# Teacher Numbers and public expenditure



## cremeegg (1 Jul 2013)

In addition to the ongoing issue of increasing public spending, there is concern at the moment about class sizes.

My rock the boat proposal to address both issues is to reduce teachers pay by 20% and increase the number of teachers by 15%. This would improve the quality of education received by our children, reduce the pressure on teachers, (it is much more difficult to teach 28 children than 24 in a class), and improve the public finances. 

What's not to love.

I also believe that this idea could have wider application in the public services. We need more nurses, nurses need more nurses, to reduce the pressure they are presently working under.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (1 Jul 2013)

Would we not need a massive school building programme as well? 

In general though, the idea of introducing job sharing or reduced hours into the public service (and private sector) would be a good way of reducing unemployment or distributing it more evenly.


----------



## Deiseblue (2 Jul 2013)

cremeegg said:


> In addition to the ongoing issue of increasing public spending, there is concern at the moment about class sizes.
> 
> My rock the boat proposal to address both issues is to reduce teachers pay by 20% and increase the number of teachers by 15%. This would improve the quality of education received by our children, reduce the pressure on teachers, (it is much more difficult to teach 28 children than 24 in a class), and improve the public finances.
> 
> ...



A novel idea , reducing pay by 20% will reduce the pressure on teachers , nurses & the wider public service !

Increasing staffing levels is one thing but one has to wonder if there is any real point as the schools , hospitals etc. would undoubtedly be closed due to industrial action & when such action is over the country would be left with a hugely disaffected demotivatedwork force - that's what's not to love .

Such a scattergun approach would have a negative impact on the social fabric of the country for years to come & the industrial relations scenario would not be pretty.


----------



## Purple (2 Jul 2013)

cremeegg said:


> In addition to the ongoing issue of increasing public spending, there is concern at the moment about class sizes.
> 
> My rock the boat proposal to address both issues is to reduce teachers pay by 20% and increase the number of teachers by 15%. This would improve the quality of education received by our children, reduce the pressure on teachers, (it is much more difficult to teach 28 children than 24 in a class), and improve the public finances.
> 
> ...



We need more teachers and they are overpaid by international standards but they've already taken pay cuts and tax increases and so a blanket cut of 20% would be economically damaging and socially disastrous.
We've more than enough nurses, they are just badly utilised. By the way, nurses are just as overpaid as teachers by international standards but then again so are most of us.


----------



## ashambles (2 Jul 2013)

There's two situations, primary and second level. 

I've not seen recent figures but as far as I know Ireland has one of the lowest pupil teacher ratios in the OECD at second level. However that doesn't translate into lower class sizes.

The problem at second level is that we've a short school year, but a long school week. This is an inefficient way to run an educational system. (It's also a terrible way for pupils to learn.) 

It's not intuitive to see why this is the case, but the problem is mostly that you end up hiring teachers to fill in gaps in the timetable that are created due to the need in Irish schools to deliver more hours per week than elsewhere. 

If you mention this to permanent teachers, i.e. that they should teach less per week, and work more weeks they'll tend to agree that would be the best way to work but they're not giving up any holidays. The non-permanent teachers they don't want it to change either as timetable pressure is largely the reason they can survive on scraps from the permanent teachers.

I would have hoped a seemingly perceptive minister such as Quinn might have at least mentioned this fundamental flaw, however regardless of IMF bailouts touching the school year doesn't seem to be on any politician's agenda.


----------



## Purple (2 Jul 2013)

+1 to all of that ashambles


----------



## cremeegg (2 Jul 2013)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Would we not need a massive school building programme as well?
> 
> In general though, the idea of introducing job sharing or reduced hours into the public service (and private sector) would be a good way of reducing unemployment or distributing it more evenly.



Yes we would need an increased school building programme.

And the money for this would need to be borrowed. And I believe it is wrong to borrow to fund our present lifestyles. 

However borrowing for capital expenditure purposes is not counted as part of the current deficit, and with some reason. Improved education will improve the productive capacity of the workforce and should increase the size of the economy in the long run.

