Allowances for Masters/ Review Any Update???

evolving_doors

just wondering is the review for allowances for people who started a masters course pre 2012 still lying dusty on a desk somewhere.

I think the phrase they'll probably be using soon for NEVER making a decision is 'placed into abeyance'

From ASTI website

I am currently studying for a Masters. Will I receive an allowance?

However, the ASTI has written to the Department in relation to teachers who were in the middle of pursuing qualifications on December 5th 2011. The Department has stated that a decision will be made in relation to these teachers as part of the public service wide review. The ASTI believes these teachers have a legitimate expectation to receive the allowance which was available at the time they undertook further study.

Geologyrocks

I read the other day in the indo that the review prob won't be completed until after the Dail summer recess. Howlin gave the excuse that they have over 800 public sector allowances to review. But sure it has been going on since Feb!
I wouldn't be surprised if they leave it until the budget to announce it at this stage.

evolving_doors

Suppose it makes sense for them to do nothing really (from their point of view of course)

RealJohn

Didn't realise that was being reviewed. That's a bit of potentially good news for me, not that it makes an awful lot of difference to me anyway since I'm already receiving the allowance for the honours degree.

Although while I'm here, can anyone confirm for me that you only ever received the allowance for an honours degree or a masters, not both. I always assumed it was one or the other (which was the impression I got from the department and union websites) but a girl I worked with a few years ago was convinced you got both.

Seanchai

RealJohn wrote: »

Although while I'm here, can anyone confirm for me that you only ever received the allowance for an honours degree or a masters, not both. I always assumed it was one or the other (which was the impression I got from the department and union websites) but a girl I worked with a few years ago was convinced you got both.

True.


From 01/01/2010
1.(a)
(i)H. Dip in Ed. (Pass)
€591
(ii)Higher Froebel Certificate
€591
(b)
(i)H.Dip in Ed. (1st or 2nd Hons)
€1,236
(ii)Ard Teastas Gaeilge
€1,236
(c)
Primary Degree (Pass)
€1,842
(d)
Masters Degree by thesis or exam (Pass)
€4,918
(e)
Primary Degree (1st, 2nd or 3rd Hons)
€4,918
(f)
Master Degree (1st or 2nd Hons)
€5,496
(g)
Doctors Degree
€6,140
Either of the allowances (a) or (b) may be held together with any one of the allowances (c) to (g).

evolving_doors

Huzzah....

Just to tie up a previous question...

Allowances granted if you started your course before the cuts came in.

Zizigirl

Armelodie wrote: »

Huzzah....

Just to tie up a previous question...

Allowances granted if you started your course before the cuts came in.

Is it only masters and up? What about existing (on 5th December 2011) VEC teachers who were in the middle of the part time H.Dip/Graduate Dip in Ed?

evolving_doors

Zizigirl wrote: »

Is it only masters and up? What about existing (on 5th December 2011) VEC teachers who were in the middle of the part time H.Dip/Graduate Dip in Ed?

says ,," only applies to qualifications additional to those required for teaching" ..check the asti link in my post above ... It would seem as if the HDip dont count....sorry!

TheBody

Zizigirl wrote: »

Is it only masters and up? What about existing (on 5th December 2011) VEC teachers who were in the middle of the part time H.Dip/Graduate Dip in Ed?

I'm in the same boat. Doesn't look good.

Miss Lockhart

Armelodie wrote: »

says ,," only applies to qualifications additional to those required for teaching" ..check the asti link in my post above ... It would seem as if the HDip dont count....sorry!

That's very vague and seems open to interpretation. The dip is not (yet) required for teaching in the VEC and VEC employees who began the course before the change had as much reasonable expectation of the allowance as those undertaking a masters at the time.

No doubt they will go with whatever interpretation saves the most money though.

Powerhouse

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

That's very vague and seems open to interpretation. The dip is not (yet) required for teaching in the VEC and VEC employees who began the course before the change had as much reasonable expectation of the allowance as those undertaking a masters at the time.

No doubt they will go with whatever interpretation saves the most money though.

I certainly do not think it is very vague. At best there might be a tenuous argument that a select few might have a case for exemption, but it is hardly vague in its broad message.

