Teachers Union orders teachers to stop teaching should the number be too high!

irish_bob

di2772 wrote: »

How about something similar to my own job. A manager of 25 people who have to be dragged along to get any work out of them.

And i get 6 figures and then some for that. And a nice sum paid by my company into my pension. And i never have to work past 5pm or before 9am and can have whatever time i feel like for lunch. And 26 days hols a year.

Dont know why people think the private sector is worse off than the public sector. Its not. All of my staff would lose money if they were bench marked against similar positions to their own in the public sector

your opinion contradicts all studys which compare public versus private wages

amacca

MrMicra wrote: »

I went to Hyde elementary school Washington DC and Hardy middle school washington DC both better than the fee paying school I attended in Dublin.

"Hyde Elementary School, located in Washington, DC, serves grades PK-5 in the District of Columbia Public Schools. It is among the few public schools in Washington, DC to receive a distinguished GreatSchools Rating of 10 out of 10."

So you went to a school in America that in their own words is among the few public schools in Washington DC to receive the above award, this would suggest it is a cut above what the majority of students in these grades would expect to receive in the American education system and to therefore state from this experience that the quality of education here is worse than there is stretching it a bit.

However you did say that you attended a fee paying school here, presumably because a lot of money was paid you expected something out of the ordinary...having taught in one I was really amused how a student could get the same results from the non fee paying school down the road....seemed to me that what you were really paying for with your fees in one of these schools was "mixing with the right crowd/contacts etc", slightly better sports facilities and choice of sports, and on average a more disciplined atmosphere in class because if a student was a real persistent problem the school would remove him/her sure in the knowledge that there were plenty of people queuing up to replace that student. In general I didn't see drastically different standards of teaching between fee paying and non fee paying.

Sleepy

di2772 wrote: »

How about something similar to my own job. A manager of 25 people who have to be dragged along to get any work out of them.

And i get 6 figures and then some for that. And a nice sum paid by my company into my pension. And i never have to work past 5pm or before 9am and can have whatever time i feel like for lunch. And 26 days hols a year.

Dont know why people think the private sector is worse off than the public sector. Its not. All of my staff would lose money if they were bench marked against similar positions to their own in the public sector

Daddy's company by any chance? With an attitude and self-professed lack of work-ethic like yours I really struggle to believe that you manage a team of 25 people for a 6 figure salary on your own merits...

In reality, an Arts degree and a post graduate diploma would be the equivalent qualifications of most admin staff in the private sector earning mid to high twenties. Given the high holiday entitlements, that would seem to be more than fair salary wise.

That said, I'd be happy to see teachers keep their current high salary levels if the dead-wood and unions could be removed. If every student leaving a school can tell that a teacher is useless, so too can their fellow-staff. Peer-based, anonymous evaluation could be the way to go imho. Sack the non-performers, get rid of the practice of teachers being allowed to keep their positions while indulging their political ambitions and we'd be off to a good start.

Of course something needs to be done with respect to the wasters every one of us can remember from our time in school. If parents can't be arsed teaching their children enough discipline to behave in class, those children who have been taught good behaviour shouldn't have to suffer for that...

MrMicra

I would point out amacca that I did not choose either school however I am absoulutely certain that you are correct. Hyde was a deliberate attempt to get white people to participate in public education in the DC school district. At the time it would have been one of fairly few schools in DC in a white neighborhood, black kids were bussed in and I was told years later that many black kids understood that it was a privilege to go to Hyde. I might even have been told that at the time but maybe it didn't register. That said the teachers were exceptional, I had two teachers who were noticeably good one of whom was my best ever teacher by far.

I don't accept that I was sent to a fee paying school because my parents consciously wanted me to 'mix with the right set'. My parents disliked the catholic church's control of education and all the protestant schools in Dublin are fee paying for nominal Roman Catholics. Certainly based on the catchment area that school had an appallingly mediocre academic record and I know of two nearby free schools that had better records. That said the fees seem ludicrously low now even allowing for inflation and about half the parents didn't pay fees (though mine did).

