Terrifying state of Irish education

pog it

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

Póg? or some obscure English word?A fada is the widely used name of the long vowel side.

Well I've gone to the trouble of becoming fluent in Irish and I'll be sticking with it as the síneadh fada!

You were being a smart ass so don't expect a kind answer.

pog it

Focalbhach wrote: »

What reports, plural, are you talking about?? Still awaiting an answer on that.

That is not evidence in any meaningful sense. Neither is what I have witnessed anecdotally.

By the way, this wasn't entirely a rhetorical question - I'd be interested to hear your opinion on this and similar considerations.

The other report is the one that shows how Gaelscoil schools are performing better than ordinary schools. Why is that? The more knowledgeable and serious teachers are teaching in them in general and they have better standards-- borne out by the report. I've posted it on another thread. If you need me to I can do so again.

All of the anecdotal evidence I have mentioned is meaningful to me. I have observed enough, and been through the system and it's plain to anyone with high standards and some sort of critical ability what's going on.

The only solution is to bring in benchmarking, bringing back state tests for 6th class students (like they had in my father's day, and they left national school with Latin even, and Irish at the kind of level Leaving cert students would be envious of today). Then we pay the best teachers the most, give them a really good rate, because they are worth it, and sack the bottom teachers who aren't performing. We all know them. For example the ones who sip tea and read the paper in the classroom during school hours and have two BMWs, and even bully students. Others who do the minimum to get through the school year. Obviously there would be different methodology for scoring teachers in the inner city schools, etc.

I bet we would be climbing the scales then in the following OECD reports.

Qualitymark

@pog_it The 'tally stick' was a stick hung around the necks of children in 19th-century schools; every time they spoke Irish a notch would be carved in the stick, and later they would be beaten according to how often they had broken the no-Irish-here rule.

Finland doesn't have benchmarking; the main reason for its superb education system appears to be that it hires the top graduates as teachers; they don't enter the profession for its high pay, but for its high status, and because they believe in their country's egalitarian ethos and foster it:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/Why-Are-Finlands-Schools-Successful.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8601207.stm

Never mind the demands for many reports - anyone who cares to use their eyes and ears can see that the Irish level of literacy is dropping; many graduates don't know how to spell its/it's (or paid). Myself, I'd blame a couple of decades of money-worship, where only the seeming and not the real mattered, as long as it led to more money, bigger paychecks; where the family business was left to die in exchange for a fast-growing tech SME and an 'exit strategy'; where the poor were ruthlessly left behind and the rich learned to believe their own lying excuses. But don't mind me.

pog it

Qualitymark wrote: »

@pog_it The 'tally stick' was a stick hung around the necks of children in 19th-century schools; every time they spoke Irish a notch would be carved in the stick, and later they would be beaten according to how often they had broken the no-Irish-here rule.

Finland doesn't have benchmarking; the main reason for its superb education system appears to be that it hires the top graduates as teachers; they don't enter the profession for its high pay, but for its high status, and because they believe in their country's egalitarian ethos and foster it:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/Why-Are-Finlands-Schools-Successful.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8601207.stm

Never mind the demands for many reports - anyone who cares to use their eyes and ears can see that the Irish level of literacy is dropping; many graduates don't know how to spell its/it's (or paid). Myself, I'd blame a couple of decades of money-worship, where only the seeming and not the real mattered, as long as it led to more money, bigger paychecks; where the family business was left to die in exchange for a fast-growing tech SME and an 'exit strategy'; where the poor were ruthlessly left behind and the rich learned to believe their own lying excuses. But don't mind me.

Hiya. It was the German teacher who said they didn't know what the tally stick was.

The reason I believe benchmarking would be beneficial now is to get rid of the under performing teachers currently in the system. There is no other way from what I can see. Maybe once we have a good system in place there wouldn't be a need for benchmarking but right now we are stuck with a huge problem. I can't tell you how much I resent these useless layabout leeches who are cruising through unquestioned. It's when you work hard, have standards and make your own luck in life that you particularly see the slugs.

byhookorbycrook

pog it wrote: »

Well I've gone to the trouble of becoming fluent in Irish and I'll be sticking with it as the síneadh fada!

You were being a smart ass so don't expect a kind answer.

You were the one picking people up on spelling. I have a hons. degree in Irish, I worked in the Gaeltacht for years and I teach in a Gaelscoil.Fada is the accepted term in spelling.

#15

pog it wrote: »

The only solution is to bring in benchmarking, bringing back state tests for 6th class students (like they had in my father's day, and they left national school with Latin even, and Irish at the kind of level Leaving cert students would be envious of today). Then we pay the best teachers the most, give them a really good rate, because they are worth it, and sack the bottom teachers who aren't performing. We all know them. For example the ones who sip tea and read the paper in the classroom during school hours and have two BMWs, and even bully students. Others who do the minimum to get through the school year. Obviously there would be different methodology for scoring teachers in the inner city schools, etc.

I bet we would be climbing the scales then in the following OECD reports.

Standardised testing and merit pay.

The exact opposite of Finland but a carbon copy of failing school districts in the United States.

LOL

pog it

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

You were the one picking people up on spelling. I have a hons. degree in Irish, I worked in the Gaeltacht for years and I teach in a Gaelscoil.Fada is the accepted term in spelling.

For crying out loud. I know and knew how to spell póg. When I first joined up here I didn't know how to find the síneadh fada on my laptop and so I just saved it as Pog it! It's not a misspelling!

pog it

#15 wrote: »

Standardised testing and merit pay.

The exact opposite of Finland but a carbon copy of failing school districts in the United States.

LOL

It's how it gets implemented.

Qualitymark

Wonder what's the Irish for 'thread creep' (and does it have a fada, síne fada, buailte or séimhiú).

#15

pog it wrote: »

It's how it gets implemented.

Nope.

Focalbhach

pog it wrote: »

The other report is the one that shows how Gaelscoil schools are performing better than ordinary schools. Why is that? The more knowledgeable and serious teachers are teaching in them in general and they have better standards-- borne out by the report. I've posted it on another thread. If you need me to I can do so again.