It states that it is reinstating allowances only for qualifications additional to those required for teaching which by definition does not include the Professional Diploma in Education as that is required for teaching. Conversely, a Masters in not required - not ever under any circumstances is it a requirement for teaching.

The statement says nothing about the PDE being a requirement in all sectors, and I suspect this has been stated to allow for the knowledge that there are teachers without the PDE and to emphasise that they will not be retrospectively given an allowance. In that sense it is arguable that its inclusion actually clarifies the situation for this group of people.

There is of course no little irony in the fact that someone might get an allowance for a Masters unconnected to their work, yet someone pursuing a PDE will not get an allowance! On the other hand, is it fair to the current PDE class if one person can qualify for an allowance when they might have gone teaching without a qualification originally because they could not make the cut for the PDE in the first instance and went teaching only to pick up experience points for the PDE as is often the case?

evolving_doors

Powerhouse wrote: »

I certainly do not think it is very vague. At best there might be a tenuous argument that a select few might have a case for exemption, but it is hardly vague in its broad message.

It states that it is reinstating allowances only for qualifications additional to those required for teaching which by definition does not include the Professional Diploma in Education as that is required for teaching. Conversely, a Masters in not required - not ever under any circumstances is it a requirement for teaching.

The statement says nothing about the PDE being a requirement in all sectors, and I suspect this has been stated to allow for the knowledge that there are teachers without the PDE and to emphasise that they will not be retrospectively given an allowance. In that sense it is arguable that its inclusion actually clarifies the situation for this group of people.

There is of course no little irony in the fact that someone might get an allowance for a Masters unconnected to their work, yet someone pursuing a PDE will not get an allowance! On the other hand, is it fair to the current PDE class if one person can qualify for an allowance when they might have gone teaching without a qualification originally because they could not make the cut for the PDE in the first instance and went teaching only to pick up experience points for the PDE as is often the case?

I'd tend to agree that the pde isn't an additional qualification to teaching. If someone undertook a pde for the sole purpose of getting an extra allowance then maybe their motifs need to be questioned...

I got the PDE first with the intention to teach , although I would have no doubt taken a job with the VEC with just my degree if I could have...

The sole reason I did the masters was to inform my teaching and maybe help towards security of tenure or, god forbid, promotion opportunities. I'd be a fool to do it for the monetary benefits...

Total cost ( fees\transport\parking etc) was about €11, 500.
+ family stress whilst studying

Masters Allowance worth €500 extra a year (but because im not on full hours or never will be, this works out about €350 per year)
Tax relief is about 800 odd I think..

So going by a very very rough estimation it would take about thirty years to pay off the Masters...(I would have been better off doing another degree/subject BTW)...

Don't get me wrong though , the allowance does incentivise a little and may be the tipping point for alot of people to go for it...I am angry that the government doesn't realise how qualified Irish teachers are in comparison to other countries.. I think that recent report they got done by some Finnish guy acknowledged this.

. For the future, there will be definitely a smaller pool of people entering the profession who might just stick with the bare essentials to get a few part time hours and maybe a CID at best... Death by a thousand cuts to the teaching profession..

So that's my rant, upshot... The allowance for the bare Pgde was a legacy issue dating back yonks so shouldn't be an incentive to enter into the profession...extraneous qualifications/allowances should come under a different system to the PDE..

seavill

What do you mean you never will be on full hours

evolving_doors

seavill wrote: »

What do you mean you never will be on full hours

I mean looking at the lay of the land in my school in particular ( sorry but id rather not get into too many specifics) and the way cutbacks are going. Pupil teacher ratio.. School over quota.. And possibly with reductions in subjects for junior cert... Looks likely my cid might just about be tenable for about another decade ...

Either way if I was on full 22 hrs itd take about 20 years to ' break even' with a masters allowance. my point was that no one I knew undertook the masters for the extra allowance, but in saying that, the allowance might have been the ' tipping point' in chosing to do it...

Perhaps if they replaced the allowance with a more generous tax relief !

Miss Lockhart

I agree with a lot of what is being said, but at the same time it is a fact that the PDE is not required for teaching in the VEC, so in those cases it a qualification additional to those required for teaching there. I also doubt it is a few select cases - certainly when I did my dip at least 1/5 of those on the course already held contracts with the VEC, and in my school alone this ruling would affect 6 people.

