The TUI case for banning Mondays & Fridays.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

ibis wrote:

..
40,000 uncertified sick days - 1.33 uncertified sick days/teacher
..

Hmmm, now that I think about that, it tallies with the figure given by the local Principle at the last parent's association AGM.

Rant retracted - apologies offered.

So what's with the 213,000 other days then, have they never heard of ojt.

I suspect there's a clue here:

Quote :

Under Minister O'Keeffe's cutbacks, substitute cover would no longer be provided for teachers on uncertified sick leave in all schools or to cover for secondary teachers away on school business such as sports events, seminars or arts events.

So, presumably, no more teachers taking pupils to away matches etc.

The figures in that Tribune article cannot be right.
If there are 30,000 full time primary teachers with about 450,000 pupils we would have an average class size of 15+. Allowing for non teaching head teachers would increase this figure somewhat but not by much, maybe to 17 or so, yet we are told the average is 25 or thereabouts, a figure which would give us a need for only 18,000 active teachers. Where am I going wrong here?

tonys wrote:

The figures in that Tribune article cannot be right.
If there are 30,000 full time primary teachers with about 450,000 pupils we would have an average class size of 15+. Allowing for non teaching head teachers would increase this figure somewhat but not by much, maybe to 17 or so, yet we are told the average is 25 or thereabouts, a figure which would give us a need for only 18,000 active teachers. Where am I going wrong here?

Pupil/teacher ratios and class sizes are quite different. The government usually uses the pupil/teacher ratio because it is a lot lower than class size. For example, the following is form the Dáil in October 2005:

Brian Lenihan wrote:

The pupil-teacher ratio at primary level, which includes all the teachers in the school including resource and learning support teachers, has fallen from 22.2:1 in the 1996-97 school year to a projected level of 17.1:1 in 2004-05......The average class size at primary level decreased from 26.6 in 1997 to 23.9 in 2004.

So a pupil/teacher ratio of 17.7 translated into a class size of 23.9. The exact ratio of the one to the other will depend on the size of schools (more teaching staff per head teacher in bigger schools) and thus on the national mix of school sizes.

tonys wrote:

“[i]
To Am..whateveryournameis I am not interested in the slightest degree in your opinion of me or my posts, if you want to disprove anything I ever post, do more research and less complaining, I think you’ll find it more productive.

You mean like you did. It`s up to you to prove yourself when you introduce information. It`s not up to me to disprove false information that you`re spreading.

In fairness to you it was a mistake anybody could have made in terms of the article. But have you never had kids in a school? Surely a quick thought would have told you that your kids wouldn`t have had that many free classes? What are other peoples` experiences?

Regarding the Monday and Friday issue. They`re not necessarily related. You`re still putting them together because of the fact that they`re at opposite ends of a weekend. It could be that teachers are less inclined to take sick days midweek because they are the days where most events happen in a school. In my experience double classes are the thing you don`t want to miss because you get so much done in them compared to two regular periods. These don`t tend to be on Fridays because Friday afternoon is so unproductive it cuts back the amount of time available on a Friday for double classes. Maybe teachers are inclined towards presenteeism and come in despite being sick on Wednesday and Thursday and push themselves too hard. My first few years teaching, I was inclined to do that. Now I`d be more mature about it. Take a day when I know I`m sick rather than guilting myself into going in. There are undoubtedly teachers ringing in sick because they`re on a bender on Thursday but that`s the country we live in and I`ve yet to see anyone provide real information to suggest that it is higher among teachers than other groups. Comparing myself to my friends I`d consider myself the most committed to my job in terms of the people I`m working on behalf of. I`m talking about kids now not the department or parents.

Regarding the complaining. I`ll always resserve to call you or anyone else on sloppy, biased posting and I`m definitely always going to reserve the right to post about a job and an area where I know more than most other people here.

So what were the statistics in the end - about 6 days taken sick per year by each primary school teacher and 5 by every secondary school teacher ? That's not unacceptable in the private workplace if those are the statistics.