That would be this report? I see it says:

...the average reading achievement in SLG [Gaelscoileanna] is about what would be expected, given the average socioeconomic status of SLG.

It goes on to suggest that Gaelscoileanna are actually underperforming in maths relative to what might be expected by the socioeconomic background of their pupils.

I don't see a reference in it to more serious teachers who have higher standards. Could you point it out to me, please?

pog it wrote:

I bet we would be climbing the scales then in the following OECD reports.

On which note, the ESRI say (my bold):

In 2009, performance among 15 year olds in PISA was below average for mathematical literacy, average for reading literacy, and above average for science literacy and digital literacy (Cosgrove et al., 2010, 2011; Shiel et al., 2010). The low, and relatively declining, levels of Irish performance in reading and mathematics literacy attracted a good deal of attention and prompted a new policy emphasis on promoting literacy and numeracy in primary and post‐primary education (DES, 2011). However, such benchmarks give a very partial view of the ‘quality’ of Irish education and taken in isolation give no indication as to what the appropriate policy response might be. In some ways, the reaction to the PISA results has deflected attention away from long‐standing evidence which provides more detailed insights into the challenges facing the Irish second‐level system; this evidence includes the following:

... and then give a list. Worth a read.

byhookorbycrook

Am always amused by the perception that all Gaelscoileanna are overflowing with middle class children!It may be so in some schools in Dublin, but certainly not the case in most schools.

pog it

#15 wrote: »

Nope.

Yep That education was better in the 60s and 70s is unbelievable and the state tests back then worked marvellously as did having good teachers! Mad eh?

There is no other way to solve the problem unless we want to wait 20 years and restrict entry into the teaching postgrads.

But don't worry, Ruairi Quinn isn't going to do any of that. He has brought in the miraculous Numeracy and Literacy Programme.

pog it

Focalbhach wrote: »

That would be this report? I see it says:



It goes on to suggest that Gaelscoileanna are actually underperforming in maths relative to what might be expected by the socioeconomic background of their pupils.

I don't see a reference in it to more serious teachers who have higher standards. Could you point it out to me, please?



On which note, the ESRI say (my bold):



... and then give a list. Worth a read.

I'm afraid you are being very selective. Come back and quote the sections from it where it shows Gaelscoileanna are performing better than the ordinary national schools rather than rubbish arguments about middle class kids going to them and hence the difference and sure what else would you expect!

And maybe this has passed you by in life so far but the more seriously a teacher takes their job, the better they generally are. Teachers who teach in Gaelscoileanna already have a far better than average standard in Irish- that alone gives them an advantage as teachers- they can teach at least one of the subjects better. But see this also:

http://www.nce-mstl.ie/files/Mathematics%20and%20Gaeilge-A%20report%20on%20the%20influence%20of%20Bilingualism.pdf

If I was a teacher I'd be supporting the Gaelscoil movement and that's where I'd be teaching- place of best standards. Hit and miss job around the rest of the country.

Anyway if you don't agree with me, no problem, I'm putting my views out on this as I'm involved in something related to it at the moment, and the more that people talk about it the better, rather than conservative, head down, don't insult the neighbour or in-law who's a teacher lark.

spurious

Interested, involved, supportive parents = higher achieving kids.

Of course Gaelscoileanna perform better. So do many other types of school where outside factors are involved in the selection/enrolment.

Is this more to do with the teaching or the attitude to education/the language/work at home?

pog it

spurious wrote: »

Interested, involved, supportive parents = higher achieving kids.

Of course Gaelscoileanna perform better. So do many other types of school where outside factors are involved in the selection/enrolment.

Is this more to do with the teaching or the attitude to education/the language/work at home?

Definitely both are involved but even the kids with the push at home need good teachers to be higher achieving regardless.

For what it's worth, I think the problem is the primary schools mainly, do you agree Spurious? What's your position on this?

And say what you want about Ed Walsh but he has a record in high standards in education. I resent his wanting to slash the amount of hours spent on Irish, but you know, with the way things are in a lot of primary schools, maybe even that could be the way forward. I mean, if they aren't going to train teachers properly, and ensure they have basic Irish before they go into teaching, then what's the point keeping up the pretence? The teachers won't do it on their own either. All that hassle so that a 6th class pupil leaves school able to say 'is maith liom subh'? So even there, where it goes against my wishes, I can admit he is right. I was fooled by Ruairí Quinn and thought he had a genuine interest in education reform and it turns out like the rest of them it was all a load of bull.

Also I don't want to sound overly negative about this or down on teachers, I have a lot of gratitude for the hard work of the good teachers- secondary school teaching particularly, it's a really hard job actually (I've done some subbing in a secondary school) and I just think that primary teachers are getting away scot free. If I were a permanent secondary school teacher I'd be annoyed at what's going on, I seriously would. And some of them are because of the appalling standards maths and english teachers are seeing coming into them. And people can say it's not about one group vs. another group, but it is, it's about fairness, and rewarding those who work the hardest, and the results following after. I saw unbelievable teachers slogging it out with no thanks for all the extra work. I hate seeing that when others in the primary schools start later and are out the door at 2.30 sharp. It's not right. Aaaahhhhh... I can't explain why it bothers me so much but I've seen both extremes in my own experience.

spurious

I suppose it's a combination of all sorts of things. I think a big factor is that children's toys today don't encourage anything like the same imagination and creativity as they used to even thirty years ago. Toys today tend to 'do' something to amuse, whereas in the pre-computer age we used to get tools to amuse ourselves with. We could spend a whole day fashioning a 'tribe' and agreeing on its rules and territory. We seemed to be able to concentrate for longer on tasks - is it because of TV that many children cannot now? I don't know.

There was a joy among certain kids in just learning random facts. Sometimes this led to a life-long interest in a subject, not because it got you marks, or was on the exam, or was 'useful' - just because it was learning and learning things was good.

Not at home at the moment - might add to this later.

#15

pog it wrote: »

Yep

Wrong again.

