mad or not to do start primary teaching

Rosita

dg647 wrote: »

I'd say you could teach all that can be taught to a person about teaching in 18 months - which is more teacher training than any secondary teacher has.

Can you back this statement up with facts?

I am adstonished you need this backed up as I assumed all of this would be well known to anyone likely to be reading this forum. Really and truly this stuff is so basic that it should not need to be amplified further here.

The primary post-grad training courses are 18 months long - the secondary training course (the 'H-Dip' or PGDE) is 9 months long. Simply maths really.

If you need this "backed up" further please check out the webite of the various universities.

TaxiManMartin

Bottom line.
Someone who has been teaching for a long time says that Hibernian graduates or any other post grads are not up to the standard of graduates from the Bachelor of Education course.

The statement he made was based on experience, not some fact he pulled out of his ass. I would be more ready to believe in his experience than someone who thinks that it only takes 18 months to make you a good teacher.

Think about it. Who would you rather have if you have a choice of first time teachers (and they have a huge choice now, as well as of experienced teachers). Someone who has done a minor course or someone who has a much better degree.

I know it hurts if you've taken the easy option and its not working out now, but if you think you are good enough then give yourself a leg up - do the Bachelor of Education.

Rosita

TaxiManMartin wrote: »

Bottom line.


1) Someone who has been teaching for a long time says that Hibernian graduates or any other post grads are not up to the standard of graduates from the Bachelor of Education course.

2) The statement he made was based on experience, not some fact he pulled out of his ass.

3) I would be more ready to believe in his experience than someone who thinks that it only takes 18 months to make you a good teacher.

4) Think about it. Who would you rather have if you have a choice of first time teachers (and they have a huge choice now, as well as of experienced teachers). Someone who has done a minor course or someone who has a much better degree.

5) I know it hurts if you've taken the easy option and its not working out now, but if you think you are good enough then give yourself a leg up - do the Bachelor of Education.

1) Yes, and your point is? That's an opinion of one person, no more no less. You are presenting the opinion of an unknown third-party as something that we should have no choice but to accept? Sorry if we don't swallow it all in the one go.

2) So you say, but what experience of the courses has he except interviewing a few people who did them? Doesn't make him the greatest living expert. And it certainly does not make the point inarguable. Can he speak with knowledgable authority on the comparative content of the various courses? Can he specify the modules that apparently lead to a three-year course candidate being a far better teacher and talk in detail about their content? Or is he operating from a hunch that has no real objective value? (which might be interpreted as indeed pulling stuff out of his ass) Certainly a principal teacher that I know and have cited here dismissed Hibernia and then admitted in the next sentence that he knew nothing about it.

3) You might be "more ready to believe in his experience than someone who thinks that it only takes 18 months to make you a good teacher."

I am not sure who said "it only takes 18 months to make you a good teacher", but lest there be any confusion with anything I wrote, let me refresh your memory. Here's what I wrote: I'd say you could teach all that can be taught to a person about teaching in 18 months - which is more teacher training than any secondary teacher has. The rest they must learn through experience at the coalface as they go along. What I said was that there is a certain amount of theory which a teacher can be given access to - the rest is learning as you go along and dovetailing your personality with the work. In that context, the idea that it really matters a whole lot how long your training course is doesn't make sense as long as it covers said theory reasonably. Obviously this is quite a different opinion to the one you are presenting on my (I presume) behalf in order to try to undermine my argument.

And you can be assured that getting you to "believe" me doesn't enter into the equation. I couldn't care less about that. I'm just objecting to and challenging a big sweeping dismissal of a host of courses and teachers based on what appears to be very little substance.

But I would be astonished if many people seriously believed that that a good teacher could be magically made in three years of a college course as opposed to 18 months.

4) I'd rather have the potentially better teacher. Whether the person was 21 and had a common or garden B.Ed or another degree, a bit of life experience and a post-grad wouldn't bother me.

5) If this is meant to be another personal dig at me, you really should have read one of my previous posts where I made this prescient comment (in anticipation of this typical tactic of someone who is losing an argument - play the man, never mind the ball) - Just for the record I am neither a primary teacher nor a prospective one, so what I say is genuinely impartial.

I thought we might have avoided that particular predictable jibe by writing that but not so.

I will never ever teach in a primary classroom - it simply never entered the equation for me, despite having three siblings who went the B.Ed route and are at it for years now.

