Our children deserve better.. INTO Meeting in Tramore on primary school class sizes

Trotter

Having been to the meeting referred to in the article below where the class sizes suffered by Waterford's children was discussed, I just thought I'd post the link and get your thoughts on it.

News and Star

There were a few politicians there, most of whom just went on about how they empathised and understood and related to the problem.

Most children in this county are in classrooms of 25 - 30 while some are in classrooms of up to 40 pupils according to some people at the INTO meeting in Tramore. Its shocking, and wouldnt be the case if children had votes!!

Only Brian O'Shea gave hard figures on Labour's intentions to drop the teacher pupil ratio to 20:1.

Ollie Wilkinson spoke on the governments behalf, and (Im parahrasing here) said he was proud of what the government had achieved and then went on to make a joke about how a school child called him Johnny Wilkinson.

One person in the audience rightly said he was out of order to make jokes at such a time where parents there were absolutely fuming at the governments neglect of teacher / child ratios. Needless to say, I dont see Ollie Wilkinson picking up many votes from that meeting.

In my own opinion, I found his little speech truly patronising and bordering on ignorant.

Anyway.. I just thought I'd ask you all to put pressure on the politicians on the doorstep as to why they see fit to leave our children sitting in classes of 25+, when teaching them becomes so difficult due to a lack of individual time for each pupil.

Labour seem to be the only ones at the moment with a commitment to lower the ratio to 20:1. Trust me everyone, your children will thank you for it if that happens.


p.s.. Interestingly Brendan McCann suggested that we should all pay extra tax to fund more school buildings and more teachers. I certainly heard a few groans when that was mentioned

merlante

Wilkinson is a muppet, what did we ever to do to FF to be inflicted with fools like himself and Kenneally?

karen3212

I hope I don't sound like a cow but I was in a class of 30 the whole way through my schooling and I got great results. I don't really understand how a teacher with 20 pupils would have any time to spend on individual pupils, surely an unrealistic ratio like 1 to 10 would give a teacher a chance of individual attention.
tbh I think it would be more constructive to put pupils that need individual attention into very very small classes, especially early on, say 1 to 5. Those of similar ability should be alright in a big class that's well controlled.
Only my opinion, don't fleece me please.

Trotter

karen3212 wrote:

I hope I don't sound like a cow but I was in a class of 30 the whole way through my schooling and I got great results. I don't really understand how a teacher with 20 pupils would have any time to spend on individual pupils, surely an unrealistic ratio like 1 to 10 would give a teacher a chance of individual attention.
tbh I think it would be more constructive to put pupils that need individual attention into very very small classes, especially early on, say 1 to 5. Those of similar ability should be alright in a big class that's well controlled.
Only my opinion, don't fleece me please.

If you left primary school after 1999 Karen, then the curriculum is completely different. It is based on interaction and group work, and exporation in learning.

As any teacher will tell you, there is a million miles between trying to teach this interactive curriculum to 20 children as opposed to 30. Its not a case of sitting there and watching the board any more. Far from it. Maybe do a day of substitute teaching or observation in a school some day and you'll see for yourself.

mad man

I agree.I was in a class that grew from 37 to 47 in my primary shcool over a three or four year period.It did not seem unusual or out of place.The teacher we had in the last year of primary was the best and got the best out of us.We had almost zero Irish by the end of 5th standard.By the end of 6th standard most of us had a good level of conversational Irish. In our mid years in Primary (4th and 5th class) we had teachers that had a reputation for being slack and this had nothing to do with class sizes.We went to secondary school where the class size resuced to 30 and in many cases 15 by secondary school and I couldn't say the smaller number was a positive thing.Academically maybe but socially definitely not.

Labour seems to have a habit of comparing apples and oranges.They are forever comparing us to Nordic countries and saying they can do it so we can do it but the variables are just not the same.Ireland still has a large rural population and that fact will skew class size statistics.The Labour party abolished third level fees under a guise of socialism but was really political populism which was a mistake that we are paying for now.

karen3212

I appreciate what you've said there trotter.
I don't have kids so I'd feel odd turning up at the local primary/secondary asking to watch for a day, I'd be afraid they'd think I was a pedophile or something.