Qualitymark

spurious wrote: »

I suppose it's a combination of all sorts of things. I think a big factor is that children's toys today don't encourage anything like the same imagination and creativity as they used to even thirty years ago. Toys today tend to 'do' something to amuse, whereas in the pre-computer age we used to get tools to amuse ourselves with. We could spend a whole day fashioning a 'tribe' and agreeing on its rules and territory. We seemed to be able to concentrate for longer on tasks - is it because of TV that many children cannot now? I don't know.

There was a joy among certain kids in just learning random facts. Sometimes this led to a life-long interest in a subject, not because it got you marks, or was on the exam, or was 'useful' - just because it was learning and learning things was good.

Not at home at the moment - might add to this later.

So agree with this. Just look at the end of Rocky Road to Dublin, when for a looong time a band of whooping kids chase the car, full of joy and fun, and one absolute hell of a lot fitter than any modern kids, and happy and safe and trusted playing together on the streets.

pog it

spurious wrote: »

I suppose it's a combination of all sorts of things. I think a big factor is that children's toys today don't encourage anything like the same imagination and creativity as they used to even thirty years ago. Toys today tend to 'do' something to amuse, whereas in the pre-computer age we used to get tools to amuse ourselves with. We could spend a whole day fashioning a 'tribe' and agreeing on its rules and territory. We seemed to be able to concentrate for longer on tasks - is it because of TV that many children cannot now? I don't know.

There was a joy among certain kids in just learning random facts. Sometimes this led to a life-long interest in a subject, not because it got you marks, or was on the exam, or was 'useful' - just because it was learning and learning things was good.

Not at home at the moment - might add to this later.

I meant your opinion on primary school teachers and the status quo.

pog it

#15 wrote: »

Wrong again.

If that's your opinion, sure, no problem. You're entitled to it agus fáilte.

pog it

I may be relatively alone in my views in this forum, which isn't surprising, but primary school teachers, take note, this post by the boards member Permabear was thanked by 20 members on that forum (including myself) and people are no longer going to accept below average standards.
From this thread:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056491068

When you insist that tax euros are going to "schools," you should consider that budgets for building and resources have been pared to the bone in order to honor the Croke Park Agreement. This means that hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren are being educated in cold, drafty prefabs while their teachers earn some of the highest salaries in the world. Do you think that's reasonable or fair to the children? The schools should be there to serve the children after all, not the teachers — and yet teachers' pay and pensions consume over 80 percent of the budget.

I might find this somehow acceptable if educational outcomes were off the charts. However, Irish teachers deliver some of the poorest outcomes in the OECD. PISA 2009 ranked Irish 15-year-olds 26th out of 34 OECD countries in maths. One in four 15-year-old males is functionally illiterate.

Simply, the Irish taxpayer is being asked to fund a scam, whereby our public service, via their unions, demand world-class salaries in return for mediocre services and our compliant government rolls over every time it hears the phrase "industrial action." This year, the government will cut fuel allowance, and cut benefits to lone parents, but will give €250 million in pay increases to some of the highest-paid workers in the state.

I'll leave it there and hope the deserved comeuppance comes to those who are dragging our education system down.

professore

ICANN wrote: »

Students ages 15 can't spell simple words like 'thought'.

The same is true here. The days when spelling and grammar were considered important are long gone. It's quite possible to get an A for an English paper with these kind of spelling errors. Astonishing.

professore

I think this thread started off about the standard of education in Ireland ... not about the teaching of Irish. Seems to have gone off down that tangent ....

professore

I do think some of the things that are in the modern curriculum that I have seen my daughter doing are very good - media studies and the art syllabus for example. The first didn't exist "in my day" and the second is really broad and wide ranging compared to the art we did. Media studies is a key subject for people to understand how the media manipulates stories for their own ends.

English and Irish also have better syllabi, if only they added spelling and grammar to them.

One huge mistake was the axing of funding for a second language in primary schools - this was an incredibly short sighted and stupid cut.

Feeona

pog it wrote: »

For crying out loud. I know and knew how to spell póg. When I first joined up here I didn't know how to find the síneadh fada on my laptop and so I just saved it as Pog it! It's not a misspelling!

:pac: For someone who questions the intelligence of Irish primary teachers at every available opportunity, you're getting extremely uppity when someone questions yours!

Being a primary school teacher myself, I think the importance of parental input cannot be over emphasised. I've seen children coming into class without pens, pencils, copybooks, books torn, homework not done etc on a regular basis. The interest in the child's education in these cases is completely absent at home. A child with parents who are interested in education will almost always outshine a child whose parents have no interest in education (I say 'almost' always because some children have the amazing ability to shine even without their parents help)

#15

pog it wrote: »

If that's your opinion, sure, no problem. You're entitled to it agus fáilte.

It's not just my opinion. There has been some research on your suggestions about ''merit'' pay.


The US is testing merit pay in schools and the evidence shows that it has not worked, and is unlikely to work in the future.

Top ranked Schools of Education in the US such Peabody at Vanderbilt have carried out the most detailed research on merit pay.

Quote:
Rewarding teachers with bonus pay, does not raise student test scores, according to a new study issued today by the National Center on Performance Incentives at Vanderbilt University’s Peabody College of education and human development in partnership with the RAND Corporation.

This and other findings from a three-year experiment – the first scientific study of performance pay ever conducted in the United States – were released at a conference on evaluating and rewarding educator effectiveness hosted by the National Center on Performance Incentives at Vanderbilt.

“We tested the most basic and foundational question related to performance incentives — Does bonus pay alone improve student outcomes? – and we found that it does not,” Matthew Springer, executive director of the National Center on Performance Incentives, said

Mathematica Policy Research Group is halfway through a merit pay trial in the Chicago Public School System and the most recent findings said

Quote:
We compared these 16 schools as a group to a carefully matched group of comparison schools and found that test score growth was not measurably better, nor were there detectable impacts on the rates at which teachers were retained in the school or in the district. The finding of no significant impacts is robust to the use of different samples and methods.
Quote:
The idea behind the program is that performance incentives, combined with tools for teachers to track performance and improve instruction, should help schools attract and retain talented teachers and help all teachers produce greater student achievement.