It may well be the case that teaching standards are higher in non fee paying schools in Ireland than in fee paying schools. I doubt that they are high enough to justify the high salaries. That said I would love to be a primary school teacher but the salary is too low, and I wouldn't be a secondary school teacher for any money. That said I wouldn't mind coaching tennis in a girl's school a few hours a week.

amacca wrote: »

"Hyde Elementary School, located in Washington, DC, serves grades PK-5 in the District of Columbia Public Schools. It is among the few public schools in Washington, DC to receive a distinguished GreatSchools Rating of 10 out of 10."

So you went to a school in America that in their own words is among the few public schools in Washington DC to receive the above award, this would suggest it is a cut above what the majority of students in these grades would expect to receive in the American education system and to therefore state from this experience that the quality of education here is worse than there is stretching it a bit.

However you did say that you attended a fee paying school here, presumably because a lot of money was paid you expected something out of the ordinary...having taught in one I was really amused how a student could get the same results from the non fee paying school down the road....seemed to me that what you were really paying for with your fees in one of these schools was "mixing with the right crowd/contacts etc", slightly better sports facilities and choice of sports, and on average a more disciplined atmosphere in class because if a student was a real persistent problem the school would remove him/her sure in the knowledge that there were plenty of people queuing up to replace that student. In general I didn't see drastically different standards of teaching between fee paying and non fee paying.

di2772

irish_bob wrote: »

your opinion contradicts all studys which compare public versus private wages

Point me to a study that compares like for like jobs between the public and private sector?

And not one that just compares average wages across whole sectors as any others ive read do.

di2772

Sleepy wrote: »

Daddy's company by any chance? With an attitude and self-professed lack of work-ethic like yours I really struggle to believe that you manage a team of 25 people for a 6 figure salary on your own merits...

In reality, an Arts degree and a post graduate diploma would be the equivalent qualifications of most admin staff in the private sector earning mid to high twenties. Given the high holiday entitlements, that would seem to be more than fair salary wise.

What idiotic comments.
You dont even know what i work at or what time the office opens or closes at. So how do you know anything about my work ethic.

And comparing to what level one was educated isnt really a proper measure of earning potential is it. The guys who started google dropped out of college. By your logic they should be paid how much when compared to other drop outs?

People either make their career or they dont. Someone earning mid to high twenties is just not managing their career. It has nothing to do with what degree they got.

Overheal

MrMicra wrote: »

I would point out amacca that I did not choose either school however I am absoulutely certain that you are correct. Hyde was a deliberate attempt to get white people to participate in public education in the DC school district. At the time it would have been one of fairly few schools in DC in a white neighborhood, black kids were bussed in and I was told years later that many black kids understood that it was a privilege to go to Hyde. I might even have been told that at the time but maybe it didn't register. That said the teachers were exceptional, I had two teachers who were noticeably good one of whom was my best ever teacher by far.

I don't accept that I was sent to a fee paying school because my parents consciously wanted me to 'mix with the right set'. My parents disliked the catholic church's control of education and all the protestant schools in Dublin are fee paying for nominal Roman Catholics. Certainly based on the catchment area that school had an appallingly mediocre academic record and I know of two nearby free schools that had better records. That said the fees seem ludicrously low now even allowing for inflation and about half the parents didn't pay fees (though mine did).

It may well be the case that teaching standards are higher in non fee paying schools in Ireland than in fee paying schools. I doubt that they are high enough to justify the high salaries. That said I would love to be a primary school teacher but the salary is too low, and I wouldn't be a secondary school teacher for any money. That said I wouldn't mind coaching tennis in a girl's school a few hours a week.

I dunno. Its a tough call. I guess one argument is that the higher wages attracts better qualified people who would otherwise be working in another field - eg. your totally awesome Chemistry teacher might love teaching but if Roche was offering him 60k and the govt offer him 30k would he stop and reconsider?

Hillel

di2772 wrote: »

I think the teachers do a great job. I have a lot of respect for them.

I know that many teachers do a great job. Those that do, I respect.

di2772 wrote: »

I was on the board of management at my kids school

It's not easy, is it?

di2772 wrote: »

i found out how valuable teachers really are. I also found out they work a lot harder than i thought they did too.

Anyone who wants to slate teachers should go and get on a schools board of management and find out what the job actually involves.

I'm confused. I learnt a lot from being on Boards of Management. The importance of a strong Principal and the leadership they need to give, the need for good school discipline (for staff and students), the resistance to change among older staff, the financial tightrope most schools run on, the endemic problem of recalcitrant pubils.... I could go on, and on.