I would really like to have a better understanding of how teachers do it these days. Could you explain how group/interactive learning works please? Does the teacher visit each group and help them along etc. I would just like to be able to imagine how teachers teach these days. Also is secondary school different?

Until I understand how it works I can't comment further.

I would still prefer to see more attention for kids that need it though, rather than more attention for all kids.

Trotter

karen3212 wrote:

I appreciate what you've said there trotter.
I don't have kids so I'd feel odd turning up at the local primary/secondary asking to watch for a day, I'd be afraid they'd think I was a pedophile or something.

I would really like to have a better understanding of how teachers do it these days. Could you explain how group/interactive learning works please? Does the teacher visit each group and help them along etc. I would just like to be able to imagine how teachers teach these days. Also is secondary school different?

Until I understand how it works I can't comment further.

I would still prefer to see more attention for kids that need it though, rather than more attention for all kids.

I wont go on trying to convice people why its so important to have lower class numbers, mainly because theres so much evidence to prove that it does mean a whole lot to each individual's education. The EU average is 20/1 and and it has been a huge deal for many countries, some of whom have managed to reduce it to 15/1. The evidence and research is there to prove it has to be reduced in Ireland.

In general, not just you Karen, its hard to explain to someone why the numbers should be reduced if they're part of the group that says "sure it did me no harm". The point is, you could have achieved and learned, and enjoyed school a lot more in a lower numbers class.

I hear so many older people saying "I hated school" and in the same breath saying "a slap did me no harm". My reaction there is.. well.. it caused you to hate school.. meaning you couldnt possibly have achieved your potential.

Nowadays, the curriculum offers the children a chance to enjoy school, and to have ownership of their experience. Explaining the ins and outs of the curriculum and how it all works is a 3 year degree or an 18 month postgrad so it'll be impossible for me to explain here.

Karen, the group work is done in mini groups in the class where the children might be looking at old photos for example and will need to discuss the dress of the people, their facial expressions, what they're doing, etc etc, with each child having a role in the group.. i.e. reader, reporter, group co-ordinator etc.

They then swap photos or else give mini presentations on what they think is happening etc. No longer do the children have to solely learn from the teacher.

This is the main point. The children now have the curriculum that allows them to learn from the experience of school, not just the teacher. The teacher facilitates this experience. With 30 children in the class, please take it from my own experience, it makes things much more difficult.

Its not good enough to say the children of 2007 shouldnt be entitled to low numbers in their classrooms, just because there was 40 odd in mine.. and it did me no harm etc.

School is about achieving and living your potential.. not ticking a load of boxes saying little Johhny now knows X, Y, Z.

I also have never heard anyone who actually has a school going child suggest that high class teacher ratios do no harm. Once you A) Have children or become a teacher, you see exactly the day to day difficulties that these high numbers bring to the teacher and the child.

Karen your suggestion that the money be spent on the kids that really need it is all fine.. and that is what the govt policy is today. However.. lets say your future children have no special needs. Will you be happy to see them in a class of 40 just because all of the money is being spent on a 4 to 1 ratio for children with special needs? I assure you you'll be livid. Your child will be your number 1 priority.

Special needs children are no longer segregated and taught independently and rightly so. In any given class, I could have international children, visually impaired children, children with dyslexia, children with ADHD etc.. all in one big melting pot. Give me a 20 - 1 ratio and I'll have ALL of those children leaving school with a smile on their face having done some serious learning and discovery.

With 35 in the class, I just cant do that.

Karen here is a very good document that all teachers have in their classroom. It's well worth a read for you. Introduction to the Primary Curriculum

Please trust my experience on this one.. the children deserve and need a low teacher pupil ratio.

I hope this post isnt going to draw in a heap of anti teacher/school comments. We're doing our best to give the children the best start possible. For that, they need a lot of attention in the classroom. We cant do that with the high numbers some children are experiencing.

