Deis schools in Dublin

born2bwild

deemark wrote: »

There are a lot of other experienced examiners who post on this forum who would disagree with you, including myself. Each student's work must be marked on its own merits, and in English, if that essay is the same as the previous student's, but it answers the question asked, it gets the marks. The system is far from perfect as a measure of excellence, but in its goal of producing a set of measurable and comparable results, it is fair.

Of course, we all aspire to being decent, law-abiding citizens. But, we, as teachers, need to be more than that. The reality is that we are in daily contact with vulnerable people and are in a good position to pick up warning signs. We should not require a law or mandatory reporting to compel us to be decent citizens and human beings.

You seem to regard time spent on pastoral care as a negative. I firmly disagree. Students need to come into a safe supportive environment. If that is the only thing we provide, then that is something positive. Getting good exam results is an added bonus. The student who attends most days, whose behaviour improves as the year goes on and who attains a level of education needed to function in our society and a certificate to prove it, is a success.

I certainly didn't claim that we should require a law compelling disclosure. There is no such thing as being more than a decent, responsible citizen - you either are or you're not.
Yes, as a teacher you come into contact with trouble a lot, much of which we're not qualified to deal with. In those circumstances it is imperative that we behave as responsible citizens should.

If you have read what I've written then you'll know that I am not claiming time spent on pastoral matters is negative. Too much time spent on non-academic activities is, by definition, wasteful and unprofessional because in most cases, we are not competent or qualified.

I must stress that I am referring to excessive amounts of time spent on pastoral matters (and I most certainly am not only - perhaps not at all - referring to the subject 'pastoral care' when I use these terms) by teachers in DEIS schools.

Your final point about attendance being in itself a success leads on to other, related matters which are essential to any understanding of how DEIS schools operate. Merely showing up may be a 'success' relative to not coming to school and staying at home and getting stoned - sure, but no-one should seriously believe that it actually is success.

My problem is this: some teachers in DEIS schools think that their job stops once the bums are on seats, DEIS money is in and off we go on another trip or on some waste of time NBSS programme. Meanwhile the kids down the road in the next school are being prepared to get 6 A1s.

I ask you this: which school would you want your children in?

born2bwild

gaeilgebeo wrote: »

born2bwild wrote: »

And I can tell you as a state examiner of many years too, that unreflective regurgitation is rewarded.
How many times do you see reamed off answers in exams, or 30 students in a class with very similar learned off answers/essays?
I don't know what subject you correct, but to say that regurgitated answers are not rewarded is untrue.
I'm not saying this is ideal, but it is a reality.

Born2bwild you have such strong views on pastoral care, can you not think of any examples where a teacher spent more time on pastoral care than on the curriculum?
Funnily enough, a lot of the serious pastoral care given in my own school is out of the teachers timetabled hours, given during free classes/lunchtime etc...

Hi - I think we're getting our wires crossed here: I'm not really talking about the subject pastoral care.
I could give you examples but I won't because I don't want to have this discussion in work and examples might identify who I am and where I work.

We certainly agree on one thing - most of the 'pastoral' stuff I do is outside class time - anything else is a scandal, and, scandalously, although I will not be specific here, happens all the time.

And finally, gaeilgebeo and deemark - stop thanking one another - it's obvious you agree.

implausible

born2bwild wrote: »

I certainly didn't claim that we should require a law compelling disclosure. There is no such thing as being more than a decent, responsible citizen - you either are or you're not.
Yes, as a teacher you come into contact with trouble a lot, much of which we're not qualified to deal with. In those circumstances it is imperative that we behave as responsible citizens should.

If you have read what I've written then you'll know that I am not claiming time spent on pastoral matters is negative. Too much time spent on non-academic activities is, by definition, wasteful and unprofessional because in most cases, we are not competent or qualified.

I must stress that I am referring to excessive amounts of time spent on pastoral matters (and I most certainly am not only - perhaps not at all - referring to the subject 'pastoral care' when I use these terms) by teachers in DEIS schools.

Your final point about attendance being in itself a success leads on to other, related matters which are essential to any understanding of how DEIS schools operate. Merely showing up may be a 'success' relative to not coming to school and staying at home and getting stoned - sure, but no-one should seriously believe that it actually is success.

My problem is this: some teachers in DEIS schools think that their job stops once the bums are on seats, DEIS money is in and off we go on another trip or on some waste of time NBSS programme. Meanwhile the kids down the road in the next school are being prepared to get 6 A1s.

I ask you this: which school would you want your children in?

When I mentioned disclosure, I was referring to the debate around the issue of mandatory reporting, which I presumed most people were aware of.

To be honest, I get the feeling that there must be some kind of an issue in your school around teachers not teaching the curriculum and focusing instead on pastoral care, because no teacher in my school has the time. And in our school, the NBSS is an initiative that will be badly missed.

Success is relative. Every kid cannot get 600 points. And the ones who do, sometimes need pastoral care too.

My kids? My kids will have interested parents, who themselves had a good experience with school, economic stability and a loving home. They will succeed no matter where they go, if the foundation is there at home.

implausible

born2bwild wrote: »

And finally, gaeilgebeo and deemark - stop thanking one another - it's obvious you agree.

I'll acknowledge, appreciate or agree with what I like on this forum, unless a mod tells me otherwise, but thanks for the input anyway.

seavill

born2bwild wrote: »

Your final point about attendance being in itself a success leads on to other, related matters which are essential to any understanding of how DEIS schools operate. Merely showing up may be a 'success' relative to not coming to school and staying at home and getting stoned - sure, but no-one should seriously believe that it actually is success.

My problem is this: some teachers in DEIS schools think that their job stops once the bums are on seats, DEIS money is in and off we go on another trip or on some waste of time NBSS programme. Meanwhile the kids down the road in the next school are being prepared to get 6 A1s.

I ask you this: which school would you want your children in?

I have worked in 2 different DEIS schools previously. From my experience I would agree with one post earlier which said that the majority of that extra pastoral work was carried out during the teachers own free classes, generally time wasted in class lead to disruption and teachers know it.

I would agree with you to a point that we must always get the best out of our students, however how is this to happen if they do not turn up for school in the first place. Possibly putting in the extra effort and putting in extra resources to ensure this happens will allow for the best possible exam results for that student, they are by no means a waste of money.