As for those sick days being taken on mostly on Fridays and Mondays ..

(the 31 days max that a primary school teacher is allowed to take is crazy though)

anmajornarthainig wrote:

No context. Is the situation improving or disimproving? What was it like five, ten, twenty years ago? Are teachers more prone to particular types of illnesses given that they are directly and indirectly in contact with large numbers of people?

Well I know that as a student in school I was certainly prone to the M&F bug, maybe I gave it to a few of my teachers!

anmajornarthainig wrote:

tonys wrote:

“[i]
To Am..whateveryournameis I am not interested in the slightest degree in your opinion of me or my posts, if you want to disprove anything I ever post, do more research and less complaining, I think you’ll find it more productive.

You mean like you did. It`s up to you to prove yourself when you introduce information. It`s not up to me to disprove false information that you`re spreading.

I posted no false information, I posted as reported.
I didn’t ask you to prove or disprove anything, what you decide to do in reply to any post is entirely up to yourself.
I would suggest the reason more teachers go “sick” on Mondays and Fridays is because there’s a weekend in between.

A#9
As far as I can make out, working with what figures are available and there‘s still a fair amount of assumptions involved, the average teacher would seem to take the equivalent of 10 days “sick” over a normal working year.
The figures given by the dept. are only for days when a substitute teacher is provided, they do not take into account where this is not possible because of short notice and I would assume a short term substitute is only provided for a class teacher, not for a head teacher or support teacher, bringing the number of teachers covered down to maybe 18,000 in primary and say 14,000 at second level, 32,000 in total.
240,000 days lost by 32,000 teachers = 7.5 + 31.5% (short working year) = 9.86 days, that’s my best guess.

This is from the Irish Times today

Quote :

Mr O’Keeffe revealed that the teacher substitution regime was costing over €180 million per year. Figures released yesterday show the department paid for over 12,000 uncertified substitution days on Mondays, Tuesdays and Fridays last year.

The figures cover both primary and secondary schools. In a detailed presentation to the committee, Mr O’Keeffe referred specifically to the high cost of substitutions on Mondays and Fridays.

A spokesman for Mr O’Keeffe denied that the Minister was claiming widespread abuse by teachers. The Minister was putting the figures out there, he said.

INTO general secretary John Carr said there was clearly not a problem in relation to teachers’ sick leave. “According to the Minister’s figures, there was a total of 59,992 uncertified sick days. This works out at about one per teacher per year. “A total of 12,734 uncertified substitute days in the whole school year were used on Mondays. This works out at an average of 340 on any given Monday. It is just over 0.5 per cent of the teaching population.”

Irish Times

59,992 divided by 12,734 is not a hundred miles away from one-fifth i.e. any one of five days in the week. If the Monday figure was exactly 12,000 then it would be as likely as any other day to take sick. There is the idea of 'personal days' though and it is surely understandable that the bit over the 12000 could be due to yes extended weekends - yes drinking included but more likely people coming back from holidays, funerals and other personal indulgence days. We can surely afford a few of them per year each ?

Auditor #9 wrote:

This is from the Irish Times today

Quote :

Mr O’Keeffe revealed that the teacher substitution regime was costing over €180 million per year. Figures released yesterday show the department paid for over 12,000 uncertified substitution days on Mondays, Tuesdays and Fridays last year.

The figures cover both primary and secondary schools. In a detailed presentation to the committee, Mr O’Keeffe referred specifically to the high cost of substitutions on Mondays and Fridays.

A spokesman for Mr O’Keeffe denied that the Minister was claiming widespread abuse by teachers. The Minister was putting the figures out there, he said.

INTO general secretary John Carr said there was clearly not a problem in relation to teachers’ sick leave. “According to the Minister’s figures, there was a total of 59,992 uncertified sick days. This works out at about one per teacher per year. “A total of 12,734 uncertified substitute days in the whole school year were used on Mondays. This works out at an average of 340 on any given Monday. It is just over 0.5 per cent of the teaching population.”

