Hons Math for Primary Teachers?

doc_17

Anyone hear Ruairi Quinn this morning on Morning Ireland? He wants to bring in the requirement that all prospective applicants for primary teaching have honours Maths.

Wonder how soon he'll look to have this in? Probably two years I'd say.

I'd say that might nit go down well.

Moody_mona

There's a thread on edposts about primary teachers who are anxious about moving to the senior end of the school because of the unfamiliarity and difficulty with the Maths content. I think that's pretty appalling. But as a Maths teacher in second level, I am of course completely biased.

The problem I can see with Honours Maths being a requirement is that Irish and Maths are typically a "one or the other" for students to take to higher level. Just in my experience. It's a big ask.

Edit: Just to add, I dont think doing Honours Maths will help the senior end of the school like I mentioned, that's more a college thing.

rainbowtrout

Moody_mona wrote: »

There's a thread on edposts about primary teachers who are anxious about moving to the senior end of the school because of the unfamiliarity and difficulty with the Maths content. I think that's pretty appalling. But as a Maths teacher in second level, I am of course completely biased.

The problem I can see with Honours Maths being a requirement is that Irish and Maths are typically a "one or the other" for students to take to higher level. Just in my experience. It's a big ask.

Edit: Just to add, I dont think doing Honours Maths will help the senior end of the school like I mentioned, that's more a college thing.

:eek:

Difficulty with primary school maths???? Christ almighty, it's not a big ask to have people teaching that have more than basic numeracy surely?

Powerhouse

Surely it should be a case of ensuring that Primary teachers are properly instructed in the teaching of Maths at Primary level, rather than that they have to have been Honours Maths students themselves at Post-Primary level?

E.T.

This is a subject that has come up here before. It's nothing new, just soundbites again. Having honours maths as a requirement would stop most people qualifiying for teaching. It's not a level that I've ever felt I'm lacking, and I don't think it's necessary to have honours maths to teach the primary curriculum.

I've seen threads on educationposts with teachers asking for advice about moving to senior classes, but I didn't see people stating that they had difficulty with primary school maths! Unfamiliarity is the word I'd have used there too.

There's a big change between class levels at opposite ends of the school, I'd be looking for advice if I was doing it. It would be the same for other subjects too - I wouldn't know the History, Geography or Science curricula for sixth class familiarly either, I'd have to really go over them before I went and started planning schemes and lessons for the Senior end of the school. It's not a difficulty in understanding, it's just that I'm focussed on my own class level and planning right now.

There are plenty of posts on that forum from people asking about the other way around too, many more people seem nervous of moving to infants than to senior classes!

Ruairí Quinn might be better off focussing on actually putting money into the numeracy and literacy strategy at the ground level rather than just coming out with soundbites. So many people now refer to this strategy without realising that there's actually zero funding going into schools for any new materials, it's all just talk and extra paperwork.

TheDriver

this has been said already at various conferences and about time it came in, they make primary teachers have hons irish but pass maths and english. The plan is that every primary teacher entry has done hons all three. Apparently only 20% of this years entry would qualify so theres some years grace in it.

Moody_mona

rainbowtrout wrote: »

:eek:

Difficulty with primary school maths???? Christ almighty, it's not a big ask to have people teaching that have more than basic numeracy surely?

E.T. wrote: »

I've seen threads on educationposts with teachers asking for advice about moving to senior classes, but I didn't see people stating that they had difficulty with primary school maths! Unfamiliarity is the word I'd have used there too.

It's a recent thread and the poster was genuinely looking for advice on how to brush up before moving to a senior class like you say, and several others were in agreement, but they commented that they were never good at Maths, struggled with it when they were in school and would need help understanding let alone teaching it.

From an outsider, it seems that there is much more of an emphasis on Irish for primary teachers, but I could be totally wrong with that view!

doc_17

I'm not in favour of someone with a C or lower in OL LC maths becoming a primary school teacher to be honest. And in fairness not many people with that criteria become teachers.