I have discussed, and agree to a point, with other teachers in these schools the fact that so much money is spent on troubled students which is not spent on the "Good" ones, however we surely need to do whatever is possible for each individual student.

and finally, in relation to your "NBSS" comment, I personally have seen the major differneces some of these programmes can make. One of the schools I mentioned went to almost 100% retention rate from probably 50% at best due to resources and money from the NBSS and the difference in the school itself was amazing.

finally, finally, "which school would you want your children in?" from working in 7 or 8 different schools the most caring and the most interested teachers were those in the DEIS schools. I will give one example from the first DEIS school I was in.
One student joined us from the local CBS school just down the road, where they were pushing for the 6 A1's for every student. That mother was almost in tears at one awards day as she found the extra effort made by the DEIS teachers was amazing. She felt so much more comfortable coming in to the school to deal with any issues, she could tell how much the teachers "cared" about the students and I could not repeat what she said about the other school.

So although points are everything in our system, there is by no means a need for schools where the two systems cannot mix.

implausible

seavill wrote: »

Finally, "which school would you want your children in?" from working in 7 or 8 different schools the most caring and the most interested teachers were those in the DEIS schools. I will give one example from the first DEIS school I was in.
One student joined us from the local CBS school just down the road, where they were pushing for the 6 A1's for every student. That mother was almost in tears at one awards day as she found the extra effort made by the DEIS teachers was amazing. She felt so much more comfortable coming in to the school to deal with any issues, she could tell how much the teachers "cared" about the students and I could not repeat what she said about the other school.

So although points are everything in our system, there is by no means a need for schools where the two systems cannot mix.

I could have written the same anecdote seavill. The parents of transferring students are often overwhelmed by the difference in the atmosphere and attitude of the teachers.

Your last point hits the nail on the head - you need points AND pastoral care. However, in our flawed system, some schools are seen as highly academic ones and the DEIS schools pick up many of those who do not fit that mould, resulting in a situation where I teach a disproportionate amount (by comparison to other schools in the area) of traveller children, international students and special needs children.

The news yesterday that a school in this country won their appeal against being compelled to accept students (in this case, travellers) whose parents weren't alumni made my heart sink. A precedent has now been set that will maintain and worsen the status quo. Schools who have sibling or parent rules in their admissions policies or who maintain they don't have sufficient special needs facilities will continue to 'redirect' students to schools like mine - a DEIS VEC school with a fair admissions policy.

Sorry, that turned into a bit of a rant:o!

mrboswell

born2bwild wrote: »

I wish I could give you concrete examples: your brain would boil to see the extent to which this pastoral obsession blights the life chances of kids in schools I have worked in.

Do something about it. Put you neck on the line and take it to DES. Otherwise get on with it as opposed to churning out the same old tripe.

Most of us don't live in a black and white world like you. How depressing it must be for you that all your students/robots don't achieve 600 points.

Personally I prefer to teach human beings, despite all of their short comings :rolleyes:

born2bwild

mrboswell wrote: »

Do something about it. Put you neck on the line and take it to DES. Otherwise get on with it as opposed to churning out the same old tripe.

Most of us don't live in a black and white world like you. How depressing it must be for you that all your students/robots don't achieve 600 points.

Personally I prefer to teach human beings, despite all of their short comings :rolleyes:

''Get on with it....Churning out the same old tripe."

Precisely where in all of my posts have I written ''tripe"? You clearly have neither the inclination nor ability to engage in reasoned debate.

I've got news for you - you do live in a cold hard world where +/- 5 points in the Leaving Cert can make a whole lot of difference to a person's life - the tabloidesque inanity of your response is testament to the extent to which you are in flight from that reality.

I personally have not once referred to 'robots' -what in God's name are you on about?

I do not find it depressing that students do not reach 600 points - I do find it depressing that certain teachers think a single moment spent on matters unrelated to the curriculum at the expense of their students' academic success is in any way justifiable.

It is wrong to jeopardise students' chances of academic success in the name of any ancillary, non curricular, pastoral activity.

born2bwild

deemark wrote: »

When I mentioned disclosure, I was referring to the debate around the issue of mandatory reporting, which I presumed most people were aware of.

To be honest, I get the feeling that there must be some kind of an issue in your school around teachers not teaching the curriculum and focusing instead on pastoral care, because no teacher in my school has the time. And in our school, the NBSS is an initiative that will be badly missed.

Success is relative. Every kid cannot get 600 points. And the ones who do, sometimes need pastoral care too.

My kids? My kids will have interested parents, who themselves had a good experience with school, economic stability and a loving home. They will succeed no matter where they go, if the foundation is there at home.

Firstly, that is what I have been saying from the beginning of my involvement in this thread - there is a problem with a lot of teachers spending more time on pastoral maters than they do on the curriculum. That is wrong because we are trained in academic disciplines - not pastoral - and also because what makes the biggest difference is exam results.

Secondly, success is relative but it is also absolute - it is absolutely the case that society rewards those with 600 points more than it rewards those with 500 points. They're not my rules - that's the world we live in.

Thirdly, middle class children, by and large do not go to DEIS schools - nor would they be allowed to go most middle class parents. There is consequently a high concentration of children in DEIS schools whose parents cannot provide middle class supports at home - our response to this as teachers should be first and foremost to help them achieve academic excellence - I'm not saying that we can't take them on trips, listen to their problems, go the extra light year to support them in whatever way we can - but I repeat: the best way to help them is to help them achieve academic excellence. That is the only way to make a material difference in their lives.

born2bwild

seavill wrote: »

I have worked in 2 different DEIS schools previously. From my experience I would agree with one post earlier which said that the majority of that extra pastoral work was carried out during the teachers own free classes, generally time wasted in class lead to disruption and teachers know it.

I would agree with you to a point that we must always get the best out of our students, however how is this to happen if they do not turn up for school in the first place. Possibly putting in the extra effort and putting in extra resources to ensure this happens will allow for the best possible exam results for that student, they are by no means a waste of money.

I have discussed, and agree to a point, with other teachers in these schools the fact that so much money is spent on troubled students which is not spent on the "Good" ones, however we surely need to do whatever is possible for each individual student.

and finally, in relation to your "NBSS" comment, I personally have seen the major differneces some of these programmes can make. One of the schools I mentioned went to almost 100% retention rate from probably 50% at best due to resources and money from the NBSS and the difference in the school itself was amazing.

finally, finally, "which school would you want your children in?" from working in 7 or 8 different schools the most caring and the most interested teachers were those in the DEIS schools. I will give one example from the first DEIS school I was in.
One student joined us from the local CBS school just down the road, where they were pushing for the 6 A1's for every student. That mother was almost in tears at one awards day as she found the extra effort made by the DEIS teachers was amazing. She felt so much more comfortable coming in to the school to deal with any issues, she could tell how much the teachers "cared" about the students and I could not repeat what she said about the other school.

