mad or not to do start primary teaching

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!

Rosita

Vince135792003 wrote: »

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.

So would you agree with the vice-principal cited in this thread - that Hibernia/other post-grad course graduates should not be touched with a barge-pole if their are full-timers available?

pjtb

Rosita wrote: »

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.

Well, if you continue in following this unrelated topic up...
It is not, as yet, a part of the established curriculum. But that does not mean it is not a valuable and appropriate addition to a child's learning. I know even more than three children who are in primary school, and none of them do a third language. It is not the norm to study a European language, but eventually it probably will be. The curriculum is always changing, and this is probably one of the most imminent adjustments that will happen to it. There are, as I said, pilot projects and draft guidelines on the teaching of a third language in schools all over the country. And if the numbers taking a third language are to increase, teachers with a degree in a third language are needed. Some schools also have external teachers do the third language at a specified time each week. But the best situation would probably be where the classroom teacher is competent in the language.

pjtb

Rosita wrote: »

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?

The demand for postgraduate courses is extremely high- this evidenced by the difficulty experienced in entering them. For 150 places in one college, over 400 applied. 400 is roughly the number of places in the B.Ed course in the same college. Thus, if Pats, or any institute wished, the main output of teachers could be switched from the B.Ed to the postgrad.

You cannot compare a two subject BA with the B.Ed. Much more time is spent on Education subjects in the B.Ed than on the Academic subjects. It is not split 50/50.

Rosita

pjtb wrote: »

1) The demand for postgraduate courses is extremely high- this evidenced by the difficulty experienced in entering them. For 150 places in one college, over 400 applied. 400 is roughly the number of places in the B.Ed course in the same college. Thus, if Pats, or any institute wished, the main output of teachers could be switched from the B.Ed to the postgrad.

2) You cannot compare a two subject BA with the B.Ed. Much more time is spent on Education subjects in the B.Ed than on the Academic subjects. It is not split 50/50.

1) Not true in practice. The government decided to allocate funding for the extra post-grad courses and they will dry up as soon as the funding does. If that happened in a situation where the college was suicidal enough to shift all candidates to post-grad then the very viability of the college would be in doubt. The post-grads were a temporary measure announced by government to deal with a shortfall of teachers. It would never be the main business of the colleges.

2) Yes, they are in fact quite comparable. According to the St Pat's website the breakdown is 55% (education)- 45% (other academic subjects) in terms of credits. Despite you saying that "much more time is spent on Education subjects", according to the units distribution across the course by the college it differs little by comparision with the BA model mentioned.

As such it should easily be deliverable in half the time of the full course especially considering the massive chunks of time normally lost to holidays in the average academic year.

Rosita

pjtb wrote: »

Well, if you continue in following this unrelated topic up...
It is not, as yet, a part of the established curriculum. But that does not mean it is not a valuable and appropriate addition to a child's learning. I know even more than three children who are in primary school, and none of them do a third language. It is not the norm to study a European language, but eventually it probably will be. The curriculum is always changing, and this is probably one of the most imminent adjustments that will happen to it. There are, as I said, pilot projects and draft guidelines on the teaching of a third language in schools all over the country. And if the numbers taking a third language are to increase, teachers with a degree in a third language are needed. Some schools also have external teachers do the third language at a specified time each week. But the best situation would probably be where the classroom teacher is competent in the language.

Well, what might or might not happen in the future is another day's work, but my point that a Primary teacher taking French as a major is not contributing towards her (as it inevitably seems to be) skills set as a Primary teacher stands, considering that as you say it is not "a part of the established curriculum". Justifying something on the basis of what might or might not happen in the future is surely dubious.