After the second year of CPS rolling out TAP, we found no evidence that the program raised student test scores. Student achievement growth as measured by average math and reading scores on the Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) did not differ significantly between TAP and comparable non-TAP schools."

Roland Fryer, from Harvard's Department of Economics led another trial in New York City schools.

Quote:
He found "no evidence that teacher incentives increase student performance, attendance or graduation". On the contrary, Fryer reported that teacher incentives may actually decrease student achievement, especially in larger schools

The most significant report by far though, is the first one that I cited.

Diane Ravitch has also wrote quite a bit on this issue. She is an education professor at NYU and was an assistant secretary of education in George H.W. Bush's administration.

Quote:
One of the signature issues of businesspeople and conservative Republicans for the past 30 years has been merit pay. They believe in competition, and they believe that financial rewards can be used to incentivize better performance, so it seems natural for them to conclude that merit pay or performance pay would incentivize teachers to produce better results.
Few people realize that merit pay schemes have been tried again and again since the 1920s.

Belief in them waxes and wanes, but the results have never been robust.

I'm not addressing the PISA tests again. No doubt, they are a useful tool for assessment and they can provide valuable info for educators and policy makers alike, but the misguided emphasis on them, mostly by people who don't know the first thing about education, is no help. Pretty much any educational researcher worth their salt is aware of the limitations of such large scale tests. What you definitely shouldn't do, is base significant educational reform on simplified league tables.
I'm all for reform. Just not the sort of stuff that you advocate.

implausible

I'm not going to get into all of the points raised in this thread, but there is one thing I have to comment on - comparing the education received in the 1960s and 70s is like comparing apples and oranges.

You are talking about a time when the select few completed secondary education, where corporal punishment and the fear of God were used to ensure students learned off everything by rote, where children with disabilities were institutionalised, a child who didn't have English as a first language was unheard of and the majority came from homes where (for good or bad) both parents were present.

Removing the rose-tinted glasses would make for a better discussion.

pog it

Feeona wrote: »

:pac: For someone who questions the intelligence of Irish primary teachers at every available opportunity, you're getting extremely uppity when someone questions yours!

Being a primary school teacher myself, I think the importance of parental input cannot be over emphasised.

They were questioning my spelling, not my intelligence. Same way I wouldn't insult someone else's intelligence because of their sloppy spelling, so please don't exaggerate the thing.
Intelligence and spelling aren't related, just think of all the intelligent dyslexic people who can't spell properly.

I think the importance of parental input is undeniable but parents aren't the primary school teachers and can't do it on their own obviously, so it's only partly relevant to this discussion which is about the state of education in this country currently.

As a primary school teacher it would be nice if you could contribute your views about the profession rather than about the parents.

pog it

#15 wrote: »

It's not just my opinion. There has been some research on your suggestions about ''merit'' pay.


The US is testing merit pay in schools and the evidence shows that it has not worked, and is unlikely to work in the future.

Top ranked Schools of Education in the US such Peabody at Vanderbilt have carried out the most detailed research on merit pay.

Mathematica Policy Research Group is halfway through a merit pay trial in the Chicago Public School System and the most recent findings said


Roland Fryer, from Harvard's Department of Economics led another trial in New York City schools.


The most significant report by far though, is the first one that I cited.

Diane Ravitch has also wrote quite a bit on this issue. She is an education professor at NYU and was an assistant secretary of education in George H.W. Bush's administration.



I'm not addressing the PISA tests again. No doubt, they are a useful tool for assessment and they can provide valuable info for educators and policy makers alike, but the misguided emphasis on them, mostly by people who don't know the first thing about education, is no help. Pretty much any educational researcher worth their salt is aware of the limitations of such large scale tests. What you definitely shouldn't do, is base significant educational reform on simplified league tables.
I'm all for reform. Just not the sort of stuff that you advocate.

I'm not talking about 'bonus pay' though. It would be coming down to whether or not those teachers kept their jobs at all- that's the type of benchmarking I'm talking about. Not multi-tiered pay according to performance, but if teachers do not reach a certain achievable level they lose their jobs. Let them see what other jobs they are cut out for then but let's not have them dumping on us.

Reports by the OECD and others have shown that class size does not affect outcomes ( provided there are good teaching practices - good teachers) so I have no problem with fewer primary teachers, and those working as teachers to be the best of the best.

Even if merit pay wasn't introduced, state tests would have to be beneficial, but without pressure on these primary teachers they can still continue to underperform, which is why we need bench marking of some sort. Right now, these teachers are answering to nobody.

#15

pog it wrote: »

Reports by the OECD and others have shown that class size does not affect outcomes

Class size is a complex area. The research is not conclusive. Class size has been shown to make a difference for young children, disadvantaged children and to all children when the curriculum is not designed for large classes. Class size is one of a number of factors that impact outcomes. Please don't make ridiculous claims that class size doesn't matter at all.

seavill

pog it wrote: »

that class size does not affect outcomes ( provided there are good teaching practices - good teachers) so I have no problem with fewer primary teachers, and those working as teachers to be the best of the best.
.

I have resisted getting involved in this thread up to now but the quote above just amazes me.
I am baffled that anyone could believe this to be true.

I will start off by firstly saying I am a secondary teacher and at times I am surprised when some kids come into us lacking in the basic level of maths required and then we are trying to bring them into a curriculum designed with this knowledge already in place. However as someone speaking with an actual knowledge of the education system in Ireland I do not find it surprising that some can slip through the net when class sizes in primary school are so large and primary teachers are under such pressure to deliver all singing all dancing lessons a lot of the time without the support of the people who are really needed, the parents.

Take the best teacher in the world and put 40 kids in front of them, then take the same teacher and put 10 kids in front of them and you are trying to tell me the same outcomes will be achieved. Ignorance is bliss as they say.