So although points are everything in our system, there is by no means a need for schools where the two systems cannot mix.

The value of the NBSS is debatable. I know you're saying that there's a causal relationship between the work of the NBSS and retention. That's not clear to me.
A little bit of NBSS is good - beyond a certain point I really think that it's a waste of time.

I really don't recognise the opposition between the nice and caring DEIS school and the big, nasty murder machine academic school. I guess you're giving an example to illustrate your point that there's more to education than exams. I think the best school environment for kids is one in which the pursuit of academic excellence is at the core of what goes on in the school.

State exams are, as you put it, 'everything' - that's my point. Everyone knows that education is more than exams - but for kids who need much greater supports to do well in exams the 'mixture' you propose should be 9 parts academic 1 part pastoral. These kids' lives are too important for anything less.

mrboswell

born2bwild wrote: »

''Get on with it....Churning out the same old tripe."

Precisely where in all of my posts have I written ''tripe"? You clearly have neither the inclination nor ability to engage in reasoned debate.

I've got news for you - you do live in a cold hard world where +/- 5 points in the Leaving Cert can make a whole lot of difference to a person's life - the tabloidesque inanity of your response is testament to the extent to which you are in flight from that reality.

I personally have not once referred to 'robots' -what in God's name are you on about?

I do not find it depressing that students do not reach 600 points - I do find it depressing that certain teachers think a single moment spent on matters unrelated to the curriculum at the expense of their students' academic success is in any way justifiable.

It is wrong to jeopardise students' chances of academic success in the name of any ancillary, non curricular, pastoral activity.

My reply was short and did not lack substance. I certainly have the ability to engage in reasoned debate, however I'm not so sure that I am inclined to do so because you keep going on about the fact that education is all about points and clearly people here disagree with you. That is why I say you are coming out with the same tripe.

I agree that we do live in a tough world where, if you wish to do a particular course, 5 points may make a difference in a persons life. But if you are going to go on about reality, just don't forget that the reality is sometimes even 500 points won't make a differencein a persons life. A little extra encouragement could have a massive effect on a student as opposed to forcing a student that is not "academically inclined" into a route that they may not want or be able to follow.
Educations is for all, not just those capable of attaining high points. But even if the standards of education were as high as we would all like 600 points still wouldn't make a massive difference to everyone as you claim.

The major fault with our education system is the points system, but the lack of college places has driven it to where it is today. Unfortunately, people like you view a successful education by the number of points achieved and ultimately progression to 3rd level education. Many of us differ in this and in reality there is no perfect system. I suppose you could say that we are both wrong because education means different things to different people, but surely the school and its students are in the best position to judge what is in its best interests. I referred to robots because preparing students purely for attaining 600 points takes away from what many consider a real education.

Say a girl leaving school wants to sell handmade jewelry. Want's to set up a business and has not interest in college or the points system. Even a lad who wants to be a mechanic with the same lack of interest in college or the points system. In cases such as these, it can be the result of teaching them at the least a decent work ethic that will mean they recieved a successful education or not.

Where I do agree, is that over time it is arguably, that standards have slipped. But this is not down to teachers. This is a societal issue and you can't simply put it down to teachers.

Anyway, I suspect that in most DEIS schools teachers will meet the demands of the school, as decided by principal, BOM and teachers. If the school requires specific time for pastoral matters then so be it. It's not fair to slate hard working teachers for trying to do their best in a difficult situation, within a system that clearly isn't perfect.

All I can suggest is that if you don't like it, as you previously posted, do something serious about it. Request specific DEIS inspections or whatever you feel necessary, however I suspect you would not be take seriously.

It is depressing alright, that you think 600 points and going to college makes a successful person.
It is also wrong to jeopardise students' chances of life success by forcing them all to perform within a system that is designed for the purpose of ranking them. Your crusade of stuffing them all into college when clearly some of them don't want to is an elitist attitude that might work for some but certainly not all.

So much for inclusion in schools.... :rolleyes:

Dave0301

born2bwild wrote: »

I think the best school environment for kids is one in which the pursuit of academic excellence is at the core of what goes on in the school.

I just don't think this is an environment I would want influencing my own children in the future.

From my time spend in secondary school the principal always stressed the importance of producing a well rounded individual who was prepared for life in the not so sheltered world of adulthood, not just a drone who could regurgitate several long Irish essays.

I completed my leaving cert, went to college and trained to be a teacher. Which is why i'm baffled as to your viewpoint on this as for the duration of my teacher training, the duty of pastoral care was emphasized on just as much as academic care.

implausible

born2bwild wrote: »

I've got news for you - you do live in a cold hard world where +/- 5 points in the Leaving Cert can make a whole lot of difference to a person's life

born2bwild wrote: »

success is relative but it is also absolute - it is absolutely the case that society rewards those with 600 points more than it rewards those with 500 points. They're not my rules - that's the world we live in.

I think that you don't understand the 'rules' of society then. To read this, you'd imagine that you either get into college and have a fantastic life, or you don't. It is your interpretation of the rules that is absolute. Leaving Cert points do not determine absolute success, they do not determine your life; they determine entry by one route into a lot of college and university places.

floating voter

A couple of people have mentioned nbss. Very very interested to hear the negative feedback. We have it in our school and it is a total crock.

The attitude is totally about giving the kids whatever they want, trips, DVDs, colouring football crests and horses etc

before the nbss we had school completion and jcsp and to my mind the nbss is doing the exact same thing.

Government could scrap the whole scheme and eliminate 2-300 teachers at a stroke and it would make no difference. Let me be clear I would use the teachers to reduce class sizes etc and extra resource/ learning support. I am not calling for people to lose jobs!

born2bwild

deemark wrote: »

I think that you don't understand the 'rules' of society then. To read this, you'd imagine that you either get into college and have a fantastic life, or you don't. It is your interpretation of the rules that is absolute. Leaving Cert points do not determine absolute success, they do not determine your life; they determine entry by one route into a lot of college and university places.

You can 'imagine' this if you wish, however, it is not what I'm saying.

My interpretation of the rules of society is besides the point. It's absolutely the case that there is a scale of real difference in outcomes for people depending on their exam results. That is not a matter of interpretation.

I certainly have not claimed that any of this is deterministic; in fact I specified above that the relationship between exam performance and quality of life, while it is direct, it is not determined.

Sure it is possible to have a decent life with low academic achievement but it is less likely; following the same logic, the better your results the better your chances in life.