"But the best situation would probably be where the classroom teacher is competent in the language"

Do you think the above remark should apply to the teaching of Irish too? And if so should this not inform the choice of major academic subject of far more teachers than it seems to do?

pjtb

Rosita, it is becoming increasingly obvious that we will never agree on the topics we are discussing!:D

Postgrads have to pay fees- which presumably cover a large amount of their tuition, seen as they pay thousands of euro for a year and a half course. B.Eds pay no fees if it their first undergraduate degree. I won't pretend to know the details of how these payments and fees work, because I don't. The fact that Pat's said the postgrad is good for addressing shortages suggests that it might not be the end of the world if it was scrapped during times of excessive numbers in teaching.

That 55%/45% ratio is only applicable in the first year of the course when more than one academic subject is studied as far as I know. I am not a student of Pat's so I don't know the exact details of that either. A previous poster, a former student of Pat's, has already addressed this point. And I know from everyone in my course that much more time is spent on work for education modules in our own time than is spent on Academic subjects. Ask any B.Ed- the time taken for preparing Dance exam routines for P.E. (for example), the time taken on essays, the copious amounts of time spent on preparation for teaching practice. The balance is totally tipped in the direction of Education. Hours spent in college only tell you so much.

The only way that languages can be taught in more schools is if there is someone there to teach them. It shows lack of foresight to totally ignore this and argue that some teachers should not take up a language at all. If anything, more undergrads should be encouraged to take up French/German because of this.

I share your sentiments regarding the competency of some teachers in the Irish language. If I had my way you'd need at least a B1/A2 in the Leaving Cert to enter a teacher training course, not a C3. A C3 could be attained by someone without being able to string two words of Irish together if it is not learned off. A lot time is invested in the teaching of Irish in the colleges, that said. If you do not choose Irish as your academic subject in my college, you must take up Gaeilge Ghairmiúil, or professional Irish. I'm not saying that this course of study produces students fluent in Irish. Just because you do not take Irish as an academic subject does not mean that is the end of your learning in the language.

Rosita

pjtb wrote: »

1) Postgrads have to pay fees- which presumably cover a large amount of their tuition, seen as they pay thousands of euro for a year and a half course. B.Eds pay no fees if it their first undergraduate degree. I won't pretend to know the details of how these payments and fees work, because I don't. The fact that Pat's said the postgrad is good for addressing shortages suggests that it might not be the end of the world if it was scrapped during times of excessive numbers in teaching.

2) That 55%/45% ratio is only applicable in the first year of the course when more than one academic subject is studied as far as I know. I am not a student of Pat's so I don't know the exact details of that either. A previous poster, a former student of Pat's, has already addressed this point.

3) And I know from everyone in my course that much more time is spent on work for education modules in our own time than is spent on Academic subjects. Ask any B.Ed- the time taken for preparing Dance exam routines for P.E. (for example), the time taken on essays, the copious amounts of time spent on preparation for teaching practice. The balance is totally tipped in the direction of Education. Hours spent in college only tell you so much.

4) The only way that languages can be taught in more schools is if there is someone there to teach them. It shows lack of foresight to totally ignore this and argue that some teachers should not take up a language at all. If anything, more undergrads should be encouraged to take up French/German because of this.

1) None of this is up for debate at all. Obviously the post-grads are a temporary measure. Their relative effectiveness is the matter at hand here.

2) According to the St Pat's web-site it is in fact 50-50 (units) in first year, and the overall 55-45 comes about as a result of the distribution of the other two years.

3) I can't comment on the amount of time spent on various subjects only to assume that the distribution of the weight of units (and with regard to that perhaps you might check the website I have mentioned as you are quite erroneously contradicting me on matters of verifiable fact which is unecessary) gives a fair reflection of how the college views it.

But anyway do post-grad students of various hues not have to prepare for teaching practice too? I am not arguing the absolute time involved here, merely that 55% of the course should with a little more rigour and intensity easily be coverable in 50% of the time.