Take a 40 minute period with 40 kids, taking out any instruction time or time to give out or collect materials, this will give you 1 minute maximum with each child. (that is not taking into account any child with learning difficulties or a child with discipline problems, and on average you will have probably 2 or 3 of each within a group this size)
Take a 40 minute period with 10 kids, again same rules apply and you will have 4 minutes with each child. We all know the benefits of 1 on 1 time with a child of any age. You are seriously trying to tell me that the 40 kids will reach the same level as 10 kids will. If you do believe this you have clearly never tried to teach any child or adult to any level.

I fully agree that wasters should be taken out at all costs and removed from the education system, but the view that teachers are layabouts that need to experience the real world and get real jobs is laughable. The only thing is when this view clearly comes from people with obviously no idea of the real world themselves it tends not to bother me as much.

As I said earlier ignorance is bliss.

Feeona

pog it wrote: »

They were questioning my spelling, not my intelligence. Same way I wouldn't insult someone else's intelligence because of their sloppy spelling, so please don't exaggerate the thing.
Intelligence and spelling aren't related, just think of all the intelligent dyslexic people who can't spell properly.

I think the importance of parental input is undeniable but parents aren't the primary school teachers and can't do it on their own obviously, so it's only partly relevant to this discussion which is about the state of education in this country currently.

As a primary school teacher it would be nice if you could contribute your views about the profession rather than about the parents.

<snip to keep the peace>

Alt gr is the key you need by the way :pac:

pog it

Feeona wrote: »

<snip to keep the peace>

Alt gr is the key you need by the way :pac:

Take a look at the year that I joined boards.ie (if you do you will see that I joined in 2006). I have long since found out how to get the síneadh fada and I have also got myself fluent in the language, which pays it more respect than only knowing where the Alt gr key is

Anyway I was hoping you'd have shared some thoughts from your experience 'as a primary teacher' but if you'd rather have a go at me and focus on the role parents play instead, work away! It's telling in itself.

pog it

#15 wrote: »

Class size is a complex area. The research is not conclusive. Class size has been shown to make a difference for young children, disadvantaged children and to all children when the curriculum is not designed for large classes. Class size is one of a number of factors that impact outcomes. Please don't make ridiculous claims that class size doesn't matter at all.

You have said you are all for reform. If so, what reform do you suggest? I would gladly hear about it and when I say I'm genuinely interested in hearing ideas, I mean it. Also, why do you think it needs reform?

Regarding class numbers, a good teacher will carry a class of 20 as well as they will a class of 30. The top and bottom-most students in any class are never going to get all the help they need anyway unless they are in a class with people all at the same level as them so a teacher has to go with the middle ground for the most part, and accommodate the top and bottom students also, but that will always be to a lesser degree. That's the context of why class numbers are not as significant as some say.

I have subbed at secondary school level and I've been through the system here.

Dave0301

pog it wrote: »

Regarding class numbers, a good teacher will carry a class of 20 as well as they will a class of 30. The top and bottom-most students in any class are never going to get all the help they need anyway unless they are in a class with people all at the same level as them so a teacher has to go with the middle ground for the most part, and accommodate the top and bottom students also, but that will always be to a lesser degree. That's the context of why class numbers are not as significant as some say.

I don't think that a teacher with a class size of 30 would be nearly as effective as a teacher with a class size of 20.

The time needed to get around a class of 30 students individually and check personal progress or lack of regarding a students understanding of the topic is vastly different to that of a 20 students.

From my own experience it is the one to one questions asked that really allow a teacher to gauge student understanding of the topic as well as help with any difficulties. From personal interaction it is also possible to take a different teaching method if the one leveled toward the class doesn't suit a certain student.

In that regard class size can be a very important factor.

pog it

Dave0301 wrote: »

I don't think that a teacher with a class size of 30 would be nearly as effective as a teacher with a class size of 20.

The time needed to get around a class of 30 students individually and check personal progress or lack of regarding a students understanding of the topic is vastly different to that of a 20 students.

From my own experience it is the one to one questions asked that really allow a teacher to gauge student understanding of the topic as well as help with any difficulties. From personal interaction it is also possible to take a different teaching method if the one leveled toward the class doesn't suit a certain student.

In that regard class size can be a very important factor.

A lot of your time teaching is supposed to be spent in active teaching, then for example asking spot questions to see if the material is being understood and of course homework and going through that the next day. Too much time is being spent on questions and answers stuff a lot of the time, where lazy teachers are even letting pupils make a start on this during school hours even. And the whole thing moves too slowly. The best teachers in my experience were able to cover the class, the questions, the homework, and their work rate was obviously much more than the useless or average teachers, and they just moved faster, mentally and physically. And in fairness, there was only 1 out of 5 teachers in my national school who is in that category.

Again you can observe a lot about the system from your own experience. I was in a class of 33 in primary school (biggest class in years) and looking at how the pupils of my class have fared in their careers compared to the pupils in my sister's class (c. 20) there is no difference in outcomes or results really. A handful have gone on to professional careers, some into teaching and civil service, etc. In fact in my class we ended up having a doctor, a speech therapist and an architect, whereas in my sister's class less people ended up in good careers. You could say that's because there were more pupils in my class and therefore more of a chance of catching higher performers, but it also disproves the theory on smaller numbers producing better outcomes.

To be honest, nothing in this country is going to change, the best hope is that the numeracy and literacy programme will literally force the average and below average teachers to teach what they are supposed to. I hope it works.

Dave0301

pog it wrote: »

A lot of your time teaching is supposed to be spent in active teaching, then for example asking spot questions to see if the material is being understood and of course homework and going through that the next day.

From your own statement there would it not be reasonable to conclude that smaller class sizes would be beneficial in those circumstances?

That in classes where some students may have learning disorders the extra couple of minutes that can be afforded to them could be very helpful rather than trying to just keep actively teaching.

pog it wrote: »

The best teachers in my experience were able to cover the class, the questions, the homework, and their work rate was obviously much more than the useless or average teachers, and they just moved faster, mentally and physically.

To be honest that doesn't make a good teacher! Just because they cover the curriculum in an efficient manner?

I'd be more interested in ensuring that higher level students are being adequately challenged and prepared. That weaker students are getting the attention that is needed for them to perform to the best of their ability.