The motives for doing a PDE or masters are not really the issue here. I simply think that those already employed by the VEC who began the PDE before the change to allowance have as much entitlement to receive their allowance as those who began a masters at that time - based on the wording of this statement.

Powerhouse

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

The motives for doing a PDE or masters are not really the issue here. I simply think that those already employed by the VEC who began the PDE before the change to allowance have as much entitlement to receive their allowance as those who began a masters at that time - based on the wording of this statement.

The motives may be a side-issue but it is no harm to have them raised - if people could be employed in the VEC sector without a qualification it is hard to see what incentive there was to gain a PDE other than an allowance.

But I disagree with you in that I don't see any solace for unqualified teachers in the VEC sector in the wording of the statement. The PDE is a requirement for teaching. It is a teaching qualification. That it might in the past not have been an invariable requirement for teaching in the VEC sector is neither here nor there really. The distinction in the wording is between teaching qualifications (PDE) and non-teaching qualifications (Masters etc.) rather than between groups of teachers.

Miss Lockhart

Powerhouse wrote: »

But I disagree with you in that I don't see any solace for unqualified teachers in the VEC sector in the wording of the statement. The PDE is a requirement for teaching. It is a teaching qualification. That it might in the past not have been an invariable requirement for teaching in the VEC sector is neither here nor there really.

Just to clarify - it is not the past. The PDE is still not a requirement for the VEC sector.

Powerhouse wrote: »

The distinction in the wording is between teaching qualifications (PDE) and non-teaching qualifications (Masters etc.) rather than between groups of teachers.

That's fair enough, but I disagree that the wording is clear. The wording does not refer to a "teaching qualification", but to a qualification "required for teaching". The PDE is not required in the VEC.

The very fact that you and I see different interpretations means it is not clear - to me it is vague.

Powerhouse

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

That's fair enough, but I disagree that the wording is clear.

I never used the word 'clear' at any stage. I merely said that the wording is not very vague. Then I said that "at best there might be a tenuous argument that a select few might have a case for exemption, but it is hardly vague in its broad message."

It's not the most scientific sample, but consider this thread - there have been eight contributors and you are the only one to make the argument you make. That, of course, doesn't necessarily make you wrong - but it does seem to place your argument in the esoteric cateogory which should not be the case if the wording was objectively very vague.

If it comes down to an argument of interpretaton as most regulations do at some level, I would say at best this might come down to a question of sympathy - and I suspect unqualified teachers would have very little of that in the current environment of broad teacher unemployment. But presumably if there is an argument to be made it will be made, and if it cannot be stood up it won't. That will be the ultimate test of the wording.

seavill

Powerhouse wrote: »

It's not the most scientific sample, but consider this thread - there have been eight contributors and you are the only one to make the argument you make. That, of course, doesn't necessarily make you wrong - but it does seem to place your argument in the esoteric cateogory which should not be the case if the wording was objectively very vague.

I actually agree with Miss Lockhart but to be honest I didn't want to get in the middle of yere argument as she was expressing a similar view to mine already.

Just because people don't post doesn't mean they don't agree.

I agree with the point that the fact that people read it in a different way really does make it unclear. If it was clear there could be no argument about it. Driving over 100kmph means you are breaking the speed limit on this road. there is no varying interpretation to this one. I know its not relevant but you see my point.

Powerhouse

seavill wrote: »

Just because people don't post doesn't mean they don't agree.

In fairness, I did say it was a not very scientific sample. There could also be a significant cohort out there agreeing with my view.

That said, a more interesting question might be how many people of those would would agree with you do so because they themselves worked in the past without a teaching qualification or know those directly affected. On the flip-side, how many objective observers would hold your view?

I could read it a thousand times over and would still struggle to be convinced that - as I said at the outset - this is anything other than a marginal argument that would be quashed by a further clarofication, if such is ever considered to be needed.

Maybe I will be proven wrong but if I am there will be many disgruntled people out there who are going to essentially be punished for making the effort in the first instance to undertake a teaching qualification course. Should we really be saying to them...actually you would have been financially better off not to have done so and bided your time? Especially now in an environment where the rug is about to be pulled on this extraordinary anomaly in the VEC sector where unqualified teachers could be employed?