Irish Times

59,992 divided by 12,734 is not a hundred miles away from one-fifth i.e. any one of five days in the week. If the Monday figure was exactly 12,000 then it would be as likely as any other day to take sick. There is the idea of 'personal days' though and it is surely understandable that the bit over the 12000 could be due to yes extended weekends - yes drinking included but more likely people coming back from holidays, funerals and other personal indulgence days. We can surely afford a few of them per year each ?

If Mondays figures were 12,000 they would be the same as any other day only if any other day was 12,000, which it isn’t, but then neither is my uncle my aunt.

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

This is from the Irish Times today

Quote :

Mr O’Keeffe revealed that the teacher substitution regime was costing over €180 million per year. Figures released yesterday show the department paid for over 12,000 uncertified substitution days on Mondays, Tuesdays and Fridays last year.

The figures cover both primary and secondary schools. In a detailed presentation to the committee, Mr O’Keeffe referred specifically to the high cost of substitutions on Mondays and Fridays.

A spokesman for Mr O’Keeffe denied that the Minister was claiming widespread abuse by teachers. The Minister was putting the figures out there, he said.

INTO general secretary John Carr said there was clearly not a problem in relation to teachers’ sick leave. “According to the Minister’s figures, there was a total of 59,992 uncertified sick days. This works out at about one per teacher per year. “A total of 12,734 uncertified substitute days in the whole school year were used on Mondays. This works out at an average of 340 on any given Monday. It is just over 0.5 per cent of the teaching population.”

Irish Times

59,992 divided by 12,734 is not a hundred miles away from one-fifth i.e. any one of five days in the week. If the Monday figure was exactly 12,000 then it would be as likely as any other day to take sick. There is the idea of 'personal days' though and it is surely understandable that the bit over the 12000 could be due to yes extended weekends - yes drinking included but more likely people coming back from holidays, funerals and other personal indulgence days. We can surely afford a few of them per year each ?

If Mondays figures were 12,000 they would be the same as any other day only if any other day was 12,000, which it isn’t, but then neither is my uncle my aunt.

The article isn't the clearest piece of writing done today but am I wrong in saying that it's 12,700 uncertified sick substituted days out of a total of 60,000 per year of uncertified sick days where subs were employed ? There's a higher chance of a sick day happening on a Monday then ? Are you arguing that the 734 difference is significant tonys ?

I'm all for 'personal days' as I said - as long as they are not abused. In the private sector a business will expect 8 days annual uncertified sick leave - or is that one of the modern myths ? Some people call them 'personal days' which I think is humane and fair in public or private sectors. Think of me - I got two years continuous subbing because of sick days and maternity leave

Auditor #9 wrote:

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

This is from the Irish Times today

Quote :

Mr O’Keeffe revealed that the teacher substitution regime was costing over €180 million per year. Figures released yesterday show the department paid for over 12,000 uncertified substitution days on Mondays, Tuesdays and Fridays last year.

The figures cover both primary and secondary schools. In a detailed presentation to the committee, Mr O’Keeffe referred specifically to the high cost of substitutions on Mondays and Fridays.

A spokesman for Mr O’Keeffe denied that the Minister was claiming widespread abuse by teachers. The Minister was putting the figures out there, he said.

INTO general secretary John Carr said there was clearly not a problem in relation to teachers’ sick leave. “According to the Minister’s figures, there was a total of 59,992 uncertified sick days. This works out at about one per teacher per year. “A total of 12,734 uncertified substitute days in the whole school year were used on Mondays. This works out at an average of 340 on any given Monday. It is just over 0.5 per cent of the teaching population.”

Irish Times

59,992 divided by 12,734 is not a hundred miles away from one-fifth i.e. any one of five days in the week. If the Monday figure was exactly 12,000 then it would be as likely as any other day to take sick. There is the idea of 'personal days' though and it is surely understandable that the bit over the 12000 could be due to yes extended weekends - yes drinking included but more likely people coming back from holidays, funerals and other personal indulgence days. We can surely afford a few of them per year each ?