Thanks for reading, I hope it clears things up

deisemum

I agree with Trotter, once you've got a child in school then you start to realise how school has changed over the years and when you see the amount and variety of school work they do you certainly want smaller class sizes.

Now my memory of school may not be the best since I left primary back in 1976 but hubby and I are often taken aback (in a good way) at the type of work they're doing in school nowadays.

Apart from the basics there seems to be a lot more interesting things covered as well. Nowadays they're doing science with practical classes that the children like though not quiet in the same league as Brainiac, computers, environmental studies, making CDs and DVDs of class projects and everyone having a role.

I happened to call to collect one of my children from school one day during class time. The were doing a practical science class. The teacher had the pupils in groups and she had to go from group to group to show each group how to make a light bulb work. It looked interesting from the doorway where I was standing but I could see it would have been better for both teacher and pupils if there were smaller class sizes.

I hated primary school but I reckon that had a lot to do with being beaten on an almost daily basis as were most pupils in my school. I did enjoy secondary school though. My own children have a different experience of school apart from one bad experience.

merlante

I heard that years of complaining by parents about the amount of homework that kids used to get has resulted in less learning off by rote, such as tables, spellings and so on. Is that true?

As much as I hated learning off anything, it is damn useful to know that 9x8=72 off the top of your head, and to have decent spelling. I don't a lot of the boring stuff was useful. Same with geography. As boring as it is to have to learn off the counties, mountains, rivers, etc. of Ireland, it is useful, and you don't forget *all* of it. I'd be a bit worried that all these new modern ideas might be pushing this stuff out.

Trotter

merlante wrote:

I heard that years of complaining by parents about the amount of homework that kids used to get has resulted in less learning off by rote, such as tables, spellings and so on. Is that true?

As much as I hated learning off anything, it is damn useful to know that 9x8=72 off the top of your head, and to have decent spelling. I don't a lot of the boring stuff was useful. Same with geography. As boring as it is to have to learn off the counties, mountains, rivers, etc. of Ireland, it is useful, and you don't forget *all* of it. I'd be a bit worried that all these new modern ideas might be pushing this stuff out.

None of that is being pushed out at all. If you feel like a read, have a look at this link and you'll see exactly what should be covered in primary school.

Primary Curriculum

I still do spellings, tables, etc and I do get them learned off. Theres lots of scope for making it fun though while still learning them off. I know teachers who get the class to do tables to rap music or whatever the childrens' favourite music is. Its up to the teacher to figure out how to get the stuff into their heads in a way thats interesting.

Dont be worried that that kind of stuff is being pushed out; it certainly isnt. For example, I've covered European rivers and mountains with a class recently and used google earth and a data projector. Same information being learned, but more interesting methods to get the point across.

deisemum

I can assure you that they're still teaching all the old basic stuff.

When I went to school we learnt our tables by rote, a bit like a chant. I've tried that method when helping mine but the teacher of my older boy said not to learn tables off by rote just pick at random, yet another teacher, her colleague said that they learn them by rote.

deisemum

I meant to add that children still get a lot of homework. If the teacher has taught something during the day then homework should only be a recap to see if the child has grasped it. It shouldn't be a case of parents having to sit down with a child and spend ages having to "teach" the child what they should have been taught during the day.

I think it's wrong for a teacher doling out 1.5 hours of homework to third class pupils, that's double the school homework policy and it's time for parents to find out what's going on. When I see that I know I'm not alone in thinking it's a teacher that can't do their job. If you've more than one child you could be all night doing homework.

Also if they get too much it wont sink in, they'll get frustrated and get a mental block and have a very negative attitude to homework. That's not taking into account the arguments it can cause in a family

Trotter

deisemum wrote:

I meant to add that children still get a lot of homework. If the teacher has taught something during the day then homework should only be a recap to see if the child has grasped it. It shouldn't be a case of parents having to sit down with a child and spend ages having to "teach" the child what they should have been taught during the day.