If you don't like or aren't good enough at maths then you won't have a love for it. My best teachers were the ones who had a real enjoyment of their subject and that shines through in the teaching.

Although my one real problem with Quinn's proposal is that not every school offers Hond Maths, particularly DEIS schools so some students could be disadvantaged.

E.T.

Moody_mona wrote: »

It's a recent thread and the poster was genuinely looking for advice on how to brush up before moving to a senior class like you say, and several others were in agreement, but they commented that they were never good at Maths, struggled with it when they were in school and would need help understanding let alone teaching it.

I'd have to agree with you there so, I don't think anyone should be a primary teacher if they don't fully understand one of the core subjects at a level appropriate for teaching the primary curriculum.

dambarude

The standards are currently set way too low, but I think that *requiring* honours Maths might be a step too far. The option of an A2 or something similar at ordinary level should be enough. I got an A1 in HL Leaving Cert, but would still have to familiarise myself with the odd topic before teaching it. I'm just qualified though, so wouldn't have taught many topics yet. A lot of people I know would never become teachers if a high grade in LC HL was required. Higher grades will help with teachers' own confidence, perhaps, but will not necessarily make better teachers.

From next September, as part of this new B.Ed they keep harping on about, student teachers will have to take professional Maths as well as the pedagogy of Maths. It should help matters.

rainbowtrout

dambarude wrote: »

The standards are currently set way too low, but I think that *requiring* honours Maths might be a step too far. The option of an A2 or something similar at ordinary level should be enough. I got an A1 in HL Leaving Cert, but would still have to familiarise myself with the odd topic before teaching it. I'm just qualified though, so wouldn't have taught many topics yet. A lot of people I know would never become teachers if a high grade in LC HL was required. Higher grades will help with teachers' own confidence, perhaps, but will not necessarily make better teachers.

From next September, as part of this new B.Ed they keep harping on about, student teachers will have to take professional Maths as well as the pedagogy of Maths. It should help matters.

That's fair enough, there are tricky enough topics on LC Higher Level maths course. But most of what is done at primary level is basic. Primary school teachers should not be having trouble with fractions, percentages, minus numbers, calculating speed of a vehicle, ratios etc. It is baby stuff in the greater scheme of things.

Having said that I was having dinner with friends last year and there was a girl at the meal who was a primary school teacher, anyway over the course of the evening we got around to talking about work. She told us she teaches 6th class and used to get her boyfriend to teach her the maths and work out the questions before she went to work everyday. She didn't see anything wrong with it either. Myself and my friend were horrified.

dambarude

rainbowtrout wrote: »

That's fair enough, there are tricky enough topics on LC Higher Level maths course.

Ha ha, I was referring to primary maths rainbowtrout I didn't make myself very clear.

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Having said that I was having dinner with friends last year and there was a girl at the meal who was a primary school teacher, anyway over the course of the evening we got around to talking about work. She told us she teaches 6th class and used to get her boyfriend to teach her the maths and work out the questions before she went to work everyday. She didn't see anything wrong with it either. Myself and my friend were horrified.

I can see why you would be. From what I've seen, that wouldn't be a particularly isolated case. Teachers' content knowledge is never tested in the current B.Ed, but that will likely change from September on. As it stands you could get first honours without knowing how to do long division/addition of fractions etc. You can get by teaching practice by teaching topics like shape and space or data.

rainbowtrout

dambarude wrote: »

Ha ha, I was referring to primary maths rainbowtrout I didn't make myself very clear.

I can see why you would be. From what I've seen, that wouldn't be a particularly isolated case. Teachers' content knowledge is never tested in the current B.Ed, but that will likely change from September on. As it stands you could get first honours without knowing how to do long division/addition of fractions etc. You can get by teaching practice by teaching topics like shape and space or data.

