Why are teachers not monitored/assessed regularly

seriouslysweet

Interesting question here, why do teachers not put their qualifications on the walls? I never understand this. Why not do this unless you are ashamed?

rainbowtrout

crayolastereo wrote: »

It wasn't a normal inspection, it was a big huge whole school thing and we were told they would be in every subject of those two year groups. They were in the school about a week and a half. How did they manage to go see a load of the modern language classes (often the same language and same teacher multiple times) but none of the senior sciences or Irish teachers, who were weak overall? I kind of resent being told I know nothing about an inspection in my own school, the details and importance of which were drilled into us so we wouldn't screw it up.

In any case, it just proves the point that the current system of assessment doesn't work. Bad teachers are not caught.

That should be the details they chose to tell you. You have pretty much said you were told they were inspecting the whole school, all classes etc, and went off on a rant about how your chemistry teacher wasn't inspected. They told you that so all students would be on best behaviour for the whole week, so inspectors wouldn't be passing classrooms and seeing students going loopy in a subject that wasn't being inspected, so students might go to class on time, so they wouldn't behave like animals on the corridors. It's called management.

Where as the reality is they were inspecting modern languages, junior science and I'm assuming biology if it wasn't chemistry. You didn't say what fifth year class it was. They normally only inspect about 4 subjects on a whole school inspection. Vast amounts of a WSE are actually about the management of the school and how it timetables, allocates resources, how it gives resource time to special needs students, policy documents etc etc. Part of drilling students to be on best behaviour for the week was probably so the principal and deputy principal didn't have any students land down to their office because they were causing trouble while they were in a meeting with inspectors.

Every year the principal tells the leaving certs they will be finishing up on a specific date in May, let's say a Friday, then on a Wednesday afternoon about 10 minutes before 4pm, he goes to the leaving cert classes and tells them they are finished school and not to come until their grad mass. Why? Well he's told them a finishing date so they have an idea when they're done, but never the real one so they don't have a chance to plan to cause mischief. They're caught on the hop every year. And it works. Effective management.

rainbowtrout

seriouslysweet wrote: »

Interesting question here, why do teachers not put their qualifications on the walls? I never understand this. Why not do this unless you are ashamed?

Why do you just assume people are ashamed because they don't have their qualifications on the walls? I have one copy of my degree, I don't even have it myself, it's hanging up at home in my parents house. There are plenty of jobs where people don't put their qualifications on display.

Anyway, teaching is such a transient job, plenty of teachers are moving jobs all the time, are they supposed to spend time putting their degree on the wall in one school and then take it down and put it up in the next school?


Also we are working with students, many of whom are lovely, but some are prone to causing trouble and would have no problem putting some graffiti across a degree if they got the chance. I'd like to keep my degree parchment intact if you don't mind.

I work out of 3 different classrooms/labs in one building and two different rooms in another building, maybe I should just carry it around with me and hang it up at the start of every class?

All qualified teachers are registered with the teaching council. You can check the register online if you want to see if a teacher is qualified. It's there for any member of the public to view.

kippy

seriouslysweet wrote: »

Interesting question here, why do teachers not put their qualifications on the walls? I never understand this. Why not do this unless you are ashamed?

WTF?
Thats the most ridiculous comment I have seen in here.
I don't know many people that put their qualifications on the walls (its a pretty sad thing to be doing to be completely honest - they would have provided their qualifications when they got the job and one would make the assumption that they are qualified to do the job - putting qualifications on the walls servers absolutely no purpose apart from possibly trying to "show off".

Also, just someone is qualified to do something, it doesnt necessarily mean they are good at it, and that doesnt just apply to teachers.


Our education system isnt THAT bad - yep - there are things that could be improved. I would rather see teachers spend less time doing paper work and more time either:
Teaching
Learning about new ways and methods to teach and access.

seriouslysweet

Firstly, there are loads of unqualified teachers working and secondly, I acknowledge ye move about but why not somewhere in the school. I just think it's something to be proud of, I know doctors, dentists, accountants do it, why not teachers? It's something to be proud of if you're qualified, if you're not you should not be there.

vamos!

seriouslysweet wrote: »

Interesting question here, why do teachers not put their qualifications on the walls? I never understand this. Why not do this unless you are ashamed?

Ashamed of having done 6 years at University to still be subbing because of the jobs situation? Ashamed of not having wall to hang said parchments on or ashamed of the obvious faults in a system which produces students with the arrogance and ignorance (lack of knowledge) to make some of the comments on this thread?

kippy

seriouslysweet wrote: »

Firstly, there are loads of unqualified teachers working and secondly, I acknowledge ye move about but why not somewhere in the school. I just think it's something to be proud of, I know doctors, dentists, accountants do it, why not teachers? It's something to be proud of if you're qualified, if you're not you should not be there.

