Resignation letters flood MoE on talk of 5 yrs extension in service :: KT
Khaleej Times reports:
1. If a teacher had planned to work for 20 years or more there is no effect.
2. A teacher who has 15 years of service and who planned to retire at the first opportunity will retire as planned.
3. A teacher who has 15 years of service and who was planning to retire before reaching 20 years of service now faces a choice of entering retirement immediately (in advance of the rule change) or staying on until they have earned 20 years.
4. A teacher with less than 15 years of service who planned to retire before 20 years of service will now have less of an incentive to stay. Some will find better opportunities and leave.
5. The attractiveness of entering teaching is reduced. Fewer persons will be attracted into the profession.
At the present time the Ministry of Education has difficulty attracting and retaining sufficient numbers of qualified teachers in government schools. The solution to that problem is to increase the reward to teaching. Increasing the number of years to be eligible for retirement, and making no other change in compensation, decreases the reward to entering or remaining in the profession.
It could be that increasing the years-of-service before retirement combined with an increase in salary sufficient to attract the number of teachers required is good policy. Not only would the average experience of teachers be higher (in the steady state), but years-of-service may screen out less dedicated teachers.
Khaleej Times reports:
A proposal hammered out by the General Pensions Authority to increase the retirement period from 15 years in service to 20 years is under study.Teachers are expecting that the rules on years of service will be increased, but that those who have earned 15 years or are nearing 15 years of service can act quickly and retire with benefits under the existing rules. How do they respond?
This had evoked a sharp reaction from a large number of national women teachers whose duration of service was nearing 15 years. They were on their way to retire entitling them to a pension (60 per cent of the salary), but the new proposal would compel them to remain in service for five more years.
1. If a teacher had planned to work for 20 years or more there is no effect.
2. A teacher who has 15 years of service and who planned to retire at the first opportunity will retire as planned.
3. A teacher who has 15 years of service and who was planning to retire before reaching 20 years of service now faces a choice of entering retirement immediately (in advance of the rule change) or staying on until they have earned 20 years.
4. A teacher with less than 15 years of service who planned to retire before 20 years of service will now have less of an incentive to stay. Some will find better opportunities and leave.
5. The attractiveness of entering teaching is reduced. Fewer persons will be attracted into the profession.
At the present time the Ministry of Education has difficulty attracting and retaining sufficient numbers of qualified teachers in government schools. The solution to that problem is to increase the reward to teaching. Increasing the number of years to be eligible for retirement, and making no other change in compensation, decreases the reward to entering or remaining in the profession.
It could be that increasing the years-of-service before retirement combined with an increase in salary sufficient to attract the number of teachers required is good policy. Not only would the average experience of teachers be higher (in the steady state), but years-of-service may screen out less dedicated teachers.
Labels: *, Best of EmEc 2005, Best of Emirates Economist, education
posted by John B. Chilton at 9/24/2005 01:28:00 PM
3 Comments:
So if you started work when you were 25 you could 'retire' at 40 on a 60% pension! And presumably nothing to stop you getting another job?
Sometimes I wish I was an Emarati!
Ditto keefieboy's comment - that is the most ludicrous thing I ever heard.
If the goverment believes that people deserve a generous pension after just two decades of contributing to the workforce, then that is its business. A very foolish one.
Is it foolish or overly generous when the government already has trouble attracting and retaining qualified nationals at the current terms?
Which of following positions are you taking?:
1. MoE should not worry that most of its teachers are nonnationals?
or
2. Eligibility for retirement should be raised to 25 or 30 years (because it is important to retain experienced teachers), AND teacher salaries should be increased (because otherwise the increase in the eligibility requirement decrease the flow of new teachers in the profession).
or
3. Nationals need to get a new work ethic and be willing to go to work for less. (I note that if social assistance was dependent on income work incentives would be much stronger.)
Post a Comment
<< Home