My god, when I was in primary school (in the 80s) my mother sat with me every night when I did my homework, tested me on my spellings and tables, verbs, grammar exercises, checked all my homework, as many parents would have done back then when it was the norm to have one parent at home. She taught a good few of my friends how to do long division, percentages etc, when they didn't get it in school and they would call to my house for help. She'd wipe the floor in a classroom with some of the teachers coming through and she doesn't even have her Inter Cert.

Maryanne40

The minimum requirements may be a C in ordinary level English and a D in ordinary level Maths but the reality is that with a cut off point of around 470 points last year, nobody with the minimum only is going to get in. I'm not an expert on actual points but I believe you'd need about 4 'B's and 2 'C's on higher level papers to attain 470. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I am a primary teacher with 30 years experience and I have NEVER met any colleague with a difficulty understanding 6th class Maths. Quite honestly I think some contributors to this thread may be exaggerating!

Looking for some help when moving from a junior class to a senior class (or indeed vice versa) shows common sense and commitment and is not a reflection on the teacher's Maths/English skills.

Quandary

Numeracy is an area that is lacking in schools today. I know it is mainly a secondary school problem, but I find it is an area many primary school teachers have a bit of a dislike towards, especially with the senior classes.

I think having honours Maths as a requirement for entry into primary school teaching could only be a good thing.

I am a primary school teacher myself and am basing the above opinion purely on my own experience and observations in primary schools around Dublin.

dambarude

Maryanne40 wrote: »

I am a primary teacher with 30 years experience and I have NEVER met any colleague with a difficulty understanding 6th class Maths. Quite honestly I think some contributors to this thread may be exaggerating!

Well I'm teaching one month, and I have! The vast majority have the cop on to figure it out before hand if there's an area they're not fully sure of. So the end result is the same.

E.T.

I really disagree that it could only be a good thing Quandary. I didn't do honours maths. I tried and tried, put hours every night into it, but just did not get enough of it to make it worth my while doing for the leaving cert. I dropped down to pass during the LC year, and couldn't get over the difference. It was like a different subject. If anything, there's a need for a level between honours and pass, many people I've spoken to had the same problem.

I got well above the points needed to get into the B.Ed. I plan well for lessons, and try to get every child working to the best of their abilities. I get excellent results, and the children in my classes are happy. Why on earth should I have been excluded because I didn't get higher level maths at leaving cert level? I can't believe that there are that many people getting around 500 points in the Leaving Cert, and have difficulty with basic primary maths.

I wouldn't have a problem with teaching or understanding any of the primary curriculum. As I said above, I'd have to brush up on what's contained in the senior classes curriculum, but for familiarity, not lack of understanding. Not doing higher level maths doesn't mean that someone isn't cabable of teaching the primary curriculum.

rainbowtrout

Maryanne40 wrote: »

The minimum requirements may be a C in ordinary level English and a D in ordinary level Maths but the reality is that with a cut off point of around 470 points last year, nobody with the minimum only is going to get in. I'm not an expert on actual points but I believe you'd need about 4 'B's and 2 'C's on higher level papers to attain 470. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I am a primary teacher with 30 years experience and I have NEVER met any colleague with a difficulty understanding 6th class Maths. Quite honestly I think some contributors to this thread may be exaggerating!

Looking for some help when moving from a junior class to a senior class (or indeed vice versa) shows common sense and commitment and is not a reflection on the teacher's Maths/English skills.

Why would anyone need to lie? I know plenty of teachers who are more than capable of teaching maths, but I've also met some who do not come up to scratch. I work with a teacher who didn't know who Angela Merkel was until last week, we were discussing that flag and she didn't get the joke and asked us who she was.....

dambarude

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I work with a teacher who didn't know who Angela Merkel was until last week, we were discussing that flag and she didn't get the joke and asked us who she was.....

Not a teacher of CSPE I hope... I know some student teachers who didn't know who Ruairí Quinn was. The level of ignorance around current affairs is often shocking.

rainbowtrout

dambarude wrote: »

Not a teacher of CSPE I hope... I know some student teachers who didn't know who Ruairí Quinn was. The level of ignorance around current affairs is often shocking.