Miss Lockhart

Powerhouse wrote: »

I could read it a thousand times over and would still struggle to be convinced that - as I said at the outset - this is anything other than a marginal argument that would be quashed by a further clarofication, if such is ever considered to be needed.

Such a clarification is already considered needed and is being sought by the teachers, schools and unions affected.

I have no doubt that the allowance will not be paid to such teachers. I just think the wording of the statement should have been very clear so this ambiguity would not be an issue - whether it is an issue for a minority or a majority, or whether it is an issue for the biased or the objective obvserver.

evolving_doors

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

Such a clarification is already considered needed and is being sought by the teachers, schools and unions affected.

I have no doubt that the allowance will not be paid to such teachers. I just think the wording of the statement should have been very clear so this ambiguity would not be an issue - whether it is an issue for a minority or a majority, or whether it is an issue for the biased or the objective obvserver.

Ok as a crass generalisation and to throw a potential cat amongst the pigeons.... (this is what I had been told by an auld fella when I asked about joining a union yonks ago... Apologies in advance...)

... The TUI represents mainly VEC and the ASTI represents the religious schools, so the Statement on allowances and teaching qualifications on the ASTI website isn't aimed at our VEC colleagues!

Is there any sliver of truth to this, if not then what's the difference between the TUI and the ASTI... is the TUI 'only' third level folk?

07472161

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

That's very vague and seems open to interpretation. The dip is not (yet) required for teaching in the VEC and VEC employees who began the course before the change had as much reasonable expectation of the allowance as those undertaking a masters at the time.

No doubt they will go with whatever interpretation saves the most money though.

Hi Miss Lockhart, Im in the same position as yourself: started the dip sept 2011 and got subbing in my VEC tp school, technically we weren't teaching in an unqualified capacity so are we entitled to allowance? I've rang the ASTI and they say no, but i didnt mention the fact that it was a vec school. did u get any further clarification around the matter?

Any advice/info would be much appreciated

Miss Lockhart

I'm not actually in that position myself - I am qualified a while, but I have many colleagues in the situation. They have not yet received clarification - it seems the issue is just being ingnored.

Also, they were VEC employees long before they started the PDE - not just TP students doing subbing. Most of them have CID or even permanent contracts, so I'm not sure it's exactly the same scenario you're in yourself.

07472161

God imagine a CID/permanent teacher
could be put back to point 1 on the pay scale

Miss Lockhart

07472161 wrote: »

God imagine a CID/permanent teacher
could be put back to point 1 on the pay scale

No, they weren't put back on the scale - the issue is just that they have not been given the Dip allowance that they had reasonably expected to receive.

Zizigirl

I was made aware of this circular in another post last week

http://www.education.ie/en/Circulars-and-Forms/Active-Circulars/cl0008_2013.pdf

And it seems to be a bit clearer now. I'm in VEC and it states that I am entitled to claim an allowance once I was on the course on 5th December 2011, I claim it within 3 months of receipt of award and I was in a qualified and, after September 2010, registered position. I satisfy all those conditions and am in the process of claiming the Dip allowance. I spoke to HR at the beginning of the week and I am getting it. Happy Days...

chases0102

It's all quite (deliberately, I presume) confusing.

I have a BA and a MA, awarded in 2008 and 2009.

I had my first paid teaching hours from Feb 2010, however I was unqualified.

I did my year PGDE from 2010-2011.

Taught in England from September 2011, but got a job (part time casual) back in Ireland on hourly rate.

Working again since September in Ireland. All in VEC schools.

...Now even though it's very easy to set out my situation, I can't get a hold of if I'm entitled to my MA allowance or not!

Not even with this handy page...!http://www.education.ie/en/Circulars-and-Forms/Active-Circulars/cl0008_2013.pdf

Miss Lockhart

Zizigirl wrote: »

I was made aware of this circular in another post last week

http://www.education.ie/en/Circulars-and-Forms/Active-Circulars/cl0008_2013.pdf

And it seems to be a bit clearer now. I'm in VEC and it states that I am entitled to claim an allowance once I was on the course on 5th December 2011, I claim it within 3 months of receipt of award and I was in a qualified and, after September 2010, registered position. I satisfy all those conditions and am in the process of claiming the Dip allowance. I spoke to HR at the beginning of the week and I am getting it. Happy Days...