Again, a crazy statement.
How do you mean there are loads of "unqualified" teachers working? How are they "unqualified"?

rainbowtrout

seriouslysweet wrote: »

Firstly, there are loads of unqualified teachers working and secondly, I acknowledge ye move about but why not somewhere in the school. I just think it's something to be proud of, I know doctors, dentists, accountants do it, why not teachers? It's something to be proud of if you're qualified, if you're not you should not be there.

You don't need to have your qualification on public display to be proud of it, and not having it on public display does not mean you're not proud of it.

seriouslysweet

I'm not trying to get anyone's back up. I've a few teachers in my family, I know how tough it is. But what I do not get is how we have a French teacher with no Dip and another class has an Irish teacher with no degree in the subject. I suppose the arguement could be made that one must trust those who hire them but they're not as entitled to be there as someone who is firstly qualified and secondly actually capable of doing a good job. My heart goes out to that teacher who said that they had no wall to hang the parchment on but surely if there were tighter controls on who gets the jobs you would get a chance? The woman teaching French is related to our principal and the other teacher is a local sportsperson, go figure.

Mike 1972

spurious wrote: »

The Department have a perfectly valid inspectorate who do regularly assess teachers.

When was this inspectorate introdced ?

Admitidely Im getting on a bit but when I was in primary school inspections were minimal and in secondary school they were non-existant.

kippy

seriouslysweet wrote: »

I'm not trying to get anyone's back up. I've a few teachers in my family, I know how tough it is. But what I do not get is how we have a French teacher with no Dip and another class has an Irish teacher with no degree in the subject. I suppose the arguement could be made that one must trust those who hire them but they're not as entitled to be there as someone who is firstly qualified and secondly actually capable of doing a good job. My heart goes out to that teacher who said that they had no wall to hang the parchment on but surely if there were tighter controls on who gets the jobs you would get a chance? The woman teaching French is related to our principal and the other teacher is a local sportsperson, go figure.

What has that got to do with hanging qualifications on walls?
Surely what you should be asking is why are these people getting jobs and what is being done to ensure teachers that are in the system or about to go into it have the most relevant qualifications for the subjects they intend on teaching?

spurious

Mike 1972 wrote: »

When was this inspectorate introdced ?

Admitidely Im getting on a bit but when I was in primary school inspections were minimal and in secondary school they were non-existant.

Things have changed a lot in the last ten years or so.
This page shows the inspections and reports for schools in the last few years.
It's quite a transparent procedure.

seriouslysweet

I've asked those questions Kippy but I'm still in secondary myself and was only thinking today after being at the dentist that I can clearly see what he specialises in, surely for teachers it should be the same? I didn't intend to get anyone's backs up, I just feel sorry for all the really good teachers to be carrying the can for the other ones.

jumpguy

crayolastereo wrote: »

I don't understand why whenever this issue comes up, students are portrayed as these horribly vindictive people who are too stupid to understand the seriousness of putting in a complaint. I just don't believe you are ever going to be able to evaluate teachers if the people they are teaching are completely excluded.

The complaint needs parents signatures, the whole class could be asked what they thought of the teacher, grades relative to the students normal ability would be looked at. Were a complaint found to be petty or jut personal not liking someone, serious sanctions would be put in place.

Yeah, that's a pretty awful idea. I know there are plenty of students in my class who would complain about a teacher (mainly due to the teacher having to discipline them) just to get them back or whatever. And just because parents sign it doesn't mean it should decide a teacher's career, that'd be ridiculous. The teacher would essentially be almost in a hostage-like situation with his/her students, as the students would have far too much power to be than the should be trusted with.

However, I agree that there should be random inspections. I know for a fact that teachers DO know when there class will inspected, or at least what time period, and the students are warned in advance to behave or serious consequences and so forth. I've even heard of disruptive students being told to sit out of classes in some schools (presumably without the inspector's knowledge...).

I think the best solution is a variety of indicators. Student's grades being only one of them, for example, if a student has exceptional grades in every subject (for example, maths and chemistry) but struggles in a subject like, say, physics, there should be a question mark, particularly if this is a common trend with a teacher.

I also believe that teachers should be tested on their own syllabus that they teach and the subject in general (provided they have a degree, which they should). Teachers who only know what is in the textbook they teach out of is quite discouraging, particularly for students with an extended interest in the subject. There is nothing to inspire or feed natural curiousity in that, and one of the greatest weaknesses of the LC already is that it tends to greatly reward students who can merely learn stuff off (which is probably a weakness with most written academic exams, tbh).