Actually she is teaching CSPE.... after that I'm not amazed by them not knowing who Ruairi Quinn is.....

I didn't think there could be anyone left in the country who hadn't heard of Angela Merkel after the last four years.....

TheDriver

I see plenty of our students getting necessary points and taking ordinary maths though think the bonus points will change that. They get very anxious about need for higher Irish but don't care after that once they get into college. If you say a in ordinary then its less of a gamble getting c3 in higher
also sixth class maths can be quite tough especially if you don't like maths

TheBody

I don't want to drag the thread off topic, but the more teachers pay and working conditions are eroded, the less of our brightest and best students will go into teacher training.

Maryanne40

I fail to see how somebody could get 470+ points in their Leaving Cert and have a difficulty understanding 6th class Maths.... it just doesn't make sense. Lack of general knowledge is a slightly different thing.

Though that is a very good point made above regarding erosion of pay and conditions...you pay peanuts; you get monkeys and all that.....

These teachers you all know....they wouldn't be getting any positions in my school, that's for sure.

Moody_mona

Maryanne40 wrote: »

I fail to see how somebody could get 470+ points in their Leaving Cert and have a difficulty understanding 6th class Maths.... it just doesn't make sense.

Calculators. In secondary school, you don't do long multiplication or addition of fractions by hand.

Primary school Maths is all about fundamentals and foundations. Teachers won't get this from Honours Leaving Cert, I think the training colleges should be responsible.

rainbowtrout

Quandary wrote: »

Numeracy is an area that is lacking in schools today. I know it is mainly a secondary school problem, but I find it is an area many primary school teachers have a bit of a dislike towards, especially with the senior classes.
.

This I don't get. There are huge problems with numeracy in students at second level BUT they don't start the minute they walk through the doors of secondary school and into first year. What have those students been doing for the previous eight years in primary school that they don't yet have basic numeracy skills?

RealJohn

For those who seem to be implying that primary teachers can't do maths, I'm sure this isn't actually the case. What's being missed though is that in order to teach something effectively a teacher needs to be a full level above the students so a primary teacher would need good secondary school maths (ie. leaving cert. hl), a secondary teacher needs a degree, a third level lecturer needs a masters/Ph.D etc.

doc_17

I have loads of respect for primary teachers who don't allow their kids to use a calculator. I can't for the life of me understand why they were ever allowed in the first place. It is eroding standards

Powerhouse

E.T. wrote: »

I really disagree that it could only be a good thing Quandary. I didn't do honours maths. I tried and tried, put hours every night into it, but just did not get enough of it to make it worth my while doing for the leaving cert.

Funnily enough, I know someone who did likewise - dropped to OL Maths duriing leaving Cert year - and subsequently took Maths at degree level when the went to college. It was just leaving her cold at LC level.

I did Oral exams recently and was struck by the number of extremely bright students for whom Maths did nothing and the were citing it as their least favourite subject. Given the standard of many of these I doubt that it was a question of ability.

Not sure where that fits into the general discussion here as I haven't been following it, but it's an observation prompted by what you wrote anyway.

derb12

Teaching 1st years, I find that a large proportion of students are coming into 2nd level with a really poor understanding of maths. They sort of half learn methods (like adding fractions) but they have a "that's the one where you...." attitude - so on any given day they are as likely to add the top to the top and the bottom to the bottom or turn the second one upside down or do some other random operation. By then they seem to have the attitude that it is basically all a bit hit and miss, whereas it is the exact opposite of that.
Makes me wonder whether we shouldn't have specialised teachers from say 4th class on, rather than expecting one person to have all the subject skills. It is all very well to be able to do the maths, but to be able to enlighten pupils as to why things are done a certain way takes more than just a C on OL LC maths.
Same deal in science. If we are serious about instilling an interest in science from a young age, then we can't have teachers telling primary school kids that fish get their oxygen from the O in H2O like some of my students have told me.

evolving_doors

I think people are getting sucked into this whole maths debate way too much here.