I think it's wrong for a teacher doling out 1.5 hours of homework to third class pupils, that's double the school homework policy and it's time for parents to find out what's going on. When I see that I know I'm not alone in thinking it's a teacher that can't do their job. If you've more than one child you could be all night doing homework.

Also if they get too much it wont sink in, they'll get frustrated and get a mental block and have a very negative attitude to homework. That's not taking into account the arguments it can cause in a family

Careful not to tar all teachers with the same brush. Thats just one of many teachers. Not all teachers give out 1.5 hours of homework. I certainly dont. I do like when parents help out a bit though. Its a team effort between the child, the parent, and the teacher.

Anyways.. back on topic I go.. before the teacher bashing starts. Lets hope the future Waterford TD's do their best to get the class sizes down in the constituency.

deisemum

I'm not out to go teacher bashing. I've got plenty of family who are teachers, both primary and secondary and if I was younger I'd strongly consider retraining to become a teacher.

I was just giving a parent's view on what some of us expect in relation to homework and an example of what's excessive and what parents may think.

Just realised my MIL was a primary school teacher here in Waterford city and environs, the witch may have taught some posters on this site.

She spent her last 20+ years teaching in the school my sons go to. Thank god she'd retired shortly before my older boy started. If she treated her pupils like she's treated me then school can't have been a great experience.

Trotter

deisemum wrote:

I'm not out to go teacher bashing. I've got plenty of family who are teachers, both primary and secondary and if I was younger I'd strongly consider retraining to become a teacher.

I was just giving a parent's view on what some of us expect in relation to homework and an example of what's excessive and what parents may think.

Just realised my MIL was a primary school teacher here in Waterford city and environs, the witch may have taught some posters on this site.

She spent her last 20+ years teaching in the school my sons go to. Thank god she'd retired shortly before my older boy started. If she treated her pupils like she's treated me then school can't have been a great experience.

LOL.. I didnt mean you were teacher bashing at all deisemum, I meant I could see it coming from other angles.

deisemum

Trotter for all I know you could have been teaching alongside my mother in law.

karen3212

I've been doing some reading and yes I have to agree there are benefits to smaller class sizes.
http://www.aera.net/uploadedFiles/Journals_and_Publications/Research_Points/RP_Fall03.pdf
For others that want to have a look I fournd the pdf above very interesting and fairly easy to read.(american educational research association).
From what I've read smaller classes are most beneficial for younger kids, next for disadvantaaged kids etc. I haven't seen much info for older kids as yet, I'm sure someone is doing it.
Though note they recommend classes for younger kids below 20 and of course more well qualified teachers.
I'm glad I learnt something.
This topic is probably relevant to people all around the country too.

merlante

Enjoyed reading your posts trotter and deisemum! Very interesting.

When I was in primary school in the eighties we definitely got too much homework. I was a pretty good student and it would have taken me about 1.5-2 hours to do it. Some of that time was after my father to get home after a stressful day's work to check that I had all the rote learned stuff learned off! It was a battle because I'd be trying to learn things off as quick as possible to get out onto the street to play with the other kids, whereas if I spent too little time and got it wrong I'd have to learn it all again, which would take more time in the long run than if I learned it properly, and it would also mean that I would be annoying my father again. So we'd both be going gradually more crazy as the night went on.

When I think back on it, it was just too much homework, and too much was expected of exhausted parents that just wanted to relax after a hard day's work. Good to see that the recommended amount is, what, 45 mins?

Also good to see that kids are still learning geography, tables, etc. My faith is restored. It must be great in primary school these days. All we ever hear about in this country is schools falling down due to lack of funding, but never about the fact that teaching practises and class sizes are way better than they were when we were kids. (32/33 in my old class btw.)

deisemum

When I was going to primary school which was a small country school the most that were in the school ranged from 59 to 65 pupils ranging across the 8 classes.

The master taught 3rd to 6th class and Mrs. XXXX taught junior infants to 2nd class.