There are many more criteria you could add, but at the moment I think the whole "inspector comes in for a class for a while" is far too flawed to be worth it's merit. It is too two-dimensional, and without even completely random inspections, it's almost worthless.

DaveMur1

• Student report systems, wouldn't work system would be abused!
• In many subjects teachers play little part in what your leaving cert results will be because it's basically a memory game of a system.
• Teachers should be fully qualified in their chosen subject ,before allowed stand in front of a class.(maths teachers)
• Basing teachers pay on results will really make life harder for students as if your results are going to affect their pay they will pile on an un-necessary the workload.
• Teachers should be made take a mandatory exam every 3 years to prove ability in teaching material!

Don't take this reply as biased for either students or teachers, I don't really care anymore finished school after 35 more school days!

dillo2k10

I think that a way of doing it by grades would be to look at the students other grades. If there was a History class and most of the students were getting Fails or D's. If 14 of the 20 students also studied Geography and were getting A's and B's. If 12 of them studied Business and were getting B's and C's it would be quite clear that the problem was the teacher. If this was a pattern over a lot of the teachers classes then something could be done about it.

During inspections the inspectors should speak to students about the teacher, the way they normally teach etc. If they all say that the teacher usually just reads the book aloud then they obviously aren't a great teacher.

The inspections should be completely random. An examiner should just be able to walk into a school at any time they want and walk into a random classroom and sit down the back. Then the teacher has no time to avoid the normal thing that they are doing.

Students work should be looked at. In english they could look at the copies and at the work, if there are any improvements or corrections etc

kippy

seriouslysweet wrote: »

I've asked those questions Kippy but I'm still in secondary myself and was only thinking today after being at the dentist that I can clearly see what he specialises in, surely for teachers it should be the same? I didn't intend to get anyone's backs up, I just feel sorry for all the really good teachers to be carrying the can for the other ones.

Why should it be the same?

spurious

dillo2k10 wrote: »

During inspections the inspectors should speak to students about the teacher, the way they normally teach etc. If they all say that the teacher usually just reads the book aloud then they obviously aren't a great teacher.

They do - or at least they did in our three most recent ones, including a WSE.

dillo2k10 wrote: »

The inspections should be completely random. An examiner should just be able to walk into a school at any time they want and walk into a random classroom and sit down the back. Then the teacher has no time to avoid the normal thing that they are doing.

Again, this is possible, though it's only manners to arrive at the start of a class, not in the middle.

dillo2k10 wrote: »

Students work should be looked at. In english they could look at the copies and at the work, if there are any improvements or corrections etc

This happens in every inspection.

dillo2k10

Well, yes they should only come at the start of a class, however the teacher would have less time to work a plan around the inspector. As if when you come in and s/he suddenly tells the students that we are going to do this instead you know that something is up, but if s/he still has to start the class they can do what they want to look better.

I know that it would be a huge pain for a lot of teachers to be inspected often but I think that it would be worth it, and I am sure that it wouldn't effect most teachers beyond a disruption to the class. Most teachers are good at their jobs.

I want to be a teacher myself and I would be a little annoyed with them showing up randomly but I would also think that its the right thing to do.

I think that matching of the grades and random checks could work.

randylonghorn

crayolastereo wrote: »

I don't understand why whenever this issue comes up, students are portrayed as these horribly vindictive people who are too stupid to understand the seriousness of putting in a complaint.

Now where did I say or even imply in my post above that I thought all students are horribly vindictive people?

The nature of life though is that some people in all walks of life and at all ages are vindictive, and that some teenagers are immature and lack understanding of the life (that's not a matter of fault or blame, it's the natural condition of their age). For that matter, I have encountered teachers who could be described as vindictive or to have a set on certain students, and to return to the opposite scenario which I posed to you for comment, and invited you to reflectively evaluate in the light of principles of fairness and equity, I would be very concerned about a pseudo-mathematical formula such as "any student who is the subject of more than three complaints from teachers is expelled" as I believe it would be wide open to abuse and to the possibility of students being "managed out" of schools by certain teachers.

Unfortunately, I have known cases of that happening even without such a formula. AND I know of at least one case of an enthusiastic young teacher being "managed out" of a school by the subtle but very effective and deliberate bullying tactics of a coterie of girls in senior cycle, not because she wasn't a good teacher but because unlike many of the staff she saw through them, didn't buy into their BS and they took a set on her as a result ... and that without the perfect weapon which you would propose to hand to such people. So effective were they, in fact, that it took her a couple of years before she even considered returning to teaching, and took a job in a completely different sector in the meantime. Luckily, her enthusiasm to teach eventually drew her back, and she is now a very effective, very happy and very popular teacher in a school at the other end of the country.

crayolastereo wrote: »

I just don't believe you are ever going to be able to evaluate teachers if the people they are teaching are completely excluded.

