Interview for a PWT job - any point?

sitstill

I have been invited to an interview for a job. It is a permanent wholetime job (PWT) so it would be amazing if I got it.

I always thought that PWT jobs tended to go to a part-timer already on the staff. Is this true or do I actually have a chance?

vamos!

sitstill wrote: »

I have been invited to an interview for a job. It is a permanent wholetime job (PWT) so it would be amazing if I got it.

I always thought that PWT jobs tended to go to a part-timer already on the staff. Is this true or do I actually have a chance?

Who know! It probably is a done deal but the interview experience won't hurt and you could end up picking up some hours or shocking us all by posting next week to say you got it!!!!

Bobsammy

Go - it's always worth it for the experience. Last year I went to an interview for a permanent position, I didn't get it but I did get a phone call a few weeks later asking me to come back and talk to them about a maternity leave cover which I did get. So it was worth the trip in my eyes!

sitstill

Bobsammy wrote: »

Go - it's always worth it for the experience. Last year I went to an interview for a permanent position, I didn't get it but I did get a phone call a few weeks later asking me to come back and talk to them about a maternity leave cover which I did get. So it was worth the trip in my eyes!

Do you know if that permanent post went to someone from the school?

Bobsammy

It went to an experienced teacher but she was new to the school.

sitstill

Bobsammy wrote: »

It went to an experienced teacher but she was new to the school.

Yeah but she was still on the staff.

I will go but I am an experienced teacher and so I hope they're not just wasting my time.

RealJohn

Bloody hell, how paranoid/insecure are you? Of course you go. Maybe it's been sewn up for someone else, maybe it hasn't. Either way, you shouldn't give up before you've even tried. Even if they do intend to give it to someone they already have you might show them something to change their minds.

Go and give it your best. If you don't get it, chalk it down to experience.

Bobsammy

sitstill wrote: »

Yeah but she was still on the staff.

I will go but I am an experienced teacher and so I hope they're not just wasting my time.

No she'd never taught in that school before - she was teaching elsewhere and moved for the permanent position.

sitstill

RealJohn wrote: »

Bloody hell, how paranoid/insecure are you? Of course you go. Maybe it's been sewn up for someone else, maybe it hasn't. Either way, you shouldn't give up before you've even tried. Even if they do intend to give it to someone they already have you might show them something to change their minds.

Go and give it your best. If you don't get it, chalk it down to experience.

Thanks for your input. I am going to go and try my hardest.

To be honest though, I don't appreciate being call paranoid/insecure. I think if you were in my position of having lost a job of a number of years and then struggling to get anything for September, you'd feel the same at the prospect of being asked to an interview that just may be an absolute waste of time.

seavill

sitstill wrote: »

Thanks for your input. I am going to go and try my hardest.

To be honest though, I don't appreciate being call paranoid/insecure. I think if you were in my position of having lost a job of a number of years and then struggling to get anything for September, you'd feel the same at the prospect of being asked to an interview that just may be an absolute waste of time.

Its as simple as this. No one knows only the Principal or VP in that school. Asking here over and over isn't going to have any benefit only someone will come on and say I heard of someone who got one and someone else who comes on and says oh no they are always gone beforehand.

It MAY be a waste of time, it MAY be a job for you. You are never going to know unless you go.

RealJohn

sitstill wrote: »

RealJohn wrote: »

Bloody hell, how paranoid/insecure are you? Of course you go. Maybe it's been sewn up for someone else, maybe it hasn't. Either way, you shouldn't give up before you've even tried. Even if they do intend to give it to someone they already have you might show them something to change their minds.

Go and give it your best. If you don't get it, chalk it down to experience.

Thanks for your input. I am going to go and try my hardest.

To be honest though, I don't appreciate being call paranoid/insecure. I think if you were in my position of having lost a job of a number of years and then struggling to get anything for September, you'd feel the same at the prospect of being asked to an interview that just may be an absolute waste of time.

If you go in with the attitude that it might be a waste of your time then it probably will be because while you might want to try your hardest, that's not what's going to happen. Erase that paranoia (which is what it is whether you like being told or not) and go into that interview planning to get that job.
<snip>

Powerhouse

sitstill wrote: »

I have been invited to an interview for a job. It is a permanent wholetime job (PWT) so it would be amazing if I got it.