Class size will always be a factor regarding this, especially in some subjects where higher and ordinary will be mixed together.

pog it wrote: »

Again you can observe a lot about the system from your own experience. I was in a class of 33 in primary school (biggest class in years) and looking at how the pupils of my class have fared in their careers compared to the pupils in my sister's class (c. 20) there is no difference in outcomes or results really. A handful have gone on to professional careers, some into teaching and civil service, etc. In fact in my class we ended up having a doctor, a speech therapist and an architect, whereas in my sister's class less people ended up in good careers. You could say that's because there were more pupils in my class and therefore more of a chance of catching higher performers, but it also disproves the theory on smaller numbers producing better outcomes.

To be honest that is again a student orientated view point. To be in charge of a class and tailor a lesson plan to a set of students with varied abilities is very different to basing your observations as a student.

I hope that last bit doesn't come across condescending as I don't mean to be!

pog it

Dave0301 wrote: »

From your own statement there would it not be reasonable to conclude that smaller class sizes would be beneficial in those circumstances?

Not at all. Spot questions don't mean you ask everyone a question. Read the rest of my post where I showed how smaller class sizes don't guarantee you better outcomes.

pog it

Dave0301 wrote: »

I hope that last bit doesn't come across condescending as I don't mean to be!

Why would you think that might come across as condescending? As I don't have the same viewpoint as you and you haven't said anything to convince me otherwise, then you can't sound condescending to me. Maybe others thought so, but I certainly didn't.

I've given you a great example of how a class of 33 compared with a class of 20. Don't take my word for it. I read that the OECD have reported on the same and see here:
http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/427

Primary classes would have to go well below 20 pupils for significant results to show, the report claims.

only if the cut is drastic

I don't think we'll be seeing any initiative here for class numbers to go below 20, do you?

It's sad that not one primary school teacher here has been willing to discuss why the numeracy and literacy programme was needed here resulting in the modern languages programme being axed and not one teacher has admitted that the OECD has exposed the teaching profession here. Instead, anyone here has been more interested in the role parents play and trying to jump onto the swinging rope you thought you saw regarding class sizes.

Bottomline. Teachers won't admit there is a problem and that they are underperforming, and this government isn't going to tackle them any further other than to bring in this numeracy and literacy programme to force them to perform better. Teachers will continue to find excuses and blame other factors, but the OECD report remains and is obvious to a lot of us anyway. We just aren't getting the talent in teaching anymore, bun barr.

pog it

Dave0301 wrote: »

To be honest that doesn't make a good teacher! Just because they cover the curriculum in an efficient manner?

And lastly, that isn't what I said.. I didn't say that they are better teachers because they 'cover the curriculum in an efficient manner' so please don't twist what I have said. I was saying that they are well able to teach (most 'qualified' primary school teachers here can't teach very well- as is borne out by the OECD report and is what I expected anyway from what I have seen and heard). You can discuss teaching methods all day with me, but we don't have the talent here teaching in our schools.

rainbowtrout

pog it wrote: »

It's sad that not one primary school teacher here has been willing to discuss why the numeracy and literacy programme was needed here resulting in the modern languages programme being axed and not one teacher has admitted that the OECD has exposed the teaching profession here. Instead, anyone here has been more interested in the role parents play and trying to jump onto the swinging rope you thought you saw regarding class sizes.

Bottomline. Teachers won't admit there is a problem and that they are underperforming, and this government isn't going to tackle them any further other than to bring in this numeracy and literacy programme to force them to perform better. Teachers will continue to find excuses and blame other factors, but the OECD report remains and is obvious to a lot of us anyway. We just aren't getting the talent in teaching anymore, bun barr.

Why would anyone come on here and side with you just for the sake of siding with you when you seem completely unwilling to accept that parenting plays a role in how children behave in school and how much they learn in school and at home?

I was in primary school in the 80s. There were 43 in my class. There were never discipline problems. It was rare for a child to speak out of turn. Much of the discipline problems now are attributed to learning difficulties such as dyslexia and ADHD etc. This mightn't be a popular opinion, but while I accept that learning difficulties exist they are not the root cause of all bad behaviour. Students had learning difficulties 20 years ago and were still capable of engaging in class in a non-disruptive manner. It's becoming such a common excuse for poor behaviour now that the children with genuine problems often get overlooked in place of those that don't have problems but are just badly behaved.

I'm a secondary teacher and I see students coming to school every day without bags let alone homework and when asked where their bag is I have got the answer 'Dunno', with a shrug of I don't care, and I wonder about parents letting their children out to school without a bag and no questions asked. There are students up until all hours playing X-box/playstation etc and coming in half asleep, disengaged and living on a diet of junk food with coke and red bull featuring commonly. They are disinterested in what's going on in school because they are not able to function normally. This type of behaviour doesn't happen overnight and it's not a behaviour that's learned or acceptable in a school, it's tolerated in their homes.

I've challenged a number of parents over the years about their children's lack of work ethic/lack of homework etc and often got the response 'sure, he doesn't like getting up in the morning, what am I supposed to do'/ 'why can't you make him do the homework?'/ 'I can't get him to stop playing the xbox'/ and my most recent favourite 'It's not my responsibility to discuss my child's behaviour with her, that wouldn't be appropriate' :eek:

I imagine that what I'm seeing at second level is also happening at primary level, I have no idea in what form or to what extent, but I can say that from what I do see of these students, their learning is hampered by having no discipline, rules, consequences of any sort at home, and that has a knock on effect on their numeracy and literacy. Many of the parents I see don't actually want to parent their children, as far as I can see many of these children rule the roost in their homes and get what ever they want so parents don't have to do the unpleasant but necessary task of pulling their children back into line.

Godge

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Why would anyone come on here and side with you just for the sake of siding with you when you seem completely unwilling to accept that parenting plays a role in how children behave in school and how much they learn in school and at home?