The 'problem' is simple. Maths is compulsory for all students at LC. Consequently, every year we're ALWAYS going to have the same old headlines trotted out about people failing. Thus the whole psychological warfare continues where people proudly state on TV that 'oh I am terrible at maths ' and passing the mindset on to their kids. It;s the same story with Irish... it's just pure conditioning/modelling.

We're trying to make the whole country maths gurus but the fact is that statistically if you take a cross section of any group of 55,000 odd students. There will always be only about 16% who will be able for the Honours... and as a corollary there will always be around 14% who will fail.

What we've done by incentivising more Honours maths students is actually to the detriment of the students who are able for it and want to go at a faster pace. From talking to a good deal of maths teachers what has happened is that the Ordinary level student is now clinging on to the Higher level class in the hope of getting extra points, For that teacher they have now a whole new issue of mixed ability in an honours maths class. How does that help.

What's so great about honours maths anyway. What;s wrong with having students good at music/art/sport/language. Sure, a basic competency should be a goal for every student but this whole thing about jobs,jobs,jobs, maths,maths,maths is madness.As per usual we're chasing after our tails in this country.

When I was in school every mammy was telling their son to be an architect or computer engineer. Then when those bubbles burst it was a mad rush for teaching. Now science is supposed to be the new saviour. I think we need a universal education for children (hence the name university!) and let them grow with their own talents.

I really think people need to stand up to the rabble rousing and have faith in our primary teachers whatever their subject speciality.. (although I would say get rid of calculators and bring back rote learning in primary school).

Feeona

I think it's pointless to say that primary school teachers need Honours level Maths (LC) to help them teach Maths better. I have an Honours degree in Mathematics, but it doesn't help me when John/Mary can't remember that 48 divided by 6 equals 8. And it certainly doesn't help me to teach Mathematics any better. I have an interest in Maths which I try to pass on, but I've only recently learned to teach Mathematics (and every other subject for that matter on the Primary Curriculum) by trying different techniques and resources, sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. But it's through trying different things and working with children with different needs/socio-economic backgrounds which has taught me to teach, not the degree hanging on my wall.

Fizzical

derb12 wrote: »

Teaching 1st years, I find that a large proportion of students are coming into 2nd level with a really poor understanding of maths. They sort of half learn methods (like adding fractions) but they have a "that's the one where you...." attitude - so on any given day they are as likely to add the top to the top and the bottom to the bottom or turn the second one upside down or do some other random operation. By then they seem to have the attitude that it is basically all a bit hit and miss, whereas it is the exact opposite of that.
Makes me wonder whether we shouldn't have specialised teachers from say 4th class on, rather than expecting one person to have all the subject skills. It is all very well to be able to do the maths, but to be able to enlighten pupils as to why things are done a certain way takes more than just a C on OL LC maths.
Same deal in science. If we are serious about instilling an interest in science from a young age, then we can't have teachers telling primary school kids that fish get their oxygen from the O in H2O like some of my students have told me.

Don't you think this is a major part of the problem? That methods are split into simpler and simpler steps so that children can understand them? I do. It greatly multiplies what they have to remember, and eventually multiplies confusion. Basic methods should be learned off and practised ad infinitum. Division, fractions, factors etc should be so well learned that the child is not aware of how they know them. That leaves room in the head for understanding concepts that are actually complicated. But if the child still can't subtract in secondary school they haven't a hope. Memorisation as a learning technique is greatly under appreciated. It makes things so much easier for the student when they have the basic tools required.

As for primary school science, I can only agree, having come across equally weird ideas.

Back on topic, primary teachers should of course have taken honours maths in secondary, and they should have taken a physical science to honours level too. That's if they are expected to teach maths and science to any level beyond the basic. Your suggestion above that teachers from 4th class up should have specific qualifications is worth exploring.

RealJohn

Armelodie wrote: »

When I was in school every mammy was telling their son to be an architect or computer engineer. Then when those bubbles burst it was a mad rush for teaching. Now science is supposed to be the new saviour.