I couldn't care less either way which course is reputedly better, but it seems irrational to me that the length of a college course for teaching is considered such a big deal - it's not as if one is a weekend course - especially when some all the post-grads bar Hibernia are provided by the same colleges that provide the three-year courses. So even if Hibernia can be dismissed as not being old-hat enough for the traditionalists, at least the other colleges should know what they are about.

Anyway, most people I know seem to agree that the theory bears limited relation to what someone brings to the classroom anyway, despite the remarkable faith you and your friend appear to have in the theory of teaching.

That's my story, we don't know what is driving your views. Perhaps you are a hard-done-by B.Ed graduate who couldn't get a job for love nor money? Who knows? Who cares?

rainbowtrout

dg647 wrote: »

Can you back this statement up with facts?

i'm glad you pointed this out...

Rosita wrote: »

I am adstonished you need this backed up as I assumed all of this would be well known to anyone likely to be reading this forum. Really and truly this stuff is so basic that it should not need to be amplified further here.

The primary post-grad training courses are 18 months long - the secondary training course (the 'H-Dip' or PGDE) is 9 months long. Simply maths really.

If you need this "backed up" further please check out the webite of the various universities.

I did the FOUR year teaching training course in UL. BSc. Science Education which qualifies me as a secondary teacher in Biology, Chemistry and Agriculture. UL run a number of such courses in different subjects as do DCU.


I think the point TaxiManMartin was trying to make (and it's not one I necessarily agree with) is Mary I and St. Pat's graduates have been in college for 3/4 years where the focus on everything they do is to do with primary teaching. That was also my experience. Whether I was in a biology lecture or a chemistry lab there was always reference back to teaching. throughout the course and when you are doing the education part over four years there is always a teaching element to the course. People who enter those courses tend to want to teach and find out very quickly if they don't like it or are not suited to it and get out while they can. With Hibernia people do it as an add on to become qualified as primary teachers so their main focus was not perhaps originally not on teaching and when they are doing the course on line/distance learning while they are learning at home, I know personally having to attend lectures and being surrounded by people doing the same as me made me more aware of what I was getting into. There as no escape from it.

Before people start attacking me, I'm not knocking Hibernia or any other post grad course, I know a number of Hibernia grads who have secured jobs and are doing very well, I can just imagine how some principals might view the course when in a nut shell it might be (unfairly) described as 18 months, study from home to become a teacher. Even teaching practice aside, I know that being in college and having to make presentations in tutorials improved my presentation and delivery skills enormously before I went into the classroom which is perhaps a downside to studying online. But as has already been pointed out here, Hibernia applicants and graduates come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences, some bringing those skills with them and surely that stuff is sorted out at the interview stage. Hibernia grads feel free to correct me, I'm not familiar with the minute details of the course. But this is possibly the view point some principals have of the course.

Also years back and perhaps now but to a lesser extent, teaching was seen as a safe, permanent, pensionable job and those that got a teaching job stayed in it for life. Graduates now are much more likely to leave it and do something else if they don't like it. Hibernia grads who have difficulty getting work because of their qualification may be coming up against principals and boards of management who may be a little old fashioned in their outlook and averse to change, much like that principal mentioned in an earlier post 'I don't know anything about the internet'. As far as he was concerned Hibernia could be the same as ECDL. Ignorance for sure, but at the end of the day he's the employer.

Rosita

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I think the point TaxiManMartin was trying to make (and it's not one I necessarily agree with) is Mary I and St. Pat's graduates have been in college for 3/4 years where the focus on everything they do is to do with primary teaching. That was also my experience.

I'm not altogether sure that that is the point he was trying to make. The point he seemed to be trying to make is that my friend said x and therefore it is right.

An abstract dicussion on the amount of time that is required to train a teacher is another matter. For example at secondary level most teachers will have one year's training and that's their lot. I rarely hear a suggestion that this course should be longer.

Yes, the complete focus for a three-year course might be to do with primary teaching but surely the post-grads are equally teaching-focused? The question is to what extent does a student benefit from extra time in college studying theory of education and another subject compared to someone who does a post-grad?

Can the significance of this extra time be objectively quantified?

And it is true to say that Hibernia graduates are likely to (I don't know any of them so I am generalising) will have maturity and experience miles beyond someone straight out of college which must surely count for something. In fact it might be the case that such courses can be shorter because on average they are not training 18 and 19 year-olds who presumably need quite a period of immersion to the various concepts at such an age.

rainbowtrout

Rosita wrote: »

An abstract dicussion on the amount of time that is required to train a teacher is another matter. For example at secondary level most teachers will have one year's training and that's their lot. I rarely hear a suggestion that this course should be longer.