Once again, I must stress that none of this is deterministic: we're not talking about robots (at least I'm not). But to argue that better exam results do not increase your chances of having a better a life is an argument that is not based in the real world.

gaeilgebeo

floating voter wrote: »

A couple of people have mentioned nbss. Very very interested to hear the negative feedback. We have it in our school and it is a total crock.

The attitude is totally about giving the kids whatever they want, trips, DVDs, colouring football crests and horses etc

before the nbss we had school completion and jcsp and to my mind the nbss is doing the exact same thing.

Government could scrap the whole scheme and eliminate 2-300 teachers at a stroke and it would make no difference. Let me be clear I would use the teachers to reduce class sizes etc and extra resource/ learning support. I am not calling for people to lose jobs!

I'm disappointed to hear your experience of the NBSS in your school.
It has turned our school around in many many positive ways.
Some of the most disruptive troubled junior students are now lovely students to teach at senior level.
It may not have worked well in your school, but that does not mean scrap it!.It would be a huge loss in many schools.
As it is, it has been cut in a lot of schools.

mrboswell

born2bwild wrote: »

You can 'imagine' this if you wish, however, it is not what I'm saying.

My interpretation of the rules of society is besides the point. It's absolutely the case that there is a scale of real difference in outcomes for people depending on their exam results. That is not a matter of interpretation.

I certainly have not claimed that any of this is deterministic; in fact I specified above that the relationship between exam performance and quality of life, while it is direct, it is not determined.

Sure it is possible to have a decent life with low academic achievement but it is less likely; following the same logic, the better your results the better your chances in life.

Once again, I must stress that none of this is deterministic: we're not talking about robots (at least I'm not). But to argue that better exam results do not increase your chances of having a better a life is an argument that is not based in the real world.

Nobody disagrees that there is a scale of real difference in outcomes for people depending on their exam results, although you are missing the point that not everyone depends on a particular points score have a successful life.

Of course none of this is deterministic - for starters your definition of a successful life is not the same as everyone else. That is why it is wrong of you to say "Sure it is possible to have a decent life with low academic achievement but it is less likely; following the same logic, the better your results the better your chances in life.".

For you, it seems, a decent life is a high LC points haul, a few years in 3rd level and probably a high income to boot. Is this what you wanted but never achieved? Do you not have a decent life?

Many of us here do have a decent life and try to help our students have a decent life too.

You can't tar everyone by the same brush.

born2bwild

Dave0301 wrote: »

I just don't think this is an environment I would want influencing my own children in the future.

From my time spend in secondary school the principal always stressed the importance of producing a well rounded individual who was prepared for life in the not so sheltered world of adulthood, not just a drone who could regurgitate several long Irish essays.

I completed my leaving cert, went to college and trained to be a teacher. Which is why i'm baffled as to your viewpoint on this as for the duration of my teacher training, the duty of pastoral care was emphasized on just as much as academic care.

In many schools a greater emphasis on pastoral matters is perfectly acceptable because, as someone pointed out above, the children have so many supports at home.

In DEIS schools there is so often a paucity of these supports in the child's home life. For this reason it is imperative that we strive to help the student to get as close as possible to 600 points.

I'm not saying that the pastoral, non curricular element is irrelevant. I am saying that if DEIS is to do what it says on the tin - Deliver Equality of Opportunity - then it has to be utilised to maximise students' exam results.

What I'm talking about really is poverty. If you are poor in this society education is one of the few ways in which you get out of poverty. Who can possibly disagree with this? What I can see in a lot of this well-meaning talk about well-roundedness is a lack of understanding of this basic fact of life. Poor kids need teachers more than middle class kids because they can help them is ways that can utterly change the quality of their lives.

Viewed in this light, exam results, while certainly not determining the kind of person you are or any other such waffle, become a means of making a real difference in your life.

It is because I see this relationship as so important (and it is not a deterministic relationship before you respond with 'oh you don't need great results to be successful') that I am irate when I see, in the two DEIS school I have worked in - and here I'm repeating the same old tripe - a lot of teachers spending more time on pastoral matters than on the curriculum.

I care about my students' lives - that is why I refer to this carry on as an utter scandal.

You mention 'drones' who 'regurgitate' essays. Do you really think that I am recommending that we seek to produce this outcome? Go back and read what I've written.

floating voter

gaeilgebeo wrote: »

floating voter wrote: »

A couple of people have mentioned nbss. Very very interested to hear the negative feedback. We have it in our school and it is a total crock.

The attitude is totally about giving the kids whatever they want, trips, DVDs, colouring football crests and horses etc

before the nbss we had school completion and jcsp and to my mind the nbss is doing the exact same thing.

Government could scrap the whole scheme and eliminate 2-300 teachers at a stroke and it would make no difference. Let me be clear I would use the teachers to reduce class sizes etc and extra resource/ learning support. I am not calling for people to lose jobs!

I'm disappointed to hear your experience of the NBSS in your school.
It has turned our school around in many many positive ways.
Some of the most disruptive troubled junior students are now lovely students to teach at senior level.
It may not have worked well in your school, but that does not mean scrap it!.It would be a huge loss in many schools.
As it is, it has been cut in a lot of schools.

I believe you. I just can't see much difference between what we had before with school completion and jcsp.
The conversation on this thread was concerned about excessive pastoral support at the expense of academic work.

The experience we have is that it is mostly 1st and 2 nd years who are wild. Most grow out of it and thankfully progress to senior cycle but mostly as weak pass students along for the ride. I don't see how nbss can take credit for general improvement which just happens because the kids have matured over a few years.

born2bwild

mrboswell wrote: »

Nobody disagrees that there is a scale of real difference in outcomes for people depending on their exam results, although you are missing the point that not everyone depends on a particular points score have a successful life.

Of course none of this is deterministic - for starters your definition of a successful life is not the same as everyone else. That is why it is wrong of you to say "Sure it is possible to have a decent life with low academic achievement but it is less likely; following the same logic, the better your results the better your chances in life.".

For you, it seems, a decent life is a hight LC points haul, a few years in 3rd level and probably a high income to boot. Is this what you wanted but never achieved? Do you not have a decent life?

Many of us here do have a decent life and try to help our students have a decent life too.

You can't tar everyone by the same brush.

A successful life is not determined by the points that you get. But it is far more difficult to have a decent life, however you define that, with poor exam results.

So are you saying that you're more likely to have a successful life with poor exam results? I don't think that you are.

Or are you saying that we live in a world where exam results are a kind of 'optional extra', they don't really matter, what really matters is the size of daddy's bank account. For most people exam results are the number 1 priority That is, unless you are very rich, unless you're looking to be a career criminal, unless you don't mind sitting on the dole.