If Mondays figures were 12,000 they would be the same as any other day only if any other day was 12,000, which it isn’t, but then neither is my uncle my aunt.

The article isn't the clearest piece of writing done today but am I wrong in saying that it's 12,700 uncertified sick substituted days out of a total of 60,000 per year of uncertified sick days where subs were employed ? There's a higher chance of a sick day happening on a Monday then ? Are you arguing that the 734 difference is significant tonys ?

I'm all for 'personal days' as I said - as long as they are not abused. In the private sector a business will expect 8 days annual uncertified sick leave - or is that one of the modern myths ? Some people call them 'personal days' which I think is humane and fair in public or private sectors. Think of me - I got two years continuous subbing because of sick days and maternity leave

The 734 isn't very significant unless it's completely consistent from year to year. Even then, it's a 5% variation, which suggests that while some of those sickies may be weekend-related malingering, it's not very much - 1 in 20 cases, and that assumes there is no other explanation. Other possible explanations include something quite noticeable for anyone self-employed, which is that you tend to get sick during holidays and weekends. Also, if you get sick during the week you tend to soldier on, because you don't want to accept that you're about to go down for 3 days (that being a pretty standard length of time for really being unable to do much except suffer in minor illnesses). If you start feeling crap on Thursday, you're more likely to rationalise that you'll only be missing one day if you give in to it - and if you were already in bed the weekend, you're likely to say "well, I'll probably be OK by Tuesday if I stay in bed Monday".

Either way, 5% variation is not something you'd want to build a case on.

In teaching, personal days are something else entirely - and entirely at the discretion of the prinicipal. If you need a couple of days for something, you can arrange your own substitution, either within the school with colleagues to cover or else pay for someone else. I'm not sure if it constitutes a break in service or not. I stand to be corrected on that.

Still no one has dealt with the issues of teachers working out of hours...

Anmajornarthainig might do it but wait - he's on a long weekend away with the kids, from which he'll return exhausted because the burden of keeping an eye on other people's kids means you can't go to sleep until they have.
And if he left today he'll have had to leave work for his classes and when he comes back on Monday, wrecked, he'll have to mark that work and still do Monday's work and there's no time and a half for any of that.

Break in service - there's a new phrase for me. So personal days are exclusively for teachers are they ? Would it be sexist to suggest they were originally suggested by women teachers ?

I'm all for them anyway - personal days. Job-sharing would even be better.

Yes, you get paid for looking after two dozen mini-humans as EVM calls them - that's not always easy even for the bestest teachers in the whole world.

Auditor #9 wrote:

The article isn't the clearest piece of writing done today but am I wrong in saying that it's 12,700 uncertified sick substituted days out of a total of 60,000 per year of uncertified sick days where subs were employed ? There's a higher chance of a sick day happening on a Monday then ? Are you arguing that the 734 difference is significant tonys ?

I think the point would be that if Mondays & Fridays are + 700 of the norm then others days would be - 500 or thereabouts of the norm, making a variation of 10%+. Now there is either a reason for this 10% or there isn’t and we could discuss the possibilities. Alternatively we could make the 10% difference 5% and say no case to answer or say they do extra work and so are entitled to the odd long weekend and thereby there is no case to answer.
To save my shoes further damage, I agree, there is no case to answer.

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

The article isn't the clearest piece of writing done today but am I wrong in saying that it's 12,700 uncertified sick substituted days out of a total of 60,000 per year of uncertified sick days where subs were employed ? There's a higher chance of a sick day happening on a Monday then ? Are you arguing that the 734 difference is significant tonys ?

I think the point would be that if Mondays & Fridays are + 700 of the norm then others days would be - 500 or thereabouts of the norm, making a variation of 10%+. Now there is either a reason for this 10% or there isn’t and we could discuss the possibilities. Alternatively we could make the 10% difference 5% and say no case to answer or say they do extra work and so are entitled to the odd long weekend and thereby there is no case to answer.
To save my shoes further damage, I agree, there is no case to answer.