Yes, the complete focus for a three-year course might be to do with primary teaching but surely the post-grads are equally teaching-focused? The question is to what extent does a student benefit from extra time in college studying theory of education and another subject compared to someone who does a post-grad?

Can the significance of this extra time be objectively quantified?

And it is true to say that Hibernia graduates are likely to (I don't know any of them so I am generalising) will have maturity and experience miles beyond someone straight out of college which must surely count for something. In fact it might be the case that such courses can be shorter because on average they are not training 18 and 19 year-olds who presumably need quite a period of immersion to the various concepts at such an age.

Oh I'm not saying, three years is better or more focused that 18 months, but I reckon that some principals perceive courses delivered in established brick colleges as better than online. I'm doing an Open University course at the moment and over on that forum a regular question is 'Will my qualification be recognized by employers?' because of the online/distance learning element to it. Perhaps this is moreso with teaching post grads because teaching by nature involves communication with people and distance learning removes the need for some of that, especially the face to face contact.

Rosita

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Oh I'm not saying, three years is better or more focused that 18 months, but I reckon that some principals perceive courses delivered in established brick colleges as better than online. I'm doing an Open University course at the moment and over on that forum a regular question is 'Will my qualification be recognized by employers?' because of the online/distance learning element to it. Perhaps this is moreso with teaching post grads because teaching by nature involves communication with people and distance learning removes the need for some of that, especially the face to face contact.

Agreed, human nature being what it is, it is probably true to say that "principals perceive courses delivered in established brick colleges as better than online".
I imagine that is what is going on here as the vice-principal being quoted seems to be basing the judgement on his 'experience' and interviewing skills as opposed to any actual comparative knowledge of the courses - I suspect his view of the candidate is decided after looking at their CV. Maybe some courses are better and maybe they are not, but from what I can see that perception appears to be based on nothing substantial.

This is an interesting one: "Perhaps this is moreso with teaching post grads because teaching by nature involves communication with people and distance learning removes the need for some of that, especially the face to face contact."Presumably post-grad courses involve a significant amount of teaching practice, so I imagine that the 'contact' that is missed out on is that with colleagues and lecturers as opposed to teaching hours contact per se.

If that is so I suspect this effect might be exaggerated in the minds of some. Especially given that the average post-grad student will have already studied for a degree and presumably worked in industry and probably will have better people skills than any young under-graduate.

Bomany

Hibernia seems to bewilder some in the teaching profession - principals of a certain age in particular. The argument that those who qualify as teachers by attending a bricks and mortar institution are better teachers does not hold water. There are some sub-standard institutions out there - I can think of one college in Liverpool in particular. In my experience those students from Marino, Mary I and Hibernia have been better prepared than those from St Pats when out on teaching practice. As for the aforementioned Liverpool college the less said the better.

kabuk1

If you're willing to move, there are lots of teacher shortages in other countries, but unfortunately, this isn't always an option.

If you can to secondary school Maths or Science, there's plenty of need in the US and the UK.

doctorwhogirl

Rosita wrote: »

The use of the phrase "fully qualified" is gas, because the average Hibernia graduate will be more educated than most of their peer group in a school...

As a person who did the B.Ed I find this extremely insulting and a huge generalisation. This conversation is heated and I rarely let myself get dragged into such matters but this caught my eye. I'm sure there is no real malice intended but it is insulting. I chose to do the B.Ed after secondary school because I was
A. Lucky enough to have secured the points
and
B. Was lucky enough to know in my heart of hearts at such a young age that this was all I wanted to do with my life.
To imply, that because I didn't decide to do a different degree/ diploma before going into teaching means I'm any less educated than someone who has done one and gone on to teaching is insulting. Yes, a person who has done an engineering degree may have clocked up more college years, but can they apply that knowledge directly to teaching. Probably not. Of course it is an advantage if someone has specialised in a subject in a degree, like Irish, and can bring it to their teaching career....but...am I any less educated? No. In my B.Ed I slaved to do both the Education side of my course and my chosen academic subject of History and managed to obtain good marks in both. I may have not spent as many years in college as a Hibernia student but I am just as educated.