Just on a point of pedantics, you seem to be suggesting that "bubble" has burst on the computer industry. I don't know a single unemployed software engineer (and I know a lot of them). In fact, the ones I know have even told me that software engineers they consider poor are still having no problems finding jobs. Either I know the best software engineers in the country (which is possible I suppose) or there's no sign of the bubble bursting in the computer industry.

And science has been a good industry for the country since before I did my chemistry degree nearly 10 years ago and still seems to be doing well.

I'd recommend to any leaving cert student that they should think seriously about computers and science if they want to be employable.
Of course maths is important for both of those areas.

bdoo

Powerhouse wrote: »

Surely it should be a case of ensuring that Primary teachers are properly instructed in the teaching of Maths at Primary level, rather than that they have to have been Honours Maths students themselves at Post-Primary level?

In a nutshell. We all know teachers who know their stuff but couldn't get it across if their life depended on it.

TheDriver

6th class maths isn't easy to someone who doesn't have a clue of maths. I also concur about the science idea, the amount of kids who come in from primary science and have been taught the WRONG thing i.e. water to steam means it disappears etc because they don't have a bulls notion of science.

RealJohn

Have to agree with TheDriver. I know a lot of intelligent people who are weak at maths. 6th class maths is easy to people who are good at maths but having taught leaving cert ordinary level, I wouldn't count on even a good ordinary level student being comfortable with everything that needs to be covered in 6th class (which isn't to say that none of them would but the numbers who wouldn't would be far higher than some people seem to think).

Frankly, the primary school system has a lot to answer for. I certainly don't assume prior knowledge in my first year science class and it's getting to the point where I can't assume prior knowledge beyond addition and subtraction (and simple stuff at that) in my first year maths classes which begs the question, what exactly are they learning in primary school? Judging by some of the stuff I see written in english and in Irish, not much of anything.

Primary schools need to adopt a back to basics attitude in both the teachers and pupils. Any student who comes out of primary school without basic arithmetic and some level of competence in english and Irish has been failed by the primary school system.

So back fo the topic. Should primary school teachers be required to have HL maths? Absolutely. Same goes for Irish and english. It's not as though there's a shortage of teachers so why shouldn't we be insisting that potential candidates reach the highest standard, at least in core subjects? If they're going to insist on teaching science in primary schools too, you should probably add HL physics or chemistry to that too (in my experience, people who only have biology don't tend to have even a good basic understanding of the othe two) but the core subjects are key.

I'm not necessarily blaming the primary teachers here by the way. It's not their fault the bar has been set too low but it doesn't change the fact that it has.

rainbowtrout

RealJohn wrote: »

Have to agree with TheDriver. I know a lot of intelligent people who are weak at maths. 6th class maths is easy to people who are good at maths but having taught leaving cert ordinary level, I wouldn't count on even a good ordinary level student being comfortable with everything that needs to be covered in 6th class (which isn't to say that none of them would but the numbers who wouldn't would be far higher than some people seem to think).

Frankly, the primary school system has a lot to answer for. I certainly don't assume prior knowledge in my first year science class and it's getting to the point where I can't assume prior knowledge beyond addition and subtraction (and simple stuff at that) in my first year maths classes which begs the question, what exactly are they learning in primary school? Judging by some of the stuff I see written in english and in Irish, not much of anything.

Primary schools need to adopt a back to basics attitude in both the teachers and pupils. Any student who comes out of primary school without basic arithmetic and some level of competence in english and Irish has been failed by the primary school system.

So back fo the topic. Should primary school teachers be required to have HL maths? Absolutely. Same goes for Irish and english. It's not as though there's a shortage of teachers so why shouldn't we be insisting that potential candidates reach the highest standard, at least in core subjects? If they're going to insist on teaching science in primary schools too, you should probably add HL physics or chemistry to that too (in my experience, people who only have biology don't tend to have even a good basic understanding of the othe two) but the core subjects are key.