Thank you Zizigirl. I will pass on the link to my colleagues.

chases0102

Hi all,

It says at the end of that circular regarding allowances that applications must be made to the Department of Education before April 30th. I can't seem to find them on their website, has anyone come across the form?

07472161

Zizigirl wrote: »

I was in a qualified and, after September 2010, registered position. I




Hey, just wondering what does it mean to be 'registered' does that mean teaching council or something else. Because I satisfy all the other criteria bar this one.

Thanks

Zizigirl

I was registered with Teaching Council for VEC only and take that as meaning registered with TC on the 5th Dec 2011

chases0102

Hi all,

I was wondering if someone could help me. I apologise if I've asked this before, but I've exhausted my options - I've rang the VEC (frighteningly no help there...), and also colleagues of mine, including the union rep.

Basically, I don't know if I am entitled to my Masters allowance or not, if/when I (hopefully) get contract work.

I qualified from my Undergrad in 2008, and then my Masters in 2009.

In January 2010, I worked for 5 months as a substitute in a school until the end of the school year.

In September 2010 until June 2011, I enrolled in the PGDE and got my teaching qualifications.

In August 2011, I left for London to teach, before one of the early retirements back in February 2012 allowed me to get a job back here in Ireland.

So...I'm just wondering if my Masters allowance (obtained in 2009) is still appilcable to me - I started teaching in 2010 (unqualified), so I am on the old payscale. However my first teaching post in Ireland post qualification was February 2012, and I am still teaching, albeit with no contract and just casual part-time work, now.

Can anyone enlighten me?

Cheers, I know there's a lot there!

unknowngirl!!

chases0102 wrote: »

Hi all,

In September 2010 until June 2011, I enrolled in the PGDE and got my teaching qualifications.

In August 2011, I left for London to teach, before one of the early retirements back in February 2012 allowed me to get a job back here in Ireland.

Unfortunately it would appear not...

A teacher who was in receipt of qualification allowances prior to 1st February 2012 continues to receive these allowances but is not entitled to any further allowance in relation to qualifications achieved after that date.

Teachers who were not in receipt of qualification allowances prior to 1st February 2012 are not entitled to any qualification allowances.

chases0102

Thanks unknowngirl

Powerhouse

unknowngirl!! wrote: »

Unfortunately it would appear not...

A teacher who was in receipt of qualification allowances prior to 1st February 2012 continues to receive these allowances but is not entitled to any further allowance in relation to qualifications achieved after that date.

Teachers who were not in receipt of qualification allowances prior to 1st February 2012 are not entitled to any qualification allowances.

I know this does not apply to the other poster but was there not a concession a few months back for anyone in the process of acquiring a qualification (at the time the right to those allowances were withdrawn) on the basis of 'reasonable expectation'?

evolving_doors

Zounds! It appears the closing date is wednesday next week...just graduated with maters last week...the scramble for paper work is now on...

In fairness to the teaching council though they responded to my email request to send out my TC registration form...

Fir the dept. application form google "allowance masters department of educ ation" and the pdf file should come up in the results...

Powerhouse

Armelodie wrote: »

Zounds! It appears the closing date is wednesday next week...just graduated with maters last week...the scramble for paper work is now on...

Sorry, Wednesday next week is the closing date for what?

evolving_doors

unless I've been given the wrong info...it's the closing date to register with the department if you've completed a masters (and commenced the masters course before the allowance was abolished!)

Powerhouse

Armelodie wrote: »

unless I've been given the wrong info...it's the closing date to register with the department if you've completed a masters (and commenced the masters course before the allowance was abolished!)

And what of those who commenced a Masters' course before the allowance was abolished but haven't completed it yet e.g. a two-year Masters?

trihead

You were given the wrong information re 'closing date to register'.

http://www.education.ie/en/Circulars-and-Forms/Active-Circulars/cl0008_2013.pdf

See point 12.
You have three months to apply for allowance once received. It applies to Masters and Phd once you had started the courses.





ps - have a look at page 11 Appendix 5 - it mentions something about registering 3 months after the circular date - so technically the information you got isn't completely wrong but i don't think its applicable to you as you were on the course at the time /cut off date I assume as you just graduated.

chases0102

My VEC said that once they have your allowance on the system, that this information is just transferred to the next VEC or the Department should you move schools, and that there is no need to fill out the form.