I always thought that PWT jobs tended to go to a part-timer already on the staff. Is this true or do I actually have a chance?

In my school three new teachers started in PWT jobs in two years ago, none of whom had any connection whatsoever with the school up to that, so you just never know.

gaeilgebeo

Powerhouse wrote: »

In my school three new teachers started in PWT jobs in two years ago, none of whom had any connection whatsoever with the school up to that, so you just never know.

Are people actually walking straight into permanent jobs?
I'm assuming they are going into jobs with their own hours and building up to a CID?
I have not heard of anyone walking straight into a permanent job ,in any type of second-level school, in a long long time.

Boober Fraggle

Would you ring the school and ask? I have done so in the past, and have gotten honest answers. You never know what's going on in a school. Sometimes the principal will want to make a Job permanent to remove a temporary teacher that they don't like.

rainbowtrout

sitstill wrote: »

I have been invited to an interview for a job. It is a permanent wholetime job (PWT) so it would be amazing if I got it.

I always thought that PWT jobs tended to go to a part-timer already on the staff. Is this true or do I actually have a chance?

Go to the interview. Worst case scenario is that the job is already gone and you waste a few hours of your day. But even if it is gone to someone on staff there may be some part time hours available and they may offer them to you. If you don't go you're not in the run for anything in that school.

It's a long time back now (11 years) but the job I'm in was the job I got out of college and it was permanent

implausible

Go for it, you never know.

Out of interest - is the position in a VEC school or a vountary secondary? I ask because it seems to me that in the past the two differed. In the voluntary sector, the job would be advertised only because the school had to, but you essentially had to wait your turn on TWT contracts to get permanent. In the VEC, the job was often a genuine permanent vacancy (e.g. to replace a retired teacher of a subject that no-one within the school had) and often a way of regularising the status of a p-t teacher.

However, I thought PWT was now gone and everyone had to wait for their CID The only exceptions I can think of would be island schools.

Powerhouse

gaeilgebeo wrote: »

Are people actually walking straight into permanent jobs?
I'm assuming they are going into jobs with their own hours and building up to a CID?
I have not heard of anyone walking straight into a permanent job ,in any type of second-level school, in a long long time.

I cannot comment on general trends obviously but these three teachers started in the school on Permanent contracts anyway.

As a vec teacher you would defo start on a fixed term and move to CID after 5 years...no PWT anymore i think in VEC anyway...go for the interview as a couple of teachers came to us last year for retiree..with no connection to school..also ask the school if there is internal candidates next time when they contact you for interview. I got my job from meeting a principal at interview..didnt get the interview but he rang me back to sub a few months later and 8 years later have CID in my own subject

phoenix999

Least the OP got an interview. A good college friend of mine recently applied for PWT position in a VEC. He has BA degree, HDip, and two Masters degrees in his subjects (all First Class hons). He has over 8 years teaching experience and has published books in his subject area. He didn't even get an interview. How can any VEC or school principal worth a pinch of salt seek to justify that? Is it just sheer Irish bedgrudgery?

spurious

We had five people with Ph.D.s apply for a four hour position recently.The whole job market has gone mad.

bdoo

spurious wrote: »

We had five people with Ph.D.s apply for a four hour position recently.The whole job market has gone mad.

The jobs situation has gone downhill since 2009 or there abouts. All of these masters and doctorate holders must have been finished their degrees and dips at this stage assuming a one year masters and a two year doctorate?

There is a false assumption that having a masters and a doctorate makes you better qualified. The

masters and doctorate are so highly specialised as to provide practically no advantage in terms of teaching a subject.

An educational specialist may provide some benefit. I think there was a false impression created that be doing a masters you were more likely to get a job.

Personally I think that if we start hiring masters only candidates that we could lose an awful lot of potentially very good teachers as they cannot afford another two years of college on top of the degree and dip.

If I had needed a masters I would never have gotten a job teaching as I was four years on full hours before I got back on top of my loans from college.

There are skills and experiences that ten years in college do not give to you, someone with a decent degree who has worked hard to get it and understands what it takes is more valuable to students than ant amount of doctors.

spurious

To be absolutely honest, Masters followed by Ph.D. straight after primary degree says to me 'couldn't decide what to do so hung on in college for a while'.

