people will resent that, but only an idiot would volunteer to work 11 months for the price of 9....

Price of 9 = price of 11 for idiots in other professions

Figures here from the ASTI

Starting salary pre Jan 2011 -€33,041+ Qualification allowance Teachers first appointed prior to January 2011 began on the 3rd point of the salary scale

Starting salary Post Jan 2011 €27,814 & Qualification allowance - Teachers first appointed after January 2011 - 'new entrants' - begin on the 1st point of the salary scale


Big hit there for NQT's Post Jan 2011, but €27,814 + Qualification allowance, even without it
(Dec 11 capped at €4,426., Feb 2012 cut) is a very good starting salary for most graduates


The salaries of those who started pre Jan 2011 are incredibly high for a graduate

Allowance for teachers with 35 years service (long service allowance - payable after 10 years completed on the maximum point of the salary scale) €2,091 ....... This is an allowance which should be done away with

Lord TSC

But that "starting" salary isn't really for teachers starting out. That's my point. I get your point is that permenant teachers starting out get a decent wage, and your responding to a hypothetical question, but reality is that it takes years and years to get to that stage. Even speaking in hypotheticals, you've still got to achknowledge limitations in finding a job to begin with.

Most teachers start out struggling to get any work whatsoever. When they do, it's a day or two's sub work a month. Then a few days. It can now take years to get anywhere near that "starting" salary. That's what's frustrating me here. I've been a qualified teacher for a little under two years now. In year one, I made €350. In year two, I made about €800. Now, I've managed to get a temp job of twelve hours a week, but only for two and a half months and I'm gone again, back looking for scraps again for September.

By saying it's a graduate job, the implication is that someone walks out of Uni and into a 30k job, when that's not true in the slightest any more. I'm the luckiest sort of "graduate"; I'm getting some experience after only two years of being unemployed. But I'm certainly not making 30k a year. Nowhere close. And I'd say it will be years before I am. If I'm lucky, I might be in a position where I'm on that wage in 3 or 4 years time. And thats if there isn't further wage cuts, deductions and more jobs become available somehow. And the truth is I'm in a better position than 90% of newly qualified teachers out there, who are getting nothing.

Quoting a figure and what reality actually is are two different things. The reality is most teachers will be slaving away for years before they get near that "starting" salary, and that's if they are lucky enough to ever get to that stage. They will have to jump through hoops, work long, long hours for little reward, and face resentment for that work every step of the way.

I also have a feeling if you approached any professional and said "We're going to increase your work hours over a yearly period by 20% but we're not going to pay you a penny more", they'd all be against such things.
As far as allowances go though, you'd be starting me off on a whole different rant there though :P

micropig

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

But that "starting" salary isn't really for teachers starting out. That's my point. I get your point is that permenant teachers starting out get a decent wage, and your responding to a hypothetical question, but reality is that it takes years and years to get to that stage. Even speaking in hypotheticals, you've still got to achknowledge limitations in finding a job to begin with.

Most teachers start out struggling to get any work whatsoever. When they do, it's a day or two's sub work a month. Then a few days. It can now take years to get anywhere near that "starting" salary. That's what's frustrating me here. I've been a qualified teacher for a little under two years now. In year one, I made €350. In year two, I made about €800. Now, I've managed to get a temp job of twelve hours a week, but only for two and a half months and I'm gone again, back looking for scraps again for September.

By saying it's a graduate job, the implication is that someone walks out of Uni and into a 30k job, when that's not true in the slightest any more. I'm the luckiest sort of "graduate"; I'm getting some experience after only two years of being unemployed. But I'm certainly not making 30k a year. Nowhere close. And I'd say it will be years before I am. If I'm lucky, I might be in a position where I'm on that wage in 3 or 4 years time. And thats if there isn't further wage cuts, deductions and more jobs become available somehow. And the truth is I'm in a better position than 90% of newly qualified teachers out there, who are getting nothing.

Quoting a figure and what reality actually is are two different things. The reality is most teachers will be slaving away for years before they get near that "starting" salary, and that's if they are lucky enough to ever get to that stage. They will have to jump through hoops, work long, long hours for little reward, and face resentment for that work every step of the way.