I, personally, have no issue with how any teacher was trained, as long as they were trained. My teacher friends vary in qualifications from Hibernia, Marino, England, Wales. Each of them is a fantastic teacher in their own way. I feel each college does something particularly well, not every college does everything well. I loved Marino's approach to Teaching Practice, but preferred St. Pat's courses on curricular education. I think Wales and England do a fantastic job on teaching numeracy and emphasising learning objectives. There are benefits to all colleges. I have no snobbery about the where someone trained.

With regards the person who began this thread, my opinion on going into teaching is this: You have to love it, and really feel this is the job you have to be in. Some of my friends, when I went for teaching first, were under the assumption that it is the easy option. I'm not saying that of anyone here but this is what they thought. It is not an easy option by any stretch of the imagination, especially in the current climate. We are facing class size increases, wage cuts,poorer school facilities, less support for children with special needs and language needs... These are not good prospects. The job climate is awful out there too. A friend of mine is the same as one poster in that she has applied for about 100 jobs and nothing.
I think if you're considering teaching, get into a classroom. Go and ask a teacher in your old school perhaps to spend 2/3 days in the class. From my experience most like the extra hands (I know I would!) and it gives you a chance to see what it's like in todays classrooms. A girl I went to college with didn't have any experience in a classroom, just thought she'd like teaching and was out of the college in a year and a half.

Best of luck to anyone going for it, because if you really love it, it's the best job in the world, truly!

spurious

There is absolutely no correlation (and never has been) between high educational achievement and being a good teacher. Being good at something does not mean you'll be able to pass it on.

Most of the Ph. D. holders I know would blow a gasket trying to teach some kids. Easily the best teacher I know is one that came in through second chance education having left school before the Leaving.

doctorwhogirl

I do completely agree Spurious but still felt I had to defend. Don't think there's any relationship between high achievement and teaching necessarily, just don't agree with the statement I quoted.

I am one of the people who believes that the B.Ed should not be based on points alone but based on results and interview. I think it's madness that there is no interview for the B.Ed course. It should be lower points and interview because I think they are missing out on getting superb teachers by not doing it this way.

spurious

I agree absolutely.
I've been around a fair while now and some of the student teachers we are getting in now may well have all sorts of high marks in their degrees but they wouldn't have been selected had there been an interview.

doctorwhogirl

Agree totally. And I don't mean to apply that my saying I did well in my degree or anything. (I was just a little cross! ) I worked hard at my degree because I loved what I was doing and wanted to do my best.

A close friend from school missed out on teaching points-wise, and I know she would have got in had there been interviews. She went the long way about it and is looking for a job now, thank god. But she could have easily given up and teaching would have been worse off without her!

Rosita

doctorwhogirl wrote: »

As a person who did the B.Ed I find this extremely insulting and a huge generalisation. To imply, that because I didn't decide to do a different degree/diploma before going into teaching means I'm any less educated than someone who has done one and gone on to teaching is insulting.

You are easily insulted if you regard this as "extremely insulting".

I studied for a BA in University. Was I more educated then than after I did the Leaving Cert? Most people I know would suggest that I was. Then I studied for an MA. Was I more educated then than after the BA? I imagine most people would suggest I was.

I am not implying that you are less educated than somone who has a similar basic degree and an add-on qualification. As far as I am concerned it's a bald statement of fact that you are less educated than them - there is no implication whatsoever. (There is an assumption here of course that people will all have done a broad range of reading and research in their degrees rather than crammed their way through and in that sense are genuinely educated rather than just qualified.)

There are plenty of people better educated than me and I have no hang-ups about that. I don't see why you should. Other people who have extra qualifications work hard for them too you know and should get the credit for doing so.

I do agree that the level of education gives no guarantees about ability to teach. In fact that was largely my point (the one you picked up on was tangential) - that the ability to teach cannot itself be taught to any significant degree and in that sense whether a teaching course lasts 18 months or three years matters not a lot.

The only reason I mentioned education levels is that if there is a view that Hibernia or any other post-grad candidates are to be looked down on educationally by primary teachers who took the more traditional route they are probably badly mistaken for doing so. Of course it is a generalisation - I have no way of commenting on individual cases. But generalisations are not necessarily invalid.

pjtb

My two cents.
I am currently studying at undergraduate level for primary teaching. When I am finished my course, my degree will officially have equal recognition with the Dip in primary teaching. I accept that, that is the way it is, and it should be no other way.