Sure why not give teaching a lash?
Mmmm...all those holidays...and willing little minds waiting to learn...

badlogic

spurious wrote: »

To be absolutely honest, Masters followed by Ph.D. straight after primary degree says to me 'couldn't decide what to do so hung on in college for a while'.

Sure why not give teaching a lash?
Mmmm...all those holidays...and willing little minds waiting to learn...

I had to register to reply to this, despite being content for a long time to browse this and other forums.

I cannot believe you are arguing that someone who displays a significant ability in a subject in college, acquires such a high standard in their degree that they are accepted into a masters (and then PhD), has an interest in their subject to the point where they devote themselves to it for many years and excel in it despite the financial cost and the effort they make to subsidise it, is not a prime candidate to teach that subject.
In fact, you seem to be suggesting that anyone who strives to achieve to their highest potential regardless of the cost involved in the pursuit of this, should be marked as an individual who only falls into teaching because of the holidays and that they have no career focus???!! You've got to be joking. Surely that is the person you want to teach in a school.

Most of what you post is informative, for the most part enlightened, and always interesting, but the progession of this thread is beyond ludicrous.

You probably have gathered that I made the choices that you denigrate above, but I can assure you that in terms of academic progress of my students, they excel year on year. You will not want me to say that in comparison to lesser qualified staff the grades of my students are higher, but this is the case year after year. You will probably make the argument that personal development is more important than academic attainment: my students thrive in my clases on a personal level, and let me know this is no uncertain terms.

As for bdoo's comments:

"There is a false assumption that having a masters and a doctorate makes you better qualified."

What is a qualification if a PhD is not? Specialisation in your subject area can only benefit your students. I have a knowledge of my subject that is far beyond that of my initial degree. My students know stuff that it took years of college for me to learn. They have quite a bit of it now, while they do their Leaving Certificate. I wish, while I was in school, that someone had taught me the things I teach them.

If only our Government invested in all teachers to the point where they excelled in their chosen area, perhaps our profession wouldn't be held in such poor regard as it is now. And yes, I know that having knowledge and teaching are two separate things. But one does not preclude the other.

Apologies for the rant and the long post; I'll retire back into relative obscurity now.

rainbowtrout

badlogic wrote: »

I cannot believe you are arguing that someone who displays a significant ability in a subject in college, acquires such a high standard in their degree that they are accepted into a masters (and then PhD), has an interest in their subject to the point where they devote themselves to it for many years and excel in it despite the financial cost and the effort they make to subsidise it, is not a prime candidate to teach that subject.
In fact, you seem to be suggesting that anyone who strives to achieve to their highest potential regardless of the cost involved in the pursuit of this, should be marked as an individual who only falls into teaching because of the holidays and that they have no career focus???!! You've got to be joking. Surely that is the person you want to teach in a school.

PhD qualified teachers do not necessarily make the best teachers. They may have an excellent knowledge of their subject, that does not mean they can teach it.

Knowledge is only half the battle. The other half is good teaching skills which can be adapted to different classes combined with good classroom management.

PhD research topics are also quite narrow in their focus and often bear zero relevance to Junior and Leaving Cert courses.

badlogic wrote: »

You probably have gathered that I made the choices that you denigrate above, but I can assure you that in terms of academic progress of my students, they excel year on year. You will not want me to say that in comparison to lesser qualified staff the grades of my students are higher, but this is the case year after year. You will probably make the argument that personal development is more important than academic attainment: my students thrive in my clases on a personal level, and let me know this is no uncertain terms.

That doesn't mean it's directly related to the fact that you've got a PhD. Maybe you've got better teaching methodologies than the other teachers in your school, maybe they have weaker students, maybe they don't have as much experience as you. Maybe your approach to teaching exam technique is more effective. Unfortunately in my experience, a student that learns how marking schemes work will do far better in the exam than a student who never goes near a marking scheme, assuming both students are of equal ability and do the same amount of work. Actually I would go so far as to say that having a PhD would have little or no effect on grades.

badlogic wrote: »

What is a qualification if a PhD is not? Specialisation in your subject area can only benefit your students. I have a knowledge of my subject that is far beyond that of my initial degree. My students know stuff that it took years of college for me to learn. They have quite a bit of it now, while they do their Leaving Certificate. I wish, while I was in school, that someone had taught me the things I teach them.