There were 8 in my class, 4 in my sister's class but each teacher had charge of about 30 pupils. My children find it amusing that there was a class of 4 as there are 62 pupils in each of their years but that's split in two. There are over 500 pupils in their primary school and that's going to get a lot higher in the next few years as the school are now taking in 3 classes of 29.

The 2 classrooms in my school days were bleak compared to the child centred classrooms today and the only hands-on interaction was getting beaten with a stick or getting punched around the classroom.

My older boy is in 5th class and the way they are taught today is a vast improvement than in my day. I think they're learning alot more as well. I'm often amazed at what they're learning and it does cross my mind that if I'd had the same type of education god only knows what I could have achieved.

If classes are too big then I think it's more mob control and less time teaching.

Trotter

merlante wrote:

All we ever hear about in this country is schools falling down due to lack of funding, but never about the fact that teaching practises and class sizes are way better than they were when we were kids. (32/33 in my old class btw.)

Here's the thing though.. the class sizes of 30+ today are causing more trouble now because of the nature of the new curriculum than they would have 20 years ago.

I could easily teach 35 kids if I put them in double desks, facing the board, and have them sitting up straight and writing down or watching whats on the board all day. BOOORING. That was most people's memory of primary school if I might make that assumption.

Now.. group work.. each group is sitting around a double table and has a battery kit and a load of wires and connectors and bulbs of different types. How am I to teach the children to learn in this hands on way if by the time Im finished explaining to group 1 whats going wrong, the rest of them have blown the bulbs by sticking their 5 batteries onto the smallest bulb.. etc.

Old curriculum... no problem.. line the kids up and I'll teach from the board. I wont get much personal satisfaction from that.

New curriculum.. drop the numbers in the class, giving me the tools to have these kids achieving, learning, discovering, laughing, talking, listening, etc.. All this is done in a structured way where I'm in full charge but Im guiding the learning, not throwing it at them for the clever ones to catch.

How many of you learned a whole lot in primary school about maths or science from what the other children had to say? I didnt anyway. Thats what the new curriculum gives us.

BUT.. We as teachers just cannot teach it properly without a small pupil/teacher ratio.

Please push the local TD's on the class sizes issue when they knock on your door.



Edit... This might be good over in the teacher forum where I'm the mod.. but lets just keep it to local based opinions for now! We're doin grand on our own.

merlante

I agree with a lot of the points made. Under the old system the bring kids were bored, the stupid ones (don't know the PC term ) never learned, and the pace was probably set for the big group in the middle, whereas now it looks like it's spread more evenly.

deisemum

Trotter wrote:

Now.. group work.. each group is sitting around a double table and has a battery kit and a load of wires and connectors and bulbs of different types. How am I to teach the children to learn in this hands on way if by the time Im finished explaining to group 1 whats going wrong, the rest of them have blown the bulbs by sticking their 5 batteries onto the smallest bulb.. etc.

That's what I saw and as you can imagine once one group have been shown how the thing works and the teacher has moved on to another group it's an ideal time for the pupils to mess or fidget. If there are a number of groups messing or fidgeting while the teacher is occupied by one group it makes it more difficult for the teacher to manage the class or she/he could easily get distracted from what she/he is trying to show the group if she/he are too busy controlling the class.

I'm actually looking forward to grilling any TD that comes near my door. :rolleyes:

Trotter

merlante wrote:

Under the old system the bring kids were bored, the stupid ones (don't know the PC term ) never learned, and the pace was probably set for the big group in the middle, whereas now it looks like it's spread more evenly.

Differentiated learning in an integrated environment

Teacher manual speak for - Throw em all in together and teach them the same stuff.. but different.


Its actually quite cool how it works! Johnny is a brilliant child, Mary is very good but chatty, and little Ted finds maths very hard. So.. you work out beforehand, or based on experience, what you'd like each to achieve in a given lesson and you work to those objectives.

Johnny goes home saying Mammy I did it! Mary roars out the gate to Daddy that she's flying at her sums, and sure Johnny is baffled but loving it because he got all the normal stuff right first time but you've given him a few really tough ones to get his head around. Everyone's happy.