I agree with you, but there is a huge difference between completely excluding students on the one extreme and the type of scenario you have outlined on the other extreme. Teachers have pointed out that there is a role for students in evaluations already; whether that needs to be strengthened or whether other complementary processes need to be developed I can't really comment on; I'm not a teacher (as I have to keep reminding people around here) and it's been a while since my LC, so I'm not really in a position to evaluate the processes currently in play from either perspective. I would have huge problems with the kind of cut-and-dried benchmark you have outlined though, whether applied to teachers OR students.

crayolastereo wrote: »

The complaint needs parents signatures, the whole class could be asked what they thought of the teacher, grades relative to the students normal ability would be looked at. Were a complaint found to be petty or jut personal not liking someone, serious sanctions would be put in place.

That last bit in particular would never work though. "We acted in good faith" would always be the defense, and would be almost impossible to disprove.

Naikon

Another + for my lack of respect towards Unions. Try this in the public sector and you would be out the door. SOME Teachers reaaly do have an easy ride. 3 months and all that. I don't condone poor teaching, but the attitude of "I failed because my teacher" strikes me as a bit childish.

I had plenty of ****ty teachers in school like most other people. I compensated by ignoring their twaddle and worked from the book. My history teacher went mising for 3 months. Was any action taken? Naaaaah. You want to know a secret? You are mostly responsible for your own learning/life. Teachers are only effective to a point. This rule applies to most situations.

BostonB

Most kids won't realise this, until later when the damage is done.

Chuchoter

Naikon wrote: »

Another + for my lack of respect towards Unions. Try this in the public sector and you would be out the door. SOME Teachers reaaly do have an easy ride. 3 months and all that. I don't condone poor teaching, but the attitude of "I failed because my teacher" strikes me as a bit childish.

I had plenty of ****ty teachers in school like most other people. I compensated by ignoring their twaddle and worked from the book. My history teacher went mising for 3 months. Was any action taken? Naaaaah. You want to know a secret? You are mostly responsible for your own learning/life. Teachers are only effective to a point. This rule applies to most situations.

Now although I do know people who blame everyone and everything else for their own academic failures, a good teacher is incredibly important. If teachers were as throwaway as 'well basically its all down to you anyway', why do I come into school every day? Because I don't know everything, I'm there so my teacher can explain it to me, if teachers were irrelevant I'd just stay at home.

Naikon

crayolastereo wrote: »

a good teacher is incredibly important.

I have to disagree. Too many teachers care only about the benefits, not about actually imparting knowledge onto their students. I am only basing this on my experience of Secondary school. Self discipline may be hard to manage if you aren't naturally inclined towards such a lifestyle, but it's required to really get ahead in life. We need more individuals who are capable of thinking outside of the box. Accepting that you alone are responsible for yourself at an early age is a start. Sadly, the school system does not cater to this train of thought.

BostonB

Not every one is a square peg in a square hole. Not everyone learns the same, or works well by them self. Just like not everyone learns best from a teacher.

Chuchoter

Naikon wrote: »

I have to disagree. Too many teachers care only about the benefits, not about actually imparting knowledge onto their students. I am only basing this on my experience of Secondary school. Self discipline may be hard to manage if you aren't naturally inclined towards such a lifestyle, but it's required to really get ahead in life. We need more individuals who are capable of thinking outside of the box. Accepting that you alone are responsible for yourself at an early age is a start. Sadly, the school system does not cater to this train of thought.

So I can teach myself French and catch out my own grammar mistakes?

Naikon

crayolastereo wrote: »

So I can teach myself French and catch out my own grammar mistakes?

Yes.

Naikon

BostonB wrote: »

Not every one is a square peg in a square hole. Not everyone learns the same, or works well by them self. Just like not everyone learns best from a teacher.

I agree. Not everyone needs to be ultra self reliant or anything, it just amazes me how some people generally find shifting the blame to others is acceptable. I reckon the guy complaining about his teacher will try to justify suing somebody in the future. Everyone is taking the chance

Chuchoter

Naikon wrote: »

Yes.

....How??
If I wrote it down I probably thought it was right, no?

dillo2k10

So if we can just teach ourself everything then why bother having teachers. There is no way that I could pick up a math book and teach myself higher level math.

If a teacher is crap the student should try to learn as much as they can him/her self, but if they had a good teacher that made things interesting they would do better.

It isn't a good enough excuse to say I didn't get into University because I had a crappy Irish teacher, but it would certainly help if you didn't.