I was in primary school in the 80s. There were 43 in my class. There were never discipline problems. It was rare for a child to speak out of turn. Much of the discipline problems now are attributed to learning difficulties such as dyslexia and ADHD etc. This mightn't be a popular opinion, but while I accept that learning difficulties exist they are not the root cause of all bad behaviour. Students had learning difficulties 20 years ago and were still capable of engaging in class in a non-disruptive manner. It's becoming such a common excuse for poor behaviour now that the children with genuine problems often get overlooked in place of those that don't have problems but are just badly behaved.

I'm a secondary teacher and I see students coming to school every day without bags let alone homework and when asked where their bag is I have got the answer 'Dunno', with a shrug of I don't care, and I wonder about parents letting their children out to school without a bag and no questions asked. There are students up until all hours playing X-box/playstation etc and coming in half asleep, disengaged and living on a diet of junk food with coke and red bull featuring commonly. They are disinterested in what's going on in school because they are not able to function normally. This type of behaviour doesn't happen overnight and it's not a behaviour that's learned or acceptable in a school, it's tolerated in their homes.

I've challenged a number of parents over the years about their children's lack of work ethic/lack of homework etc and often got the response 'sure, he doesn't like getting up in the morning, what am I supposed to do'/ 'why can't you make him do the homework?'/ 'I can't get him to stop playing the xbox'/ and my most recent favourite 'It's not my responsibility to discuss my child's behaviour with her, that wouldn't be appropriate' :eek:

I imagine that what I'm seeing at second level is also happening at primary level, I have no idea in what form or to what extent, but I can say that from what I do see of these students, their learning is hampered by having no discipline, rules, consequences of any sort at home, and that has a knock on effect on their numeracy and literacy. Many of the parents I see don't actually want to parent their children, as far as I can see many of these children rule the roost in their homes and get what ever they want so parents don't have to do the unpleasant but necessary task of pulling their children back into line.

just a couple of points, you are teaching at second level, how sure are you that the problems don't originate from the primary teaching system and not from parents?

Two, my experience is that not all teachers have difficulties with the current generation of pupils. Sure, every teacher has occasional problems with some students, but it seems to me that there are different levels of difficulty experienced which suggests to me that at least some of it must be down to the quality/experience of the teacher.

seavill

pog it You seemed to ignore my last post about numbers in a room as it suited you to do so.

Your story about the class of 33 and 20 is very interesting however it hardly proves anything apart from the fact that there happened to be more high achievers in your class possibly.
Could you possibly think about the idea that as I mentioned maybe there was numerous low achievers in your sisters class and one of two things happened.
Firstly maybe the fact that they had more low achievers than normal and a class size that according to you and the OECD, of 20, that is still too big. Maybe these low achievers stopped the stronger ones achieving due to taking up more time of the teacher and that is the reason why there wasnt a doctor, architect and teacher in your sisters class, hence the class size even at 20 was too large for your sisters class, working on the presumption that you both more than likely went to the same school with the same teachers as it was primary school so that may not be a factor in this case.
Or what about the other possability that maybe the people in your sisters class are actually doing the best they can in life. Not everyone is cut out to get 4 or 5 A's in their leaving cert. Maybe the for example Mechanic in your sisters class worked extremely hard to become that and maybe from the teachers poitn of view this was a huge success for that person to achieve their best in life.
There will be students that their absolute best in life will be a C in my subject where I will also have students where their best is an A. I can promise you it gives me as much, if not even more satisfaction to see that student getting the C they had to work so hard to get as it does seeing the student get an A.

pog it wrote: »

I've given you a great example of how a class of 33 compared with a class of 20. Don't take my word for it. I read that the OECD have reported on the same and see here:
http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/427


Quote:
Primary classes would have to go well below 20 pupils for significant results to show, the report claims.
Quote:
only if the cut is drastic
I don't think we'll be seeing any initiative here for class numbers to go below 20, do you?

QUOTE]

I fail to see how you cannot see how you have completely contradicted yourself with this statement. The OECD report does not say that class size does not matter as you seem to have interpretated it. You have been going on and on about how class size is not important for a good few posts and then disprove your own argument, but what would I know I am only a teacher, obviously one of the usless ones you are on about.
To me the OECD report above says that having classes over 20 is too large as. There may be little difference in having 24 or 26 students but compare that to countries like Finland who have abour 13 or 14. Surely the OECD report is saying that this can make a huge difference hence proving that class size of 14 v 24 is a big factor. Just because we never have a hope to have classes that low does not mean that it doesnt make a difference.

For your information the Numeracy and Literacy strategy has been brought in at both Primary and Secondary level.


"most 'qualified' primary school teachers here can't teach very well- as is borne out by the OECD report "

If you can quote me where in the OECD report it says that "MOST" teachers in Ireland cannot teach very well I will close my account on boards right now and never come back. Nowhere does it say that.

I find it laughable that for some reason myself and numerous other teachers have been sucked into this trolling for so long on this discussion. I mean what would any of us know, we are only the people who do it every day and have studied how to do it, not very well by your accounts.

I go into the bank every week so that means I obviously am more informed than everyone that works in there because I saw a report that says the financial crises is beacuse of the banks. I should really go on and tell them that they know nothing compared to me.

pog it you will also see how above I have countered all your points without referring to any form of teaching methodology or blaming parents.

seavill

Godge wrote: »

Two, my experience is that not all teachers have difficulties with the current generation of pupils. Sure, every teacher has occasional problems with some students, but it seems to me that there are different levels of difficulty experienced which suggests to me that at least some of it must be down to the quality/experience of the teacher.

I am a young(ish) teacher who has worked in a very difficult disadvantaged school in the past.

There were difficult classes that every and I mean every teacher had problems with. From the new teacher in the door all the way up to the most senior teacher in the school behind the Vice principal. All 13 teachers had problems with this class.

I had another class where I had this senior teacher asking me for some methods to use with a class that I happened to get on well with and I didn't have many problems with.