4) I don't see the logic in encouraging people to take up French/German as major subjects when Irish is the language other than English taught in Primary Schools. It seems a terrible waste of resources to have people study a language that they have no immediate prospect of teaching in the forseeable future.

pjtb

Rosita wrote: »

1) None of this is up for debate at all. Obviously the post-grads are a temporary measure. Their relative effectiveness is the matter at hand here.

2) According to the St Pat's web-site it is in fact 50-50 (units) in first year, and the overall 55-45 comes about as a result of the distribution of the other two years.

3) I can't comment on the amount of time spent on various subjects only to assume that the distribution of the weight of units (and with regard to that perhaps you might check the website I have mentioned as you are quite erroneously contradicting me on matters of verifiable fact which is unecessary) gives a fair reflection of how the college views it.

But anyway do post-grad students of various hues not have to prepare for teaching practice too? I am not arguing the absolute time involved here, merely that 55% of the course should with a little more rigour and intensity easily be coverable in 50% of the time.

4) I don't see the logic in encouraging people to take up French/German as major subjects when Irish is the language other than English taught in Primary Schools. It seems a terrible waste of resources to have people study a language that they have no immediate prospect of teaching in the forseeable future.

We are gone seriously off topic.

1) I would not agree with you when you say postgrads are 'obviously' a 'temporary measure'. They were originally intended to be so, granted, but many would argue they should be kept. Their effectiveness, I have already commented on. They are a recognised, and appropriate qualification. They do produce high quality teachers. My original point was that in my opinion they do not cover material as well as it is done in the B.Ed (due to time allowed)( and a postgrad student has already commented on their own feelings in this regard), and the experience that some argue comes from undergrad study is not always what it is hyped up to be.

2) I apologise for my mistake regarding St. Pats modular breakdown of percentages. As I said, I am not a student there. But a student did say:
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.

3) In my experience, the weight of a module does not always equal the amount of time spent on it. For example, in one module I took this year I had to study English Language, Múineadh na Gaeilge, Maths Ed., Catechetics, SPHE, and SESE. This totalled 5 hours a week in lecture time. For another non education module, with the same weighting, I had on average two hours a week in lecture time. Officially these are worth the same amount of points when calculating my QCA, but in practical terms they are in no way equal. You cannot simply divide it 50.50 or 55.45 without taking the way it really works into account.
Of course postgrads have to prepare for teaching practice and all that comes with it. As an aside, B.Eds, as far as I am aware, spend more time on teaching practice.

4) If you don't see the logic in my reasoning regarding third languages, and the fact that Irish is still lectured in regardless of whether you are doing it as an academic subject or not, I cannot make you.

Rosita

pjtb wrote: »

We are gone seriously off topic.

1) I would not agree with you when you say postgrads are 'obviously' a 'temporary measure'. They were originally intended to be so, granted, but many would argue they should be kept. Their effectiveness, I have already commented on. They are a recognised, and appropriate qualification. They do produce high quality teachers. My original point was that in my opinion they do not cover material as well as it is done in the B.Ed (due to time allowed)( and a postgrad student has already commented on their own feelings in this regard), and the experience that some argue comes from undergrad study is not always what it is hyped up to be.

2) I apologise for my mistake regarding St. Pats modular breakdown of percentages. As I said, I am not a student there. But a student did say:
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.

3) In my experience, the weight of a module does not always equal the amount of time spent on it. For example, in one module I took this year I had to study English Language, Múineadh na Gaeilge, Maths Ed., Catechetics, SPHE, and SESE. This totalled 5 hours a week in lecture time. For another non education module, with the same weighting, I had on average two hours a week in lecture time. Officially these are worth the same amount of points when calculating my QCA, but in practical terms they are in no way equal. You cannot simply divide it 50.50 or 55.45 without taking the way it really works into account.
Of course postgrads have to prepare for teaching practice and all that comes with it. As an aside, B.Eds, as far as I am aware, spend more time on teaching practice.

4) If you don't see the logic in my reasoning regarding third languages, and the fact that Irish is still lectured in regardless of whether you are doing it as an academic subject or not, I cannot make you.