Qualifications will never make someone who is not naturally good at teaching into a good teacher. I think everyone agrees with that. However I do not think it can be denied that those who partake in an undergraduate course receive instruction which is both broader and deeper. I can compare like with like- the lectures that postgrads have received on a particular topic, and the lectures that I would receive on the same one. Postgrad courses simply do not have enough time to cover the same amount of material. Surely the more information and background knowledge a teacher has, the more informed their teaching will be, naturally good teacher or not.

Another point which has been raised is that those who already have an undergraduate degree bring experience and knowledge to their teaching. In many cases this may be true. However, it is not always. I once met someone who had an Arts degree in Irish and was doing the postgrad in primary teaching. I was astounded at how bad this particular person's Irish was. Looking at qualifications one may think that this person would be a great asset to the classroom, having experience with the language. In reality, this was not the case. It just shows that previous experience does not necessarily improve someone's general skills, or teaching skills in particular. Some postgrads bring excellent talents to the school, others may have qualifications in areas that can not be related to the primary school child in any way at all. Some argue that postgrads bring a wealth of varied and diverse experiences to teaching. But a report (which can be found here: http://www.education.ie/servlet/blobservlet/p_preservice_education.pdf?language=EN )
tells how in reality, 70% of postgrad students have an Arts degree (page 62):
While agreeing with the submission of St Patrick’s College
that the programme offers an opportunity for students with diverse degrees to enter education, it noted that the reality is that over 70% of their students have an arts degree . It is clear that extra experience postgrads have may not be useful experience.

Rosita

pjtb wrote: »

However I do not think it can be denied that those who partake in an undergraduate course receive instruction which is both broader and deeper.

Broader and deeper perhaps but how relevant? For example, in St Pats (one I looked at on the web) you take an academic subject along with education in the three-year course. This subject could be irrelevant to primary teaching as, for example, French is one option.

In other words education per se (the study of learning methodologies and teaching mehodologies and styles) takes up only half the course at most - less than this in first year it seems.

Bearing that in mind, quite what the difference is for say a Hibernia student who does half that length of time studying solely the education element (there is some Irish instruction according to their website) is not clear to me.

The study might be broader and deeper in your course, but perhaps not in the study of education.

"It just shows that previous experience does not necessarily improve someone's general skills, or teaching skills in particular." - Incidentally I never suggested a relationship between levels of education and teaching ability. I merely mentioned educational levels are bound to be higher generally among post-grads - that's why they are post-grads. For some reason this is being picked up as what was said but it is not what was said.

doctorwhogirl

Having gone through St. pat's I can safely say that the educational aspect was not less than half. You count in the amount of courses we take in Education and compare it to the 3/4 one hour history lectures I had and it is certainly more than half. The academic subject is important, yes, but education takes precedence. Just wanted to make that clear.

pjtb

Rosita wrote: »

Broader and deeper perhaps but how relevant? For example, in St Pats (one I looked at on the web) you take an academic subject along with education in the three-year course. This subject could be irrelevant to primary teaching as, for example, French is one option.

In other words education per se (the study of learning methodologies and teaching mehodologies and styles) takes up only half the course at most - less than this in first year it seems.

Bearing that in mind, quite what the difference is for say a Hibernia student who does half that length of time studying solely the education element (there is some Irish instruction according to their website) is not clear to me.

The study might be broader and deeper in your course, but perhaps not in the study of education.

"It just shows that previous experience does not necessarily improve someone's general skills, or teaching skills in particular." - Incidentally I never suggested a relationship between levels of education and teaching ability. I merely mentioned educational levels are bound to be higher generally among post-grads - that's why they are post-grads. For some reason this is being picked up as what was said but it is not what was said.

First of all, French is relevant to primary school teaching. Many schools now teach a European language in the supplementary time allocated in the weekly timetable. The more students who take French, or German, the more often this can happen. I remember my secondary school teacher telling me in first year that the third language should receive formal instruction much earlier. I, and many others, agree.

If a student takes an academic subject which is not relevant, it may not aid their teaching, I agree. But this is the same as what happens with postgrads who have not taken a degree related to teaching. The vast majority of B.Eds take an academic subject which is a subject at primary level. This may not be the case with academic subjects taken by postgrads in the undergraduate studies.