If only our Government invested in all teachers to the point where they excelled in their chosen area, perhaps our profession wouldn't be held in such poor regard as it is now. And yes, I know that having knowledge and teaching are two separate things. But one does not preclude the other.

Apologies for the rant and the long post; I'll retire back into relative obscurity now.

Imparting extra information to students outside of what is directly on the syllabus is a good thing. It can make things more interesting for the teacher and the student. Your PhD allows you to do that, but the rest of us can do it too as most material on degree courses is not on the Leaving Cert course. But having that qualification doesn't correlate with better results from your students at all.

A teacher friend of mine who is PhD qualified told me that for the first couple of years in her school it was noticed that the grades her students got in the state exams were consistently higher than those of the other teachers in her subject department. By your argument this would be down to her PhD. When they actually got down to where the discrepancy lay, they found that the other teachers were quite lax when it came to marking answers right/wrong in class/homework/tests, e.g. a student writes down purple for the colour of iodine in the presence of starch (instead of the correct answer blue-black) so the teacher marks it right because 'well he was in the general area, i know what he meant, it's more or less right, purple is nearly the same as blue' where as my friend insisted on answers that were compliant with the marking schemes and factually correct as that was how students would be marked in the exam and wishy washy answers wouldn't be accepted. Result: the grades of the other teachers went up. So it had nothing to do with her PhD qualification or their lack of one.

TheBody

spurious wrote: »

To be absolutely honest, Masters followed by Ph.D. straight after primary degree says to me 'couldn't decide what to do so hung on in college for a while'.

Sure why not give teaching a lash?
Mmmm...all those holidays...and willing little minds waiting to learn...

I disagree with every word of above.

Look, the reality is that people keep agruing whether higher qualifications means you are a good teacher. It's clear that you need have an excellent subject knowledge AND be a good at explaining your subject as well as classroom management. I don't give a toss how good a teacher you are if you don't know what you are talking about.

It amazes me when people seem to belittle postgraduate study. It should be encouraged. I know several maths teachers who all are supposedly qualified but they have TERRIBLE subject knowledge. (Maths is my subject). They just stay a few pages ahead of the students.

To claim that somebody with a phd made them a poor teacher is simply ridiculous. They have just as much of a chance to be a good or a bad teacher as anybody else. To write somebody off because they have a phd seem more like somebody that has an inferiority complex.

spurious

I have no problem with post-graduate study. It just seems to me a bit more useful when you have actually done the job for a while, useful in terms of what area to specialise in, or research to pursue.

bdoo

TheBody wrote: »

spurious wrote: »

To be absolutely honest, Masters followed by Ph.D. straight after primary degree says to me 'couldn't decide what to do so hung on in college for a while'.

Sure why not give teaching a lash?
Mmmm...all those holidays...and willing little minds waiting to learn...

I disagree with every word of above.

Look, the reality is that people keep agruing whether higher qualifications means you are a good teacher. It's clear that you need have an excellent subject knowledge AND be a good at explaining your subject as well as classroom management. I don't give a toss how good a teacher you are if you don't know what you are talking about.

It amazes me when people seem to belittle postgraduate study. It should be encouraged. I know several maths teachers who all are supposedly qualified but they have TERRIBLE subject knowledge. (Maths is my subject). They just stay a few pages ahead of the students.

To claim that somebody with a phd made them a poor teacher is simply ridiculous. They have just as much of a chance to be a good or a bad teacher as anybody else. To write somebody off because they have a phd seem more like somebody that has an inferiority complex.

By definition a good teacher knows what they are talking about.

I have three colleagues with PhDs. All good teachers and I'm sure their knowledge contributes to their ability.

My problem is only that people think that if they get a masters they are entitled to a job over everyone else.

I think that you will agree that the masters or doctorate will be highly specialised and add very little in terms of tangible content that you can teach over Someone with an undergraduate degree only.

If you did your masters etc out of a passion that could be so infectious as to inspire students in their droves in which case the qualifications are worth every bit.

Unfortunately I know of too many people who think 'if I have a master's I'll get a job' and fork out for one for the sake of having it. The same with adding subjects to beat the band, just to get a teaching job, no matter what.

When I said qualified in an earlier post I meant to say entitled as I did here.

Is the masters a means to an end or an end in itself? That makes all the difference.