What I did NOT learn was what the job of a teacher "actually involves".

I hold the teaching profession in the highest regard. I do not believe that the current system, entirely based on seniority, is in the best interests of teachers, pupils, or the country. My time on BOM strengthened that view. Much time was wasted on staff issues, disputes, posts of responsibility, temporary acting, whatever. The remainder was taken up with financial and school disipline issues. Almost no time was taken up with the more important issues: staff training and development, student welfare, the quality and suitability of the teaching practice in the school, curriculum management....

Much worse, many older teachers actively opposed any attempts to assess how well the school was meeting its mandate - to educate the children in its care and prepare them for the world. Almost without fail, younger teachers were enthuiastic and wanted to make a difference. Many were also more able, and better qualified, than their "more senior" colleagues. Yet, they were paid far less and had little influence on how the school was run. Seniority held sway, every time. The Dept. of Education, and a craven government, have a lot to answer for!

dresden8

School on RTE news now.

Classes had 26 students, now have 9 extra going to 35.

That's a productivity increase of 34.6%.

Has the private sector reached this high standard lately?

lazygal

This is something that bugs the hell out of me. I'm not that old, but I went through primary school for 8 years and was never in a class of fewer than 38-40 people. We all turned out fine-I'm still in touch with enough of us to realise that we are all functioning members of society who have either gone to third level, established careers and generally have not been badly affected by the experience.
I'm a teacher myself and the most important thing is that the teacher knows the curriculum and can work with and understand how children function. I have little or no sympathy for others in my profession who want an easy ride with as few children in their class as possible.
We get two months holidays and numerous other perks to "recover" from the stress of the job-seriously, who do the teaching unions think will have sympathy for us?

dresden8

lazygal wrote: »

This is something that bugs the hell out of me. I'm not that old, but I went through primary school for 8 years and was never in a class of fewer than 38-40 people. We all turned out fine-I'm still in touch with enough of us to realise that we are all functioning members of society who have either gone to third level, established careers and generally have not been badly affected by the experience.
I'm a teacher myself and the most important thing is that the teacher knows the curriculum and can work with and understand how children function. I have little or no sympathy for others in my profession who want an easy ride with as few children in their class as possible.
We get two months holidays and numerous other perks to "recover" from the stress of the job-seriously, who do the teaching unions think will have sympathy for us?

If that is true why do private schools have lower pupil-teacher ratios? The private sector is so efficient it does not waste resources unnecessarily, as I'm sure Jimmmy or Irish_bob will tell you.

lazygal

dresden8 wrote: »

If that is true why do private schools have lower pupil-teacher ratios? The private sector is so efficient it does not waste resources unnecessarily, as I'm sure Jimmmy or Irish_bob will tell you.

I suggest you look at the Asian models of education-large classes where the pupils help eachother in their learning are the norm and these schools produce highly educated and motivated people. Class sizes are a handy issue for teaching unions to latch onto-emotive and highly populist. Teaching is a profession like any other and we teachers must adapt. Not one person in the private sector is doing less work than this time last year-many friends of mine in financial services have had to take on extra clients and have had pay cuts of up to 20%. We are all living in this economy and it's time for the unions to get real-what kind of teacher can't adapt to a larger class? Were we not trained to deal with large numbers of children? I know I was when I did my diploma and during teaching practice.

dresden8

lazygal wrote: »

I suggest you look at the Asian models of education-large classes where the pupils help eachother in their learning are the norm and these schools produce highly educated and motivated people. Class sizes are a handy issue for teaching unions to latch onto-emotive and highly populist. Teaching is a profession like any other and we teachers must adapt. Not one person in the private sector is doing less work than this time last year-many friends of mine in financial services have had to take on extra clients and have had pay cuts of up to 20%. We are all living in this economy and it's time for the unions to get real-what kind of teacher can't adapt to a larger class? Were we not trained to deal with large numbers of children? I know I was when I did my diploma and during teaching practice.

Hmmmm.

Private sector schools are even more inefficient than public sector schools.

That's one in the eye for Public Sector bashers on this site anyway.

nesf

Less of the handbags ladies. That means you as well Sleepy.

Stabshauptmann

dresden8 wrote: »

School on RTE news now.

Classes had 26 students, now have 9 extra going to 35.