You might have a fantastic result where Ted gets his first long division sum correct, whereas the other two managed that a week ago but are now being challenged with long division combined with decimals.

Everyone's being challenged at their own level, and working to each's potential. Result!


AAANYWAY... As I said.. FF dont seem interested in the class size issue. FG and Labour are, however Labour are the only ones putting their money where their mouths are from what I've heard so far. I've heard Mary Roche the Independent is big on the class size issue, so we'd need her to fight for teacher allocations for individual Waterford schools. Brendan McCann wants us all to pay extra tax for more teachers and class buildings. (Ignoring the fact that the richest people in Ireland pay feck all tax anyway.)

deisemum

This is being discussed on the Sunday Supplement on Todayfm at this very moment. Mary Hanafin is on and her excuse for not meeting her commitment to reducing class sizes is special needs and foreign national children who don't speak english.

She's a brass neck that one. I really thought once a teacher became Minister for Education that things would really improve. To use a well used teacher phrase of "could do better" comes to mind. :rolleyes: Could you just imagine a parent/teacher with that one. :eek:

Trotter

She's talking some sh1te. I've never heard someone bouncing around ideas which are already in place and making them sound new and fresh. She's out of her depth.

deisemum

Did you hear her on about catholic schools and how they legally have to take non catholic pupils.

Did you hear the half laugh sneer thing she does at the other guests especially the FG guest.

Earlier when they were discussing the poor state of the health service she sneered that when she's canvassing she's getting people praising the health service and how a person was out cleaning his windows and was full of praise for the health service when he had his lung removed. She was implying that negative stories on the health service are not the norm but just the odd individual case. Is she for real, she's making my blood boil.

She wouldn't want to be near me and come out with that comment after I saw what my late father went through trying to get treatment for cancer.

merlante

Trotter wrote:

She's talking some sh1te. I've never heard someone bouncing around ideas which are already in place and making them sound new and fresh. She's out of her depth.

What hope do we have if a teacher can't sort out school problems?

I already had no time for her after the attitude she took to the proposal to upgrade the WIT to a university.

mickoneill30

Trotter wrote:

Most children in this county are in classrooms of 25 - 30 while some are in classrooms of up to 40 pupils according to some people at the INTO meeting in Tramore. Its shocking, and wouldnt be the case if children had votes!!

The average in Ireland is 24 per class as far as the OECD says. Is it out of date? I'm not arguing, just asking.

Trotter

mickoneill30 wrote:

The average in Ireland is 24 per class as far as the OECD says. Is it out of date? I'm not arguing, just asking.

Heres the thing.. and Im glad you brought it up..

There are a very small number of schools where the local area's population is very small. These areas may have schools with classes of less than 10 children. These are very very rare, but enough to effect the average. There may also be a minority of schools with disadvantaged status who may have low class numbers. These very low numbers are enough to bring the averages down by 6 or 7 points when you consider the issue on a national level.

Theres also a difference between the number of teachers, and the number of class teachers. A school with 200 children and 10 teachers doesnt mean a 20 to 1 class ratio.

If 2 of those teachers are language support and 2 are resource / learning support, that means that there are 6 class teachers.

In that hypothetical case, the ratio is 20 pupils to 1 teacher.. sounds great. In reality, the class teacher to pupil ratio for that school would be 33 to 1. So, the average number of students per class would be 33.

Even though thats a hypothetical example, its not an extreme one by any means.

Heres a quote from the INTO website that gives the main point of the problem.. "Currently, a quarter of all pupils in primary school are in classes of greater than thirty. Less than fifteen percent are in classes of under twenty, the class size promised by government at the start of its term of office. In total eighty five out of every hundred primary school pupils are in classes above government targets."

deisemum

Mary Hanafin was saying it's 17 pupils per teacher and this allows for Resource and language support teachers, the average class size is 28.

Anyone I know that have children in other schools say it's between 29 and 37 pupils in their children's classes.

If class sizes along with plenty of other issues are not dealt with now while the money's there then god help us when the recession comes