I also have a feeling if you approached any professional and said "We're going to increase your work hours over a yearly period by 20% but we're not going to pay you a penny more", they'd all be against such things.
As far as allowances go though, you'd be starting me off on a whole different rant there though :P

I know all about the reality of the situation and I agree it is a major issue which needs to be sorted.It is certainly not the only issue that needs to be dealt with...

Yes I doubt any one would be too happy with that, but a the moment teachers are comparing their salary to some one who works 12 months of the year. Teachers salaries being compared to 75% of other salaries, would be a fairer comparison to make, as schools are only opened 9 months of the year.

Lord TSC

Fair enough. But the problem when comparing the salary of a teacher to the salary of someone in another profession is we have to rely on opinion; that is to say we have to rely on how much we think the work of a teacher is worth.

It would help if some people could acknowledge the work of a teacher extends outside of what they do in the classroom in the public sphere, and that the visible work done in class is not 100% of the work done in total. If a person decides they think that the worth of a teacher is too high when they've had all the facts and realities laid out in front of them, then fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

But time and time again, I see these topics pop up, and people make it clear they don't value the teacher, or the job they do, AND they don't have a full picture of the work of the teacher either. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but some people only form their opinions based on half-truths and personal, anecdotal experience of what the job entails. Even from a young age, I was taught to value education, so I don't think teachers are dramatically overpaid. I can see the arguement on how they are well paid. They are. But there's a difference between "well" and "over".

micropig

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Fair enough. But the problem when comparing the salary of a teacher to the salary of someone in another profession is we have to rely on opinion; that is to say we have to rely on how much we think the work of a teacher is worth.

It would help if some people could acknowledge the work of a teacher extends outside of what they do in the classroom in the public sphere, and that the visible work done in class is not 100% of the work done in total. If a person decides they think that the worth of a teacher is too high when they've had all the facts and realities laid out in front of them, then fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

But time and time again, I see these topics pop up, and people make it clear they don't value the teacher, or the job they do, AND they don't have a full picture of the work of the teacher either. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but some people only form their opinions based on half-truths and personal, anecdotal experience of what the job entails. Even from a young age, I was taught to value education, so I don't think teachers are dramatically overpaid. I can see the arguement on how they are well paid. They are. But there's a difference between "well" and "over".

Absolutely, and the contribution great teachers make is invaluable to society. I don't think it should be about trying to place a value as such on teachers, more of looking realistically at what the state is able to afford to put towards education and maximising the value for money they receive. The majority of the education budget is being spent on teachers salaries, while resources, SNA, buildings, etc are being neglected.

We try and teach children education is important, but then they spend their days in a prefab with no facilities etc..it doesn't re-enforce the message that eduction is important and worth investing time and money in.


& my opinion comes from having experienced it

Lord TSC

See, it's all about balance. I can agree there.

It just annoys me as well that the blame for poor resources, etc is put on the feet of teachers. Personally, I think you need to make sure teachers are well paid; you need to encourage the best and brightest into teaching positions, and that won't happen if you nuke basic wages. There's got to be incentive for the best and brightest students to go on to become teachers; I know one could argue educating youth should be incentive enough, but we live in a capitalist society, so that's just not true.

micropig

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

See, it's all about balance. I can agree there.

It just annoys me as well that the blame for poor resources, etc is put on the feet of teachers. Personally, I think you need to make sure teachers are well paid; you need to encourage the best and brightest into teaching positions, and that won't happen if you nuke basic wages. There's got to be incentive for the best and brightest students to go on to become teachers; I know one could argue educating youth should be incentive enough, but we live in a capitalist society, so that's just not true.

I don't think people lay the blame of poor resources at the feet of teachers. The reason teachers get blamed for this is because of the proportion of the education budget being spent on wages and the unbalance in providing resources.

A lot of teachers get very defensive if lack of resources etc is mentioned and use it as a reason to justify their pay and holidays, without offering solutions themselves as to how the real issues could be addressed.

Yes we need the best and brightest as teachers, but we also need to ensure that that people are not just being attracted to the profession for the money and the holidays and have a real interest in educating children.

Teachers teaching is not the most important thing in education, students learning is