And before you make the point 'well why can't you sell craft jewellery or become a yoga instructor' people can, to an extent, do what they please - we're not living in an Orwell novel but the reality is for most people, exam results are utterly crucial.

I'm not tarring anyone with that brush - I'm not making this up - we're all tarrred with the same brush.

born2bwild

mrboswell wrote: »

The major fault with our education system is the points system, but the lack of college places has driven it to where it is today. Unfortunately, people like you view a successful education by the number of points achieved and ultimately progression to 3rd level education.


It's not fair to slate hard working teachers for trying to do their best in a difficult situation, within a system that clearly isn't perfect.



It is depressing alright, that you think 600 points and going to college makes a successful person.
It is also wrong to jeopardise students' chances of life success by forcing them all to perform within a system that is designed for the purpose of ranking them. Your crusade of stuffing them all into college when clearly some of them don't want to is an elitist attitude that might work for some but certainly not all.

So much for inclusion in schools.... :rolleyes:

I agreed with what you said about encouragement.

I actually think that the points system, in and of itself, is fair. It's an open competition, anyone can enter, it tests a fairly broad range of abilities - I do not accept the mindless regurgitation argument.

Society, however, is not fair, there is unequal distribution of wealth and opportunity and that means that exam system is not a level playing field.
As a result of this, there are schools that year on year, decade on decade, produce labourers, shop assistants, and emigrants while there are schools that produce solicitors, doctors and politicians.

What I'm suggesting seems so objectionable to many of you because what I'm really saying is that in DEIS schools we should seek to defy this injustice by pushing and encouraging kids to go to universities (not 'forcing' and 'stuffing' people as you suggest).

I'm not slating teachers who work hard - I am slating teachers who either don't see or don't care about the status quo in DEIS schools and the culture of low expectations (ah sure they're only going to be hairdressers and mechanics let's take them on a trip).

These kids have to live out the consequences of every second of lost preparation for their exams. (And, once again, before you say it, I'm not saying we should jettison the pastoral side of things, I am saying that it has to be kept in its place.

Finally, '600 points makes a successful person' do you really think that I am saying this?

born2bwild

floating voter wrote: »

I believe you. I just can't see much difference between what we had before with school completion and jcsp.
The conversation on this thread was concerned about excessive pastoral support at the expense of academic work.

The experience we have is that it is mostly 1st and 2 nd years who are wild. Most grow out of it and thankfully progress to senior cycle but mostly as weak pass students along for the ride. I don't see how nbss can take credit for general improvement which just happens because the kids have matured over a few years.

NBSS programmes are primarily pastoral in nature.

I agree with you: the NBSS can, much of the time, be a ''rain dance". It's going to happen anyway.

floating voter

born2bwild wrote: »

floating voter wrote: »

I believe you. I just can't see much difference between what we had before with school completion and jcsp.
The conversation on this thread was concerned about excessive pastoral support at the expense of academic work.

The experience we have is that it is mostly 1st and 2 nd years who are wild. Most grow out of it and thankfully progress to senior cycle but mostly as weak pass students along for the ride. I don't see how nbss can take credit for general improvement which just happens because the kids have matured over a few years.

NBSS programmes are primarily pastoral in nature.

I agree with you: the NBSS can, much of the time, be a ''rain dance". It's going to happen anyway.

I like that rain dance analogy. Sums up perfectly what a lot of these pastoral programmes offer.
Excessive celebration of quite basic, some would say normal, achievements and hand wringing and platitudes for the few that no intervention will help.

mrboswell

born2bwild wrote: »

A successful life is not determined by the points that you get. But it is far more difficult to have a decent life, however you define that, with poor exam results.

So are you saying that you're more likely to have a successful life with poor exam results? I don't think that you are.

Or are you saying that we live in a world where exam results are a kind of 'optional extra', they don't really matter, what really matters is the size of daddy's bank account. For most people exam results are the number 1 priority That is, unless you are very rich, unless you're looking to be a career criminal, unless you don't mind sitting on the dole.

And before you make the point 'well why can't you sell craft jewellery or become a yoga instructor' people can, to an extent, do what they please - we're not living in an Orwell novel but the reality is for most people, exam results are utterly crucial.

I'm not tarring anyone with that brush - I'm not making this up - we're all tarrred with the same brush.

What you say is flawed because of what you view as a decent life.

I am not saying that you're more likely to have a successful life with poor exam results, nor am I saying that you're more likely to have an unsuccessful life with good exam results. Again it is all about what your view of successful.

Exams are not an 'optional extra', they do really matter - to those who want to go to college and not everyone! Also, yes sometimes what really matters is the size of daddy's bank account.

You say "most" people and so long as you want "most" of you students to go to college and be "successful" then you are probably failing them as much as you claim the DEIS system fails "poor" students.

I also have to point out that there are other was to live your life, and be successful, without living the 3 ways you pointed out.

Yes people can do what they want, usually with OR WITHOUT a successful Leaving certificate.

You and not society are tarring everyone of your students with the same brush, painting them all as third level graduates. God forbid anyone of them don't make it that far - them might have to do manual labour for an income! :rolleyes:

born2bwild wrote: »

I agreed with what you said about encouragement.

I actually think that the points system, in and of itself, is fair. It's an open competition, anyone can enter, it tests a fairly broad range of abilities - I do not accept the mindless regurgitation argument.

Society, however, is not fair, there is unequal distribution of wealth and opportunity and that means that exam system is not a level playing field.
As a result of this, there are schools that year on year, decade on decade, produce labourers, shop assistants, and emigrants while there are schools that produce solicitors, doctors and politicians.

What I'm suggesting seems so objectionable to many of you because what I'm really saying is that in DEIS schools we should seek to defy this injustice by pushing and encouraging kids to go to universities (not 'forcing' and 'stuffing' people as you suggest).

I'm not slating teachers who work hard - I am slating teachers who either don't see or don't care about the status quo in DEIS schools and the culture of low expectations (ah sure they're only going to be hairdressers and mechanics let's take them on a trip).

These kids have to live out the consequences of every second of lost preparation for their exams. (And, once again, before you say it, I'm not saying we should jettison the pastoral side of things, I am saying that it has to be kept in its place.

Finally, '600 points makes a successful person' do you really think that I am saying this?

The points system is more of less fair and tests a fairly broad range of abilities - memory being one of them. Not mindless regurgitation but there is a fair amount of memory required.
It is an open competition, anyone can enter, but in reality not all can compete at the hallowed 600 point level. You have to be be very careful not to leave students behind in your wake as you power off in the pursuit of 600 points.
The fact is that we can't retrospectively train all parents of kids in DEIS schools to check homework and make sure their kids come to school and try their best. That is why DEIS is set up. Not to make sure everyone gets full marks but that they have an equal chance at a successful life, whatever definition of successful you use.