I don't know how ibis got his figures but according to mine 12000 is 20% of 60000 while 743 is 1.2% of 60,000. Isn't that right ?

It would seem that while teachers are not the best, they’re not the worst either.

From the Indo;
“Levels of sick leave are highest in the Department of Transport (17 days), the Department of Health (14.84 days) and Social and Family Affairs (14.74 days). This compares to an average of just 4.6 days per year for civil servants in the Department of Agriculture.”

From the same article, it seems everyone’s favourite politician is on his high horse;
“Fine Gael finance spokesperson Richard Bruton said there seemed to be a belief in some sections of the public service that sick days were "there to be taken".
"That attitude is one that just isn't acceptable, we can no longer afford it and it's vital to protect scarce taxpayers' money," he said.”

I’m sure I’ve heard those same sentiments before, but I’m damned if I can remember where.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Break in service - there's a new phrase for me. So personal days are exclusively for teachers are they ? Would it be sexist to suggest they were originally suggested by women teachers ?

Yes it would be sexist. I don't know if they're for teachers only. Perhaps all civil servants have them?

Quote :

I'm all for them anyway - personal days. Job-sharing would even be better.

Quote :

Yes, you get paid for looking after two dozen mini-humans as EVM calls them - that's not always easy even for the bestest teachers in the whole world.

The not-easy bit is part of the job and I don't think it's a discriminating factor when comparing teaching to other professions. Teachers who find the job too hard shouldn't do it, should demand extra training, press management and colleagues for support, work out whether the difficulty is with them or the kids and do something about it and/or get their unions to take action on what makes it hard.

The sustained, expected, unpaid overtime is something no one is willing to address, least of all, dare I say it, parents who get free babysitting.

Kate P wrote:

Anmajornarthainig might do it but wait - he's on a long weekend away with the kids, from which he'll return exhausted because the burden of keeping an eye on other people's kids means you can't go to sleep until they have.
And if he left today he'll have had to leave work for his classes and when he comes back on Monday, wrecked, he'll have to mark that work and still do Monday's work and there's no time and a half for any of that.

Left on Friday night after working Friday day. Back last night around 2:30 am. Kids were great. Everything went smoothly as well. Worth every second of it. The kids loved it. Genuinely don`t know what to do with myself now that I don`t have hundreds of phone calls/ conversations to have with kids during the organising of the weekend to occupy myself. Today wasn`t my most productive ever day I`ll admit but I was in so Batt o`Keeffe will be delighted. I would agree with the sentiment that uncertified sick leave is open to abuse and should therefore be reformed but I just don`t think that it is currently being done in a largescale way by teachers.

Quote :

Left on Friday night after working Friday day. Back last night around 2:30 am. Kids were great. Everything went smoothly as well. Worth every second of it. The kids loved it. Genuinely don`t know what to do with myself now that I don`t have hundreds of phone calls/ conversations to have with kids during the organising of the weekend to occupy myself. Today wasn`t my most productive ever day I`ll admit but I was in so Batt o`Keeffe will be delighted. I would agree with the sentiment that uncertified sick leave is open to abuse and should therefore be reformed but I just don`t think that it is currently being done in a largescale way by teachers.

Trips are always worth it - you build relationships with kids on trips that you could never develop over the course of the regular school week and that pays dividends for the rest of their time in school and yours.

But - and I'm playing devil's advocate with this I know and nobody is fighting back - if you had to get 40quid per hour or whatever the rate is for those hours you put in just on the weekend - never mind the non-teaching class time you put in to organising it, what would it have cost the Dept?

Kate P wrote:

Quote :

Left on Friday night after working Friday day. Back last night around 2:30 am. Kids were great. Everything went smoothly as well. Worth every second of it. The kids loved it. Genuinely don`t know what to do with myself now that I don`t have hundreds of phone calls/ conversations to have with kids during the organising of the weekend to occupy myself. Today wasn`t my most productive ever day I`ll admit but I was in so Batt o`Keeffe will be delighted. I would agree with the sentiment that uncertified sick leave is open to abuse and should therefore be reformed but I just don`t think that it is currently being done in a largescale way by teachers.