That's a productivity increase of 34.6%.

Has the private sector reached this high standard lately?

Its not a productivity increase of 34.6% because there isnt a linear relationship between teacher's productivity and class sizes

Stabshauptmann

Taxipete29 wrote: »

So you dont think you need to be intelligent to be a secondary teacher??

This has to be one of the most ridiculous posts I have seen on this subject.

Is the job mostly routine or non-routine? Do you need to apply any knowledge?

You need to contol a class and communicate information, the job does not involve a significant amount of problem solving or thinking outside the box.

dresden8

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

Its not a productivity increase of 34.6% because there isnt a linear relationship between teacher's productivity and class sizes

The stats will show that 34.6% more pupils were "processed" through the education system.

di2772

Hillel wrote: »

What I did NOT learn was what the job of a teacher "actually involves".

You were on a school BOM and you didnt make it your business to go and find out?

di2772

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

Is the job mostly routine or non-routine? Do you need to apply any knowledge?

You need to contol a class and communicate information, the job does not involve a significant amount of problem solving or thinking outside the box.

LOL - Good one.

I suppose every child has the same requirements as all others too.

Hillel

di2772 wrote: »

You were on a school BOM and you didnt make it your business to go and find out?

Fair comment ! Let me explain more clearly.

I have many friends who are teachers and I have also lectured extensively at third level. I believe that I have a good understanding of what teaching should be about. What it actually involves is dependant on the school, its management, its teachers and, most importantly, the demographics of its student population.

The point I was trying to make, albeit poorly, was that I didn't learn about the role of teachers from serving on BOM's. (Nor should one, running a school is entirely distinct from teaching in a school. )

OldFFail

Check out this thread over on the Lecturing & Teaching Thread. Teachers boasting how much money they can make "tax free" from nixers.
No wonder they can't teach during the day, they're saving their energy for giving grinds. Talk about taking the pi$$!

themont85

The student teacher ratio is such a load of Bs. There was a teacher in my school who unfortunately didn't teach my year maths but just applied maths, but he taught honours maths and didn't give a damn about the size of the class, he owned the classroom and there was no crap in it at all regardless of the size. He got outstanding results with plus 35 students in some years, every year. The guy was a quality teacher and new how to discipline.

Lockstep

di2772 wrote: »

I would have the opposite view.
Having been educated in the USA, UK and Ireland (Im not counting University because that is down to yourself and not your teachers), i would rate Ireland as No. 1 by a long way, from my experience. And im glad my kids are being educated here too.

+1

Having been educated in Ireland, Belgium and England (not counting university experience in France) I'd say Irish teachers are the best of the lot.

THe problem I noticed from helping in homework clubs etc is that a lot of parents are stepping back from bringing up the kids and expecting the teachers to shoulder the extra burden (Which is getting more difficult as ratios increase)


From personal experience, I did notice that teachers I know were ok with the idea of a round of benchmarking (seeing as they didn;t get that much from it, principals did benefit a lot or something)

amacca

themont85 wrote: »

The student teacher ratio is such a load of Bs. There was a teacher in my school who unfortunately didn't teach my year maths but just applied maths, but he taught honours maths and didn't give a damn about the size of the class, he owned the classroom and there was no crap in it at all regardless of the size. He got outstanding results with plus 35 students in some years, every year. The guy was a quality teacher and new how to discipline.

Thats fantastic if you've got the back up to enforce this type of discipline. Its fine if all 35 students are roughly at the same level of intelligence.

I'm also willing to bet that there are plenty of capable teachers that wouldn't mind slightly larger classes if they had meaningful effective sanctions to impose on students (not physical) but removal from class for continuously disruptive student + some sort of rehabilitation etc so they could be guaranteed a working atmosphere in certain classrooms without having to devote their time to crowd control and cajoling in order to do some actual teaching.