Correct. Society is not fair, there is unequal distribution of wealth and opportunity and that means that exam system is not a level playing field despite the "fair" points system that currently is the best we have.
There is NOTHING WRONG with schools that year on year, decade on decade, produce labourers, shop assistants, and emigrants while there are schools that produce solicitors, doctors and politicians. We need all of these even in your "successful" society.

What you are suggesting seems so objectionable to many of us because what you are really saying is that in DEIS schools we should seek to defy this injustice by pushing and encouraging kids to go to universities and possibly encourage people to over qualify themselves while keeping them out of the work force and maybe prevent them form maintaining a family etc. Encouraging is one thing but pushing is OTT.


You seem to be slating teachers in all DEIS schools. But don't forget that all schools are different.
WOW - I can't believe that you view hairdressers or mechanics as people that have come from a culture of low level of achievement - I hope you are not that small minded.

I agree that encouragement to proceed on to 3rd level is important.
Its just that I think that its also ok to encourage a student to become a mechanic if that is what they really want to do.

If you really think that these kids have to live out the consequences of every second of lost preparation for their exams then you really have missed the bigger picture.

I don't think that you are saying "600 points makes a successful person' but I do think you are saying that having a 3rd level qualification makes a successful person so it follows from you logic that if you don't have it one then you are unsuccessful.

I hope you never get the chance to tar my children with your brush.

born2bwild

mrboswell wrote: »

What you say is flawed because of what you view as a decent life.

I am not saying that you're more likely to have a successful life with poor exam results, nor am I saying that you're more likely to have an unsuccessful life with good exam results. Again it is all about what your view of successful.

Exams are not an 'optional extra', they do really matter - to those who want to go to college and not everyone! Also, yes sometimes what really matters is the size of daddy's bank account.

You say "most" people and so long as you want "most" of you students to go to college and be "successful" then you are probably failing them as much as you claim the DEIS system fails "poor" students.

I also have to point out that there are other was to live your life, and be successful, without living the 3 ways you pointed out.

Yes people can do what they want, usually with OR WITHOUT a successful Leaving certificate.

You and not society are tarring everyone of your students with the same brush, painting them all as third level graduates. God forbid anyone of them don't make it that far - them might have to do manual labour for an income! :rolleyes:



The points system is more of less fair and tests a fairly broad range of abilities - memory being one of them. Not mindless regurgitation but there is a fair amount of memory required.
It is an open competition, anyone can enter, but in reality not all can compete at the hallowed 600 point level. You have to be be very careful not to leave students behind in your wake as you power off in the pursuit of 600 points.
The fact is that we can't retrospectively train all parents of kids in DEIS schools to check homework and make sure their kids come to school and try their best. That is why DEIS is set up. Not to make sure everyone gets full marks but that they have an equal chance at a successful life, whatever definition of successful you use.

Correct. Society is not fair, there is unequal distribution of wealth and opportunity and that means that exam system is not a level playing field despite the "fair" points system that currently is the best we have.
There is NOTHING WRONG with schools that year on year, decade on decade, produce labourers, shop assistants, and emigrants while there are schools that produce solicitors, doctors and politicians. We need all of these even in your "successful" society.

What you are suggesting seems so objectionable to many of us because what you are really saying is that in DEIS schools we should seek to defy this injustice by pushing and encouraging kids to go to universities and possibly encourage people to over qualify themselves while keeping them out of the work force and maybe prevent them form maintaining a family etc. Encouraging is one thing but pushing is OTT.


You seem to be slating teachers in all DEIS schools. But don't forget that all schools are different.
WOW - I can't believe that you view hairdressers or mechanics as people that have come from a culture of low level of achievement - I hope you are not that small minded.

I agree that encouragement to proceed on to 3rd level is important.
Its just that I think that its also ok to encourage a student to become a mechanic if that is what they really want to do.

If you really think that these kids have to live out the consequences of every second of lost preparation for their exams then you really have missed the bigger picture.

I don't think that you are saying "600 points makes a successful person' but I do think you are saying that having a 3rd level qualification makes a successful person so it follows from you logic that if you don't have it one then you are unsuccessful.

I hope you never get the chance to tar my children with your brush.

Of course there's nothing 'wrong' with being a hairdresser, labourer or mechanic. And there's a lot less wrong with being a solicitor, doctor or politician.
That's not the point - unless the revolution has already happened (hold on, let me check outside...nope) this society is profoundly unjust and unequal.
On almost any criterion you choose to measure success, solicitors, doctors and poiticians are all rewarded more than hairdressers, labourers and mechanics. They are all deemed to be more successful by society.

My problem is this. It is wrong that children in DEIS schools who have the ability to become solicitors, doctors and politicians should be prevented from doing so because of the over-emphasis on pastoral matters (including but not limited to behavioural support initiatives) to the detriment of academic work.

I personally don't think I'm 'missing the bigger picture'. I think I can see it very clearly. I wonder what wonders I would see in your 'bigger picture' if you were to tar it for me with your big brush? A sunshiny handholding world where Hairdressers come from Gonzaga and Barristers come from Ballymun Comprehensive?

It would be nice. If it were real. What I'm proposing would go some way to achieving it.

I can see that this society is unfair, unjust and unequal. You don't seem to want to see it. You can't change that which is invisible.


You really need to get a grip on reality.

gaeilgebeo

floating voter wrote: »

I believe you. I just can't see much difference between what we had before with school completion and jcsp.
The conversation on this thread was concerned about excessive pastoral support at the expense of academic work.

The experience we have is that it is mostly 1st and 2 nd years who are wild. Most grow out of it and thankfully progress to senior cycle but mostly as weak pass students along for the ride. I don't see how nbss can take credit for general improvement which just happens because the kids have matured over a few years.

The NBSS is a specialised classroom in our school run by both a male and female teacher.
Students go into this classroom for periods of time and receive a lot of one to one work, behavioural plans, referring to psychologist if needed.
They do a wide range of courses on behaviour/anger management, organisational skills, communication, as well as mediation with their regular teachers.
They are then put on behaviour monitoring forms and integrated back into the classroom. Their forms are monitored both at home and by the NBSS teachers who reward/punish them as needed.
One of the most positive things to come out of the NBSS in our school was the parents who were never involved in their childs schooling, now are. They came in for regular meetings and monitored the students progress.
Some parents said they felt a lot more comfortable dealing with the 2 NBSS teachers in a small setting as opposed to coming in to a very large school to meet 10 teachers and a year-head.
To credit the success of these students as simply "naturally maturing into senior students" is not correct.
And we all know that many senior students are nowhere near mature! :rolleyes:

gaeilgebeo

Born2bwild: I can no longer answer your narrow-minded black and white posts. I am shocked that a teacher today can see education in the way that you do. I went to a DEIS school. Now I teach in one. I didn't get anywhere near 600 in my Leaving Cert but feel I am doing pretty good for myself.
I have a relative who got little under 200 points in his Leaving Cert and has a very successful business with 90 people working under him today.