1) So you think that the post-grad courses will be retained despite evidence that the profession is now apparently massively over-subscribed? Fair enough I suppose, it's an opinion. It doesn't make sense to me for the government to maintain the same view with regard to recruitment of teachers that it had a few years back when there are remarkable stories of huge numbers of applicants for jobs but if you think otherwise, like I said, fair enough.


"My original point was that in my opinion they do not cover material as well as it is done in the B.Ed (due to time allowed)" - also this would be fair enough if you have knowledge of both courses, but frankly since that you have given inaccurate/misleading views on at least one other aspect of the courses it seems unlikely that you are genuinely in a position to proffer such a view. Your views seem to be more abstract than that.

As I have said it doesn't make sense to me that they do not cover the material as well since the same colleges (apart from Hibernia) are providing them. I would suspect the material is easily coverable in the time allowed - and probably even in far less time. I did a TEFL course which had more class contact time in just 16 weeks than either of my BA subjects had in an entire academic year (which is unecessarily elongated it seems to me) so this is just a matter of upping the intensity a bit - it certainly can be done. Obviously there was significant extra-mural reading for the BA but this is a fact of life for any student worth their salt and can be got around if the will is there.

The apparent inadequacy felt by the Hibernia graduate you mention is indeed interesting. But on the other hand this might just be an example of someone who is not particularly suited to the job in the first place, or maybe just someone with a learning style that prefers more contact time which is fair enough. But while your specific reference to that case is interesting in the context of your acknowledgement that the post-grads do provide quality teachers - I would be slow to generalise based on the views of one particular person, whether their experience is good or bad to be honest. Obviously that does make it quite an abstract discussion but when we don't have a scientific survey of graduates to work with, it's the best we can do I think.

Of course maybe the vice-principal mentioned in this thread who doesn't rate any post-grad course is indeed correct and the post-grad graduates are inadequate. It's just that I have not yet seen a plausible argument which refers to the actual relative details of the courses to back up his view.

2) In fairness, I have been mentioning 55-45 (in favour of education) in the last number of posts. "Less than half" doesn't come in to it, so why you say that you "can safely say that the educational aspect was not less than half" I'm not sure. We have long established that and it is not up for debate.

3) "In my experience, the weight of a module does not always equal the amount of time spent on it."

This is fair enough, but the real question is if it is coverable in 18 months. I have seen no reasoned argument why it would not be so. As I have said previously, some people appear hidebound by the notion that because the subject of education is currently part of a three-year course then it can be properly delivered only in that time-frame. This makes no sense, especially when secondary teachers do only one teacher-training year and as you acknowlege that post-grads make perfectly good teachers. (I can't comment on this expect to say that I see no reason why they should not be just as good if not better)

And on this one:

Of course postgrads have to prepare for teaching practice and all that comes with it. As an aside, B.Eds, as far as I am aware, spend more time on teaching practice.

Again, this is a problem with commenting despite not actually checking out the material on the website I am discussing. According to the St Pat's website full-timers do 17 weeks TP over three years. Post-grads do 15 weeks teaching practice over 18 months. Yes, you are right they do less - two weeks less, (an insignificant difference I would suggest) but it obviously is done far more intensively in a truncated period of time, so any suggestion that full-timers are at a significant advantage in this respect is disingenuous.

In fact, arguably the post-grad experience is superior I would suggest as such graduates appear to be in the classroom far more consistently during their course.

4) I do see your logic with regard to third languages i.e. that people should be encouraged to study a European language even though there is none on the curriculum. I just don't agree with it. In fact it seems illogical to me. My view is different - train people in areas that is relevant to their work I say.

If a decision is taken to change the curriculum then by all means change the method of training to reflect that. But surely you would agree that training should be directly relevant to the job rather than reflective of some nebulous aspiration towards a future curriculum change among those graduates who have taken a European language as a major?