The actual building programme would also stimulate employment in construction in the short term. Which would be an added advantage.

I am not clear whether you agree with me Brendan, but I think the argument you out forward tends to support my case.


----------



## cremeegg (2 Jul 2013)

Deiseblue said:


> A novel idea , reducing pay by 20% will reduce the pressure on teachers , nurses & the wider public service !



My suggestion was that increasing teacher numbers by 15% would reduce pressure on teachers


----------



## cremeegg (2 Jul 2013)

Purple said:


> a blanket cut of 20% would be economically damaging and socially disastrous.



Why would it be economically damaging? Remember we would employ 15% more teachers and take those people off the dole. This should more than compensate for the reduced spending power of the existing teachers.

When you say socially disastrous, I presume you mean that existing teachers, would strike. I believe that with good political leadership and an economy wide programme involving all sectors not just teachers, that the proposal could be accepted. 




Purple said:


> We've more than enough nurses, they are just badly utilised. By the way, nurses are just as overpaid as teachers by international standards but then again so are most of us.



I am not really in a position to comment. But I am intrigued to hear this. Why are they so badly utilised.


----------



## Purple (2 Jul 2013)

cremeegg said:


> Why would it be economically damaging? Remember we would employ 15% more teachers and take those people off the dole. This should more than compensate for the reduced spending power of the existing teachers.


Entry level teaching salaries, already 10% lower than they were a few years back, would mean that many teachers would still be entitled to welfare payments such as FIS. None of them would pay any income tax so they state would be worse off; paying salaries instead of dole but no net tax increase.



cremeegg said:


> When you say socially disastrous, I presume you mean that existing teachers, would strike. I believe that with good political leadership and an economy wide programme involving all sectors not just teachers, that the proposal could be accepted.


It would be socially disastrous because of the impact it would have on the thousands of teachers who would lose their homes, default of loans etc. Teachers are members of society as well. It’s agreed by most that they got pay increases that were way ahead of inflation and that the state couldn’t afford but that’s history and it’s not possible to wind back the clock.






cremeegg said:


> I am not really in a position to comment. But I am intrigued to hear this. Why are they so badly utilised.


Bad management and self-serving unions that stymie change and progress to the detriment of the country and their own members long term interests because of their ignorant bias and adherence to their bankrupt and morally reprehensible socialist ideology.


----------



## Deiseblue (2 Jul 2013)

cremeegg said:


> My suggestion was that increasing teacher numbers by 15% would reduce pressure on teachers



Work wise yes , economically no ! - a further pay cut of 20% would cause huge financial & industrial relations problems & let's not forget that you suggested that such pay cuts should be considered public sector wide .

Presumably as your idea is to reduce pay thereby increasing the capacity to employ more people then you propose that such an idea should also apply equally to the private sector ? - after all the same principle applies .


----------



## cremeegg (3 Jul 2013)

Deiseblue said:


> Presumably as your idea is to reduce pay thereby increasing the capacity to employ more people then you propose that such an idea should also apply equally to the private sector ? - after all the same principle applies .



I dont see this as any type of principle, just a pragmatic suggestion.

Would it be useful in the private sector. Probably in some areas.

However there are two issues to consider in looking at an idea like this in the private sector. 

1. My taxes don't pay private sector workers, so it is not my responsibility as a taxpayer to have any opinion as to how private sector businesses organise themselves.

2. If private sector organisations get their employment and wage policies seriously wrong, they go out of business. When public organisations do the same, they can increase taxes and borrow money for our children to pay back.


----------



## cremeegg (3 Jul 2013)

mugga said:


> Hey, have you suggested that for your own job too??  To relieve the pressure there??I'm sure whatever your job is it would be 'wonderful' there too!  After all "What's not to love"



I have actually done this in my own work. Last November I got to a point where I was working all day Saturday every Saturday, so I got someone to work for me on a part time basis.

I ended up finishing early on a Friday. My quality of life improved dramatically, my income reduced as well but this was a welcome trade off in my case.