I feel really really sorry for your students. Your classroom cannot be a pleasant experience and I hope any children that I have never come across a teacher like you.

born2bwild

gaeilgebeo wrote: »

Born2bwild: I can no longer answer your narrow-minded black and white posts. I am shocked that a teacher today can see education in the way that you do. I went to a DEIS school. Now I teach in one. I didn't get anywhere near 600 in my Leaving Cert but feel I am doing pretty good for myself.
I have a relative who got little under 200 points in his Leaving Cert and has a very successful business with 90 people working under him today.

I feel really really sorry for your students. Your classroom cannot be a pleasant experience and I hope any children that I have never come across a teacher like you.

I too went to and teach in a DEIS school. Congratulations on doing well for yourself.

I fear you've missed the point of much of what I've posted here.

However, if it pleases you to call me names then by all means do so.

implausible

I haven't the energy to get into multi-quoting again, but I do need to say this:

If you cannot get the students in the door, keep them and encourage/teach/motivate them to behave, they will never get as far as a Leaving Cert.

Getting a good Leaving Cert is not the only way to succeed in life. To presume that everyone wishes to or can go to college is arrogant and defies logic - some people simply lack the ability, others enjoy labour that is physical and/or creative and an economy cannot function without people willing to do the jobs that don't require third level education. Nor is it the LC the only route to academia - FETAC courses and mature entry provide an alternative way for those who have the ability and motivation.

The NBSS described by some people here is not the NBSS I have experienced. Trips etc were under the remit of SCP, while the NBSS teacher had an office, where she worked with the most troublesome students and their parents and often dealt with outbursts. It took a weight off the shoulders of overworked form teachers and was a great asset to the school, but, alas, it is now gone. Perhaps this was the problem with the NBSS, that it was organised and devised at local levels, leading to it being different in every school and possibly less successful as a result.

born2bwild

deemark wrote: »

I haven't the energy to get into multi-quoting again, but I do need to say this:

If you cannot get the students in the door, keep them and encourage/teach/motivate them to behave, they will never get as far as a Leaving Cert.

Getting a good Leaving Cert is not the only way to succeed in life. To presume that everyone wishes to or can go to college is arrogant and defies logic - some people simply lack the ability, others enjoy labour that is physical and/or creative and an economy cannot function without people willing to do the jobs that don't require third level education. Nor is it the LC the only route to academia - FETAC courses and mature entry provide an alternative way for those who have the ability and motivation.

The NBSS described by some people here is not the NBSS I have experienced. Trips etc were under the remit of SCP, while the NBSS teacher had an office, where she worked with the most troublesome students and their parents and often dealt with outbursts. It took a weight off the shoulders of overworked form teachers and was a great asset to the school, but, alas, it is now gone. Perhaps this was the problem with the NBSS, that it was organised and devised at local levels, leading to it being different in every school and possibly less successful as a result.

Would you believe I agree with almost everything you've written in that post?

My problem is that DEIS schools, in spite of, or perhaps because of their best efforts, can help to perpetuate social inequality.

There are many many ways of having a decent life, but having high exam results narrows the odds of that happening for any given person. Who can disagree with that?

Taking a global view, those most rewarded in society are those who achieve well academically. That's true for private fee paying schools and it's true for DEIS schools. As teachers we should not forget this and we should act accordingly.

gaeilgebeo

born2bwild wrote: »

I too went to and teach in a DEIS school. Congratulations on doing well for yourself.

I fear you've missed the point of much of what I've posted here.

However, if it pleases you to call me names then by all means do so.

Believe me, I didn't miss any of your points.
Nor did I call you any names??!

mrboswell

born2bwild wrote: »

Of course there's nothing 'wrong' with being a hairdresser, labourer or mechanic. And there's a lot less wrong with being a solicitor, doctor or politician.
That's not the point - unless the revolution has already happened (hold on, let me check outside...nope) this society is profoundly unjust and unequal.
On almost any criterion you choose to measure success, solicitors, doctors and poiticians are all rewarded more than hairdressers, labourers and mechanics. They are all deemed to be more successful by society.

My problem is this. It is wrong that children in DEIS schools who have the ability to become solicitors, doctors and politicians should be prevented from doing so because of the over-emphasis on pastoral matters (including but not limited to behavioural support initiatives) to the detriment of academic work.

I personally don't think I'm 'missing the bigger picture'. I think I can see it very clearly. I wonder what wonders I would see in your 'bigger picture' if you were to tar it for me with your big brush? A sunshiny handholding world where Hairdressers come from Gonzaga and Barristers come from Ballymun Comprehensive?

It would be nice. If it were real. What I'm proposing would go some way to achieving it.

I can see that this society is unfair, unjust and unequal. You don't seem to want to see it. You can't change that which is invisible.


You really need to get a grip on reality.

Again you miss the big picture - you say "solicitors, doctors and poiticians are all rewarded more than hairdressers, labourers and mechanics. They are all deemed to be more successful by society."
You see your version of a decent and successful life is only judged on monitory terms. If you are saying that society is like that then it is unfortunate that society holds the same views as you.

There will always be students that have the capability to do many things, whether the attend DEIS schools or not. As I said in my most recent post, not all DEIS schools are the same.

Incidentally, would it be a problem for you if hairdressers did come from Gonzaga and barristers come from did Ballymun Comprehensive? As usual you are over simplifying things as you do in all your posts. I think what you are proposing could in some way work to achieving it but in your own misguided way that you might just be trying to move mountains when really you should be starting with pebbles.

I'll go over a previous point again for you. Yes we can all see that this society is unfair, unjust and unequal. In a world like this it would be something if all students aspire to becoming doctors and politicians that earn big incomes and lead a successful life by your standards. Thankfully there is also room in society for people who do not have a 3rd level education and lead decent, successful lives (your own wording, remember?). Thankfully they can avail of work in shops, collect refuse, take care of schools etc. Why not ask the kids in DEIS schools how their lives are impacted positively by such workers. Oh and don't said people work in high achieving schools as well?