B.Eds may take an academic subject with their degree, but it is not their main focus. Education is. If they wanted in a degree in French, they would do arts. Not primary teaching. As a result, education modules are the ones they find most important. Their academic subject may aid background knowledge of a particular subject they may be teaching, but it is not why they chose to do a B.Ed.

"Incidentally I never suggested a relationship between levels of education and teaching ability."
I am not suggesting that you in particular said this. But many who are staunch proponents of the postgrad do say it. I have heard people say that the B.Ed should be scrapped, and the postgrad continue, on those grounds. Others say that postgrads are more mature, and have a better attitude towards learning. Once again, this is the case with some, not all, as I know from experience. It is the same case with B.Eds- some are mature, others are not.

Rosita

doctorwhogirl wrote: »

Having gone through St. pat's I can safely say that the educational aspect was not less than half. You count in the amount of courses we take in Education and compare it to the 3/4 one hour history lectures I had and it is certainly more than half. The academic subject is important, yes, but education takes precedence. Just wanted to make that clear.

Can you explain why a college like St Pat's would feel that 18 months is enough time for a post-grad course covering essentially (presumably) the same educational material as the full-time course?

doctorwhogirl

The post-grad courses in Education, cover the same material, but in a much more intense way. Several friends have gone through the course and have said it is intense and a lot of out of lectures reading is expected to get through the course because of time constraints. Having not done the course, I don't know whether it covers all the material, I assume it does.

Secondly, Pat's, and other institutions, feel it is sufficient time because of
A. Demand
B. Government funding (and a and b are interlinked)
I'm not sure why the time span 18 months was picked to be honest. I would feel it warrants a lot more no matter institution you are in.

Rosita

pjtb wrote: »

First of all, French is relevant to primary school teaching. Many schools now teach a European language in the supplementary time allocated in the weekly timetable. The more students who take French, or German, the more often this can happen. I remember my secondary school teacher telling me in first year that the third language should receive formal instruction much earlier. I, and many others, agree.

Frankly, you don't need your secondary teacher to tell you that the earlier a language is engaged with the better - that's well known. But what is attempted in primary schools is irrelevant to this view as this is a question of immersion rather than "formal instruction" to learn the French for 'blackboard'.

For the studying of a subject as a degree subject to be justified the subject should not just be extra-curricular. Getting a few primary teachers with decent Irish who are actually interested in teaching that language in a meaningful way would be far better. Students are receiving "formal instruction" in that for eight years in school and can't make head nor tail of it, so a handful of French classes will make no material difference.

Rosita

doctorwhogirl wrote: »

The post-grad courses in Education, cover the same material, but in a much more intense way.

Grand, thanks. This is critical to the whole debate. It is good to have it established.

pjtb

Rosita wrote: »

Can you explain why a college like St Pat's would feel that 18 months is enough time for a post-grad course covering essentially (presumably) the same educational material as the full-time course?

I cannot explain it, but I can quote St. Pat's submission to the afore mentioned report:

It was the view of St Patrick’s College that the concurrent method [B.Ed] should continue as the main means [of teacher training].However, the college submission also said that the consecutive method [postgrad] should be retained to supplement the supply of teachers when required.

St. Pats deems the B.ed the most appropriate form of teacher training, while the postgrad should be used if there is a shortage of teachers. Nobody is suggesting that the postgrad is not adequate in training teachers. What is being said however, is that a B.Ed gives more instruction and training, which a postgrad, due to time constraints, can not furnish.

doctorwhogirl

Rosita wrote: »

Grand, thanks. This is critical to the whole debate. It is good to have it established.

Let me quote myself again from that message I posted. I said:

The post-grad courses in Education, cover the same material, but in a much more intense way....

Having not done the course, I don't know whether it covers all the material, I assume it does.

You would need to hear from someone who completed the post-grad to have it established truly.

pjtb

Rosita wrote: »

Frankly, you don't need your secondary teacher to tell you that the earlier a language is engaged with the better - that's well known. But what is attempted in primary schools is irrelevant to this view as this is a question of immersion rather than "formal instruction" to learn the French for 'blackboard'.

For the studying of a subject as a degree subject to be justified the subject should not just be extra-curricular. Getting a few primary teachers with decent Irish who are actually interested in teaching that language in a meaningful way would be far better. Students are receiving "formal instruction" in that for eight years in school and can't make head nor tail of it, so a handful of French classes will make no material difference.