I'm not necessarily blaming the primary teachers here by the way. It's not their fault the bar has been set too low but it doesn't change the fact that it has.

Totally agree with all of this.

If I'm teaching a topic in science such as distance, speed, time, acceleration or a variety of other topics in the physics section of the course that require mathematical calculations, I don't think at this stage that I should have to slow down the class because they can't do times tables in their head.

If this basic stuff was known automatically as it used to be I could spend more time explaining the concepts around the formulas I'm teaching them. As it is I'm seeing more and more students reach for the calculator for very basic arithmetic, so if they have to spend time working out that step because they can't do it automatically they can't move onto processing the new stuff. So students have moved back a step in learning.

I also don't think this is a case of lack of ability. Weak students existed 20 and 30 years ago, in larger classes without any of the supports that exist now. Dyslexia, dyscalculia, ADHD..... etc, were unheard of in schools yet the 43 students in my primary school class still managed to all learn their times tables. Some would have been slower than others at being able to give back the answer but they were still able. That skill doesn't seem to be taught/reinforced anymore so I have to slow down my classes while students pull out calculators to find the answer to 9 + 7 or 8 x 5. Personally I think a student shouldn't get so much as a sniff of a calculator until secondary school.

I don't have children myself, but seeing what's coming through the door year after year has made me give serious consideration to home schooling any children I may have in the future, for primary level at least.

Fizzical

bdoo wrote: »

In a nutshell. We all know teachers who know their stuff but couldn't get it across if their life depended on it.

Totally agree.

But this is about when they don't know their stuff. Knowing methods for teaching something doesn't help when they haven't a clue about the substance of what they're teaching. Pupils don't master their maths and have ridiculous ideas in science.

The actual curriculum and methodology has a lot to answer for too. Pupils come to me very good at doing projects, confident at speaking in class etc. But that can't read good English, that can't write a readable hand, that can't spell and have no grammar.

The 3 R's, gentlemen - bring them back! And leave science and maths teaching to those that are good at it.

dambarude

derb12 wrote: »

Same deal in science. If we are serious about instilling an interest in science from a young age, then we can't have teachers telling primary school kids that fish get their oxygen from the O in H2O like some of my students have told me.

How do you know that primary teachers told them that? Would you really expect the primary science curriculum to cover dissolved oxygen, or chemical names for elements or compounds? That's introduced in JC science, if not LC chemistry (h3O+ etc). Science wasn't even a proper primary school subject until the 1999 curriculum was rolled out. Even at that, it's only taught for one hour a week. I think you might be expecting too much.

All of that said, I do think that there are problems with the way science is taught. A number of student teachers in my cohort had never even done Junior Cert science, never mind a Leaving Cert science. These same students wouldn't have done any science in primary school (save environmental studies). So they were working off very limited knowledge in teaching the science curriculum.

I think that there has been too much emphasis on 'fun' science in primary schools, with very little content being taught. One-off colour changing, fizzing, banging lessons seem to be very common. The resources provided by Discover Primary Science have very little scientific content, and the little bit that is there seems to get very little mention. (Some examples for secondary teachers here)

Going on the recommendations in this thread primary teaching would have more specific entrance criteria than any other course; high honours grades in English, maths and Irish, as well as taking biology and physics or chemistry. Students would need to have decided to do primary teaching before they've even done the Junior Cert.

I'm all for stricter entrance criteria, but in reality the colleges of education should be covering this material. It's beginning to be addressed with the new B.Ed programmes, but has fallen dreadfully short up to this point.

bdoo

Fizzical wrote: »

bdoo wrote: »

In a nutshell. We all know teachers who know their stuff but couldn't get it across if their life depended on it.

Totally agree.

But this is about when they don't know their stuff. Knowing methods for teaching something doesn't help when they haven't a clue about the substance of what they're teaching. Pupils don't master their maths and have ridiculous ideas in science.