Students may not like a certain subject which may be causing the problem, this may be due to ability, or lack of interest or many other reasons. It may be that they just don't like the teacher. It may be due to a simple this as the time of the day they have the subject. For example in my current school I have one particular class that can be a nightmare at times first class after lunch depending on how much crap they have eaten from the local shop but who are a fantastic, really enjoyable class to have when I teach them earlier in the morning another day during the week.
I know in the schools I have worked in that days where it is lashing rain, the whole cohort of students seem to be more excitable for some reason. Numerous teachers have commented on this.
No uniform days can cause huge disruption.
If there was a speaker, video, or an argument in their previous lesson.
I could probably list another 100 things that can cuase problems in my class. These are all things that I have to take into account every 40 or so minutes. 90% of them are originally outside of my control.

I am not saying for one second that there are not bad teachers but saying that problems with as you said this generation of students cannot be put down to either "MOST", as pog it said, teachers in Ireland being bad teachers or a teacher being too old or too young, depending on what you meant by "experience" above.

Godge

seavill wrote: »

I am a young(ish) teacher who has worked in a very difficult disadvantaged school in the past.

There were difficult classes that every and I mean every teacher had problems with. From the new teacher in the door all the way up to the most senior teacher in the school behind the Vice principal. All 13 teachers had problems with this class.

I had another class where I had this senior teacher asking me for some methods to use with a class that I happened to get on well with and I didn't have many problems with.

Students may not like a certain subject which may be causing the problem, this may be due to ability, or lack of interest or many other reasons. It may be that they just don't like the teacher. It may be due to a simple this as the time of the day they have the subject. For example in my current school I have one particular class that can be a nightmare at times first class after lunch depending on how much crap they have eaten from the local shop but who are a fantastic, really enjoyable class to have when I teach them earlier in the morning another day during the week.
I know in the schools I have worked in that days where it is lashing rain, the whole cohort of students seem to be more excitable for some reason. Numerous teachers have commented on this.
No uniform days can cause huge disruption.
If there was a speaker, video, or an argument in their previous lesson.
I could probably list another 100 things that can cuase problems in my class. These are all things that I have to take into account every 40 or so minutes. 90% of them are originally outside of my control.

I am not saying for one second that there are not bad teachers but saying that problems with as you said this generation of students cannot be put down to either "MOST", as pog it said, teachers in Ireland being bad teachers or a teacher being too old or too young, depending on what you meant by "experience" above.

I agree with a lot of what you have said. I was responding to rainbowtrout who was putting most of the blame on parents.

I identified two other potential causes (primary system, different quality/expereince of teachers) You have identified five or six more. As for the experience, I was not necessarily referring to older being better than younger. In fact, as your own post points out younger can be better than older. Quite often, older teachers are still trying to teach pupils the same way they taught them when they were 21 and starting out on teaching. A sure-fire recipe for disaster.

As for the bit about the uncontrollable class, you appear to put the blame on the pupils. Is it possible that the cause of the problem is the schools streaming policy (or lack of) which ensured a disruptive group got together. Is it the small size of the school (13 teachers) which didn't allow for greater mixing and diluting of the problem element? They are possible factors too.

The only reason I was responding is that the easy option among teachers is to blame the kids and the parents. I think you and I would agree that there are a lot of other factors that come into account.

seavill

Godge wrote: »

As for the bit about the uncontrollable class, you appear to put the blame on the pupils. Is it possible that the cause of the problem is the schools streaming policy (or lack of) which ensured a disruptive group got together. Is it the small size of the school (13 teachers) which didn't allow for greater mixing and diluting of the problem element? They are possible factors too.

The only reason I was responding is that the easy option among teachers is to blame the kids and the parents. I think you and I would agree that there are a lot of other factors that come into account.

I don't believe I said that it was the pupils fault, I said they were a difficult class and listed numerous reasons below.
I was referring to a second level class that would have 13 subject teachers or around that number there is approx 50 teachers in the school.
Streaming was one part of the problem.
Lack of parental involvement was another
Student attitudes
Lack of interest from one or two teachers was another, or a disappointing attitude towards the students.
Plus all the outside influences some of which I listed previously.

Home life, school life, the teacher factor, the parent factor, the 'extra curricular' life of the students is another, the education system in the school or the country is another.

The factors are too great to list, but saying that most teachers are crap teachers is not the solution, but as I have said previously there are bad teachers. Jumping at someone when they suggest that parents can be a problem is also not the solution, there are bad parents. There are bold children that are difficult to handle and have no interest in school. There is an outdated educational system in place. These are the facts of the education system there is no point in denying any of them.

Saying all that, there are fantastic teachers in Ireland, maybe not enough. There are fantastic parents that at times spend more time in the school than some students do. There are brilliant students who get 9 A's in the LC and others who may not get all the A's but get their dream job. There are also some advancements in the system like new syllabi in second level that are really fantastic.

rainbowtrout

Godge wrote: »

just a couple of points, you are teaching at second level, how sure are you that the problems don't originate from the primary teaching system and not from parents?

Two, my experience is that not all teachers have difficulties with the current generation of pupils. Sure, every teacher has occasional problems with some students, but it seems to me that there are different levels of difficulty experienced which suggests to me that at least some of it must be down to the quality/experience of the teacher.

To answer your other post below I'm not putting most of the blame on the parents, I am suggesting one reason, and quite an obvious one at that, that leads to problems with students' learning.

How do I know these problems aren't stemming from primary level? Well the specific problems I have listed are to do with what students environments are like outside school. If a student comes to school without a bag is that the school's fault? If a student comes is and is sprawled across a desk and does not want to learn and just sleep because they've spent half the night on the xbox, does the fault lie with the school for not sending them to bed on time?

If you have a look in some of the other forums on boards you will regularly see posts from people complaining about the noise from their neighbours house where kids are running around the house half the night, shouting and screaming and banging doors. Surely when there is so little structure in some homes that this has to have an effect on the education of those children?

#15

pog it wrote: »

I was saying that they are well able to teach (most 'qualified' primary school teachers here can't teach very well- as is borne out by the OECD report

The PISA report makes no comment on how well primary teachers are teaching.

passarellaie

And ho chi Quinn wants to throw the Church out of education all together.Just watvh how things go then