However if you do work in a school that with a large number of disruptive pupils or a school nervous about its numbers going down, you can be very much hamstrung. If you work in a school with a culture of disrespect for authority/education (coming from some the parents) you are limited in what you can achieve in terms of classroom discipline no matter how effective a disciplinarian you are, you will be forced to accept continuously disruptive students back into your classroom with very little improvement in behavior or effort which can be soul destroying (some students simply don't care and it can be extremely hard to get through to these students), nowadays many teachers don't have the same level of authority they used to have before (that is a good thing in some ways but it does make the job a lot more difficult in other ways)

lower class sizes do help greatly in the above types of situations and they help to a lesser extent as you deal with stronger classes, though obviously you do have more time to devote to individual problems students have the less of them you have to deal with so it is good from an educational point of view too.

larger class sizes are more bearable in for instance a higher level maths class where the large majority of the class should be a) at roughly the same level of intelligence/attainment b) motivated to some degree so you can get the majority if not all the students working at the same pace.

now try the same trick with 30+ of the less motivated more disruptive students (im being deliberately mild in my description here) and see what the outcomes are, they will either make mincemeat out of a good teacher or the teacher will be reduced to crowd control with sporadic outbursts of disciplinaary firefighting as their blood pressure skyrockets.

A friend of mine actually wore a blood pressure for a week a couple of years back during class and plotted the results. It was a very predictable graph, I could tell him exactlly what times his blood pressure would peak to dangerously high levels during the week.

Out of curiosity, how long has it been since you were in school? If its a while back things have changed and are changing rapidly and you may be giving undue credit to this fantastic teacher of yours (his situation may very much suit his style of teaching) and unfairly devaluing other teachers work given the conditions they had to work under.

Hillel

amacca wrote: »

I'm also willing to bet that there are plenty of capable teachers that wouldn't mind slightly larger classes if they had meaningful effective sanctions to impose on students (not physical) but removal from class for continuously disruptive student + some sort of rehabilitation etc so they could be guaranteed a working atmosphere in certain classrooms without having to devote their time to crowd control and cajoling in order to do some actual teaching.

I'm with you 100%.
Effectively the Dept. of Ed. have washed their hands of this and left it to BOM's.
BOM's are out on a limb without the necessary resources, expertise, or legislative framework to deal effectively with the problem.

amacca

Hillel wrote: »

I'm with you 100%.
Effectively the Dept. of Ed. have washed their hands of this and left it to BOM's.
BOM's are out on a limb without the necessary resources, expertise, or legislative framework to deal effectively with the problem.

Tks, and I'm not talking reform schools or anything draconian but there should be a way of handling the kind of problems I'm talking about. If it cant be handled in class (and this has been repeatedly proven over time) then there needs to be a solution out of class and re-integration when the problem is solved. Its not doing the students Im talking about any good to be effectively allowed run riot and its damaging the education of the students that are willing to co-operate to a reasonable level.

Its a very tricky area though. If the solution involves sanctions or negative consequences for parents (eg: off the top of my head, going to parenting classes if child undergoes psychological assessment and it is found this would improve situation) then you set the parents in opposition to the school and the probably already litigious parents could make life unduly difficult for teacher or teachers involved. If it involves unduly negative consequences for the students (perhaps longterm) then the system is just storing trouble up for itself in the long run.

I would think though with a solid system to deal with it most students would not want to find themselves there and you would be dealing with a reducing number of problem students, Im of the firm belief a lot of students are engaging in challenging/difficult behaviour because they realise they can get away with it..more or less.

The one advantage I can see to the current system though is that many students do get to experience the full range of personalities/menatlities/difficulties they are likely to encounter in life...they definitely cant claim to be going through life cosseted/sheltered or unduly wrapped up in cotton wool, if nothing else its good life experience.

Hillel

amacca wrote: »

Its a very tricky area though. If the solution involves sanctions or negative consequences for parents (eg: off the top of my head, going to parenting classes if child undergoes psychological assessment and it is found this would improve situation) then you set the parents in opposition to the school and the probably already litigious parents could make life unduly difficult for teacher or teachers involved. If it involves unduly negative consequences for the students (perhaps longterm) then the system is just storing trouble up for itself in the long run.

It's well beyond tricky. Individual teachers have been harressed, bullied and threathened with physical violance. Not just teachers, either, fellow pupils have been physically hurt. But, the sanctions open to BOM's are very limited. Best case, the teachers must follow the schools discipline policy. Then, if the pupil gets really out of hand, the guards can be involved. (On the grounds of health & safety of pupils and/or staff.) Otherwise, forget it, the pupil will be left the school before he/she could be permanently excluded.

My advise is to keep up the pressure via the unions. It's the only way anything will happen.