Trips are always worth it - you build relationships with kids on trips that you could never develop over the course of the regular school week and that pays dividends for the rest of their time in school and yours.

But - and I'm playing devil's advocate with this I know and nobody is fighting back - if you had to get 40quid per hour or whatever the rate is for those hours you put in just on the weekend - never mind the non-teaching class time you put in to organising it, what would it have cost the Dept?

A brave soul might point to the very generous holiday entitlements teachers enjoy, 14 to 18 weeks per year, as more than adequate compensation for any extra curricular work during the school year, but as there’s only so much pissing against the sometimes quite vicious winds of self interest anyone is willing to do, I will await with interest to see who might risk it.

Quote :

A brave soul might point to the very generous holiday entitlements teachers enjoy, 14 to 18 weeks per year, as more than adequate compensation for any extra curricular work during the school year, but as there’s only so much pissing against the sometimes quite vicious winds of self interest anyone is willing to do, I will await with interest to see who might risk it.

Would you expect that brave soul to also point out that the salary is for nine months divided over twelve? Hasn't that always been the case - or at least the justification. I taught for nearly ten years, had all the bonuses for degree and post grad qualifications and held posts at times and consistently earned less than people I know who were working in banking, the civil service, the ESB, multinationals and the private sector in general. Granted there are other benefits but the pay hasn't been one of them in comparison to other jobs that similarly qualified people were and are doing.

Have you taught, tonys (or anyone else) ?

Kate P wrote:

Quote :

A brave soul might point to the very generous holiday entitlements teachers enjoy, 14 to 18 weeks per year, as more than adequate compensation for any extra curricular work during the school year, but as there’s only so much pissing against the sometimes quite vicious winds of self interest anyone is willing to do, I will await with interest to see who might risk it.

Would you expect that brave soul to also point out that the salary is for nine months divided over twelve? Hasn't that always been the case - or at least the justification. I taught for nearly ten years, had all the bonuses for degree and post grad qualifications and held posts at times and consistently earned less than people I know who were working in banking, the civil service, the ESB, multinationals and the private sector in general. Granted there are other benefits but the pay hasn't been one of them in comparison to other jobs that similarly qualified people were and are doing.

What is the range of teacher's salaries Kate P ?

Point 1 on the basic scale is 31,804 point 25 (the highest) is 61,816. Then you get various other scales for if you got an honours degree and things like that.

See here

http://www.asti.ie/payandcon.htm#1

Kate P wrote:

Quote :

A brave soul might point to the very generous holiday entitlements teachers enjoy, 14 to 18 weeks per year, as more than adequate compensation for any extra curricular work during the school year, but as there’s only so much pissing against the sometimes quite vicious winds of self interest anyone is willing to do, I will await with interest to see who might risk it.

Would you expect that brave soul to also point out that the salary is for nine months divided over twelve? Hasn't that always been the case - or at least the justification. I taught for nearly ten years, had all the bonuses for degree and post grad qualifications and held posts at times and consistently earned less than people I know who were working in banking, the civil service, the ESB, multinationals and the private sector in general. Granted there are other benefits but the pay hasn't been one of them in comparison to other jobs that similarly qualified people were and are doing.

Come on now, paid for 9 months over 12, that’s a teachers union fairytale not intended to be swallowed by ordinary mortals. By public service standards and judged on a 12 month basis teachers are quite well paid, by international standards I understand Irish teachers are very well paid.
With the exception of the public service, a degree does not guarantee you any particular level of income, many’s the degree holder in the private sector has found themselves working for minimum wage when that was all they could get and if in the good times teachers want to compare themselves to the private sector then they must be prepared to take the risks of the private sector in bad times, no one is asking them to do that so private sector comparison doesn’t or shouldn’t come into play.