I understand that a proposal like this for teachers would remove the element of choice from teachers that I had.

However I do not believe that the country's education policy, employment policy, or public finances, should be held up in the interests of existing employees.

I also accept that certain bridging measures could be put in place for affected existing teachers, special assistance with mortgages for example.


----------



## Deiseblue (3 Jul 2013)

cremeegg said:


> I dont see this as any type of principle, just a pragmatic suggestion.
> 
> Would it be useful in the private sector. Probably in some areas.
> 
> ...



You were the one who broadened your proposal of a 20% cut to all sectors when you stated that such a proposal " could be accepted " if there was " an economy wide programme involving all sectors not just teachers " .

Do you really think that it's a pragmatic solution to further cut multi sectoral pay by 20% given the financial & industrial mayhem that would follow ?


----------



## Purple (3 Jul 2013)

Deiseblue said:


> You were the one who broadened your proposal of a 20% cut to all sectors when you stated that such a proposal " could be accepted " if there was " an economy wide programme involving all sectors not just teachers " .
> 
> Do you really think that it's a pragmatic solution to further cut multi sectoral pay by 20% given the financial & industrial mayhem that would follow ?



And what about the businesses that aren't understaffed and/or can't find the people they are looking for to fill existing open positions?


----------



## Protocol (3 Jul 2013)

cremeegg said:


> My rock the boat proposal to address both issues is to reduce teachers pay by 20%


 

Bear in mind that teacher's pay has been cut *three* times already.

New teacher's pay has been cut *five* times during the recent past.


----------



## Deiseblue (3 Jul 2013)

Purple said:


> And what about the businesses that aren't understaffed and/or can't find the people they are looking for to fill existing open positions?



Sorry Purple but I don't know what your point is ?


----------



## Purple (3 Jul 2013)

Deiseblue said:


> Sorry Purple but I don't know what your point is ?



I'm agreeing with you (I hope that makes you as uncomfortable as it does me!). The idea that cutting pay in order to employ more people will ever work in a sweeping manner across the entire economy is daft. It's the ultimate blunt instrument.
Where there is a recognised shortage and there is a pool of suitably skilled labour available then it can work but where there's no shortage and/or no available labour then it's a daft idea.


----------



## cremeegg (3 Jul 2013)

Purple said:


> Where there is a recognised shortage and there is a pool of suitably skilled labour available then it can work but where there's no shortage and/or no available labour then it's a daft idea.



There is a recognised shortage of teachers in Irish primary schools at the moment. The pupil teacher ratio is 28 to 1 against an ideal of 24 to 1

There are many qualified primary school teachers unemployed, and more who have emigrated recently.

Can the idea be spread out beyond teachers?

I suspect that this situation pertains in other areas of the public service, nurses certainly are emigrating in large numbers, although you say that there are enough employed at present.

There are also 400,000 people unemployed at present so that is a large pool of available labour. Training maybe needed to qualify them to work in other areas of labour shortage, but I strongly suspect such areas exist.


----------



## Purple (3 Jul 2013)

cremeegg said:


> There are also 400,000 people unemployed at present so that is a large pool of available labour. Training maybe needed to qualify them to work in other areas of labour shortage, but I strongly suspect such areas exist.



This gets trotted out all the time and it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The areas where we are short of skills are skilled areas. 
Therefore some "training" won't be of any use. What we need is people who are trained in their field with years of experience. Retraining people is fine as long as we can wait 5 or 10 years for that to happen but the problem is that we need them now. There is no solution other than look for skilled people from other countries.


----------



## Deiseblue (3 Jul 2013)

Purple said:


> I'm agreeing with you (I hope that makes you as uncomfortable as it does me!). The idea that cutting pay in order to employ more people will ever work in a sweeping manner across the entire economy is daft. It's the ultimate blunt instrument.
> Where there is a recognised shortage and there is a pool of suitably skilled labour available then it can work but where there's no shortage and/or no available labour then it's a daft idea.



Pigs have just flown past my window , their silhouettes framed by the blue moon in the background !


----------