A third language is not (to the best of my knowledge) extra curricular in the same sense as Gaelic football training, or school quizs are. Draft guidelines have been published, so that it can be taught with structure. It's is only a matter of time before these guidelines are modified, and made part of Curaclam na Bunscoile.

Gaeilge was taught, and still is taught, badly in many, if not most cases. But this is changing. Some teachers may not have fully embraced the emphasis placed on oral language in the revised curriculum. If teachers used the methods that we are now learning about in college, we would not have the problems that are continually brought up in relation to the language.

But all of that is tangential to our discussion.

Vince135792003

From my perspective, as a Hibernia graduate, I do sometimes feel that I did not receive the extensive training that other colleges offer. I felt there was a lack of depth and everything was just a big rush.

As a result I feel like the learning curve is a alot more challenging for me than for other newly qualified graduates who started from a more solid base of knowledge, which I envy. And it does bother me. I feel like I have to struggle to be good when others can just turn up and seemingly be naturally good at the job.

The other side of the coin is that because I have this feeling that I know less, I have a desire to learn more, to be more creative and to develop my teaching style. That motivation is good for me and the children in my class.

In contrast other undergraduate teachers who started with me from my perspective are somewhat "cookie cut" in their thinking (that's just my my experience, not tarring everybody with the same brush!). They don't at least outwardly appear to be as motivated as me, perhaps because they don't need to be but I do pick up on it.


Ultimately though, as long as every teacher no matter where they have qualified go in with the attitude "how can I do it better than the day before?", hopefully the children won't lose out.

Rosita

pjtb wrote: »

A third language is not (to the best of my knowledge) extra curricular in the same sense as Gaelic football training, or school quizs are. Draft guidelines have been published, so that it can be taught with structure. It's is only a matter of time before these guidelines are modified, and made part of Curaclam na Bunscoile.

Surely it is part of the curriculum or it isn't?

I know very well three children who attend Primary school and do not study French or any third language.

Rosita

pjtb wrote: »

I cannot explain it, but I can quote St. Pat's submission to the afore mentioned report:

It was the view of St Patrick’s College that the concurrent method [B.Ed] should continue as the main means [of teacher training].However, the college submission also said that the consecutive method [postgrad] should be retained to supplement the supply of teachers when required.

St. Pats deems the B.ed the most appropriate form of teacher training, while the postgrad should be used if there is a shortage of teachers. Nobody is suggesting that the postgrad is not adequate in training teachers. What is being said however, is that a B.Ed gives more instruction and training, which a postgrad, due to time constraints, can not furnish.

The college deemed it the "main means" of training teachers i.e. it will have higher numbers and retain its primacy in the college even if the government withdraws supports for the other course. The qualitative words "most appropriate" are yours, not the college's.

For financial reasons alone the college is obviously going to want to retain the longer course so it is difficult to make qualitative judgements based on that.

As for this:

"What is being said however, is that a B.Ed gives more instruction and training, which a postgrad, due to time constraints, can not furnish."

Yes this is being said but it seems a highly dubious claim since those who study the B.Ed study an academic subject as well, so the education (teacher training) element alone should easily be coverable in 18 months, or so it seems to me.

There seems to be a rigidity of view here that says that because the B.Ed lasts three years its education content can only be taught over three years, despite the fact that the education element is only just over half the course.

An 18 month course should need to be only slightly more intense than the full-time course to cover the same material.

It's simple Maths really - if you study only one subject of a two-subject BA then why on earth could you not study it adequately in half the time?

doctorwhogirl

Vince135792003 wrote: »

As a result I feel like the learning curve is a alot more challenging for me than for other newly qualified graduates who started from a more solid base of knowledge, which I envy. And it does bother me. I feel like I have to struggle to be good when others can just turn up and seemingly be naturally good at the job.

I think no matter what training you have we all feel this way sometimes! That is teaching for you! I think the fact that you try to be good says a lot about how just how good a teacher you are

Vince135792003 wrote: »

The other side of the coin is that because I have this feeling that I know less, I have a desire to learn more, to be more creative and to develop my teaching style. That motivation is good for me and the children in my class.

This is the attitude we all should have regardless of where we came from. In my head, teaching is educating yourself throughout your years of experiencing. Learning what works and what doesn't and developing yourself further in the real teaching environment.

You sound like a fantastic teacher. Don't worry if you feel like you struggle sometimes. Our vice principal is teaching almost 35 years and I remember her telling me during the year about how she was finding something a real struggle!