Of course there's nothing 'wrong' with being a hairdresser, labourer or mechanic. Please take a second and read aloud to yourself the following sentence that you just wrote in your previous post: And there's a lot less wrong with being a solicitor, doctor or politician.
Need I say more other than who is the person that needs to get a grip on reality?

Feel free to have the last say but ultimately everyone now knows that you are frustrated because you feel that DEIS schools (again tar, brush etc) over emphasise pastoral care to the detriment of academic work. Fair enough, we get your point but we just don't agree with you.

seavill

I personally think this discussion is going around in complete circles and the same thing being said over and over in different ways.

I belive that this quote sums up the entire point of most people

deemark wrote: »

If you cannot get the students in the door, keep them and encourage/teach/motivate them to behave, they will never get as far as a Leaving Cert..

I belive after this then you can start to work on getting the maximum amount of points possible for each child.
Agreed there are teachers who do not do their jobs properly I dont think this is exclusive to DEIS schools and pastoral matters. This will happen in all walks of life some teachers will see an easy way of getting out of doing work as will people in all professions. I think that this point needs to be realised that people will avoid work to the detriment of the students whatever school they are in, some may use pastoral matters as a way of doing this.

deemark wrote: »

The NBSS described by some people here is not the NBSS I have experienced. Trips etc were under the remit of SCP, while the NBSS teacher had an office, where she worked with the most troublesome students and their parents and often dealt with outbursts. It took a weight off the shoulders of overworked form teachers and was a great asset to the school, but, alas, it is now gone. Perhaps this was the problem with the NBSS, that it was organised and devised at local levels, leading to it being different in every school and possibly less successful as a result.

Again on this issue, Having these students removed from normal class can benefit the aim of as many points as possible for the good child in the class as well as hopefully benefiting the troubled student.
Obviously this is only true if it is handled correctly. In some schools there will be teachers who take the role seriously and do effect the students in a good way. In other schools the worng people will be selected for the position and it will not work out. Again using sweeping statments due to one experience of the work of the NBSS is not helpful to anyone. It is all down to the people involved and if it is done correctly it will work (like anything in life)

Fuinseog

born2bwild wrote: »

Of course there's nothing 'wrong' with being a hairdresser, labourer or mechanic. And there's a lot less wrong with being a solicitor, doctor or politician.
That's not the point - unless the revolution has already happened (hold on, let me check outside...nope) this society is profoundly unjust and unequal.
On almost any criterion you choose to measure success, solicitors, doctors and poiticians are all rewarded more than hairdressers, labourers and mechanics. They are all deemed to be more successful by society.

My problem is this. It is wrong that children in DEIS schools who have the ability to become solicitors, doctors and politicians should be prevented from doing so because of the over-emphasis on pastoral matters (including but not limited to behavioural support initiatives) to the detriment of academic work.

I personally don't think I'm 'missing the bigger picture'. I think I can see it very clearly. I wonder what wonders I would see in your 'bigger picture' if you were to tar it for me with your big brush? A sunshiny handholding world where Hairdressers come from Gonzaga and Barristers come from Ballymun Comprehensive?

It would be nice. If it were real. What I'm proposing would go some way to achieving it.

I can see that this society is unfair, unjust and unequal. You don't seem to want to see it. You can't change that which is invisible.


You really need to get a grip on reality.

although what you say should make sense it seems to go against the grain of the current thinking in teaching.
The thinking at the moment claims to be child centered but supports the notion that a child from the Mun should not strive beyond becoming a hairdresser. Teachers should be helping be become the best the can be.

there is too much time spent on pastoral care. teachers are educators, not social workers. that is what we have been trained for. Essentially teachers should do the job they are paid to do and this is not happening.

Fuinseog

gaeilgebeo wrote: »

Born2bwild: I can no longer answer your narrow-minded black and white posts. I am shocked that a teacher today can see education in the way that you do. I went to a DEIS school. Now I teach in one. I didn't get anywhere near 600 in my Leaving Cert but feel I am doing pretty good for myself.
I have a relative who got little under 200 points in his Leaving Cert and has a very successful business with 90 people working under him today.

I feel really really sorry for your students. Your classroom cannot be a pleasant experience and I hope any children that I have never come across a teacher like you.

no gaeilge beo. you do not call anyone names. you just call them narrow minded and feel sorry for his kids. I am sure in your mind that is complimentary.

you should actually try to get him banned and anyone else who disagrees with you.

I must say, although teachers have been to university, their inability to engage in an academic debate without trying to insult their opponent is depressing.

mrboswell

Fuinseog wrote: »

no gaeilge beo. you do not call anyone names. you just call them narrow minded and feel sorry for his kids. I am sure in your mind that is complimentary.

you should actually try to get him banned and anyone else who disagrees with you.

I must say, although teachers have been to university, their inability to engage in an academic debate without trying to insult their opponent is depressing.

Wow - this if from the same poster who's first post in this thread was:
"DEIS schools are great if you have no self respect and do not mind being told to f off on a daily basis. should be easy find work there."

mrboswell

faughs wrote: »

Back to the original purpose of the thread. Have spent all day doing up my cover letters and CV have 40 in their envelopes and ready to post. Any suggestions on when would be best time to post them?

A couple of years back, just after I did my dip, I posted out a lot of CV and had a few replies. That year I actually subbed in a private school for a couple of weeks but most of the year was spent in a DEIS school.

When I started in the DEIS school the deputy principal was chatting to me and she said that she was looking through a pile of CV's that came in over the summer and that mine was in the middle of the pile. It just goes to show that in some case they may never be looked at and even if they are then it may be once school has started when they are only looking for subs.

I would say post them at the start of August.

Fuinseog

mrboswell wrote: »

Wow - this if from the same poster who's first post in this thread was:
"DEIS schools are great if you have no self respect and do not mind being told to f off on a daily basis. should be easy find work there."

I can only speak of my personal experience, having worked in two Deis schools. In one, a colleague got punched in the face, but did nothing, because he knew nothing would come of it and the culprit was from a poor background and broken with a carte blanche to do as they please. I found it sad that he tolerated it and even worse that his colleagues did not support him. This in my view is wrong.

gaeilgebeo

Fuinseog wrote: »

no gaeilge beo. you do not call anyone names. you just call them narrow minded and feel sorry for his kids. I am sure in your mind that is complimentary.

you should actually try to get him banned and anyone else who disagrees with you.

I must say, although teachers have been to university, their inability to engage in an academic debate without trying to insult their opponent is depressing.

That is so funny coming from a poster who started a thread titled "Teaching is for Muppets". Academic debate?