The actual curriculum and methodology has a lot to answer for too. Pupils come to me very good at doing projects, confident at speaking in class etc. But that can't read good English, that can't write a readable hand, that can't spell and have no grammar.

The 3 R's, gentlemen - bring them back! And leave science and maths teaching to those that are good at it.

If it wasn't so serious it would be funny.

It would bring you to tears trying to teach drawing to first years. A day to learn how to attach a sheet to a board with tape (had to abandon clips). 2 days on how to read a ruler - the centimetre / millimeter thing is something that would drive you or the edge if you were anyway predisposed to mental illness.

I know its not fair to blame primary teachers but there's something amiss in the system.

Teacher training colleges haveca lot to answer for. I have had several colleagues pass through my school as teachers of tech drawing who could barely grasp the concepts. How did they get out of college?

How could a primary teacher get out without a proper understanding of maths and the pedagogy that goes with it?

Doctors dont do anatomy for lc. Engineers dont need to do construction. Thats why you go to college. If they can't bother their backside learning there then let them off.

Profession is right. And we stand for it. Why is the teaching council not demanding a certain standard of teaching graduates? And ensuring that this standard is met.

Of course having hons maths may de a help but if what cones after is still rubbish what's the point.

evolving_doors

RealJohn wrote: »

Just on a point of pedantics, you seem to be suggesting that "bubble" has burst on the computer industry. I don't know a single unemployed software engineer (and I know a lot of them). In fact, the ones I know have even told me that software engineers they consider poor are still having no problems finding jobs. Either I know the best software engineers in the country (which is possible I suppose) or there's no sign of the bubble bursting in the computer industry.

And science has been a good industry for the country since before I did my chemistry degree nearly 10 years ago and still seems to be doing well.

I'd recommend to any leaving cert student that they should think seriously about computers and science if they want to be employable.
Of course maths is important for both of those areas.

I take your point RealJohn I suppose what I am saying is that, to me, there seems to be a utopian profession which is 'à la mode' every 4 years or so, then we end up trying to fit square pegs in round holes to get the majority of our children into it. Instead we should be equipping children to be adaptable rather than be pigeonholed.

Note the big hullabaloo when it went out in the media that schools had to cut physics from their school due to cutbacks, then there was the big talk about the threat to new knowledge economy. While I agree that physics is an excellent subject which taught me a lot and I don;t agree with it being cut, I suspect that if say music or art was cut from schools there wouldn't have been the hype.

What I'm saying is that Ireland doesn;t need any more mathematicians just because Intel or Pfizer are worried, what we need are people who enjoy what they are working at and good at.

rainbowtrout

dambarude wrote: »

How do you know that primary teachers told them that? Would you really expect the primary science curriculum to cover dissolved oxygen, or chemical names for elements or compounds? That's introduced in JC science, if not LC chemistry (h3O+ etc). Science wasn't even a proper primary school subject until the 1999 curriculum was rolled out. Even at that, it's only taught for one hour a week. I think you might be expecting too much.

All of that said, I do think that there are problems with the way science is taught. A number of student teachers in my cohort had never even done Junior Cert science, never mind a Leaving Cert science. These same students wouldn't have done any science in primary school (save environmental studies). So they were working off very limited knowledge in teaching the science curriculum.

I think that there has been too much emphasis on 'fun' science in primary schools, with very little content being taught. One-off colour changing, fizzing, banging lessons seem to be very common. The resources provided by Discover Primary Science have very little scientific content, and the little bit that is there seems to get very little mention. (Some examples for secondary teachers here)

Going on the recommendations in this thread primary teaching would have more specific entrance criteria than any other course; high honours grades in English, maths and Irish, as well as taking biology and physics or chemistry. Students would need to have decided to do primary teaching before they've even done the Junior Cert.

I'm all for stricter entrance criteria, but in reality the colleges of education should be covering this material. It's beginning to be addressed with the new B.Ed programmes, but has fallen dreadfully short up to this point.

It wouldn't be a huge leap of imagination to assume derb12 had a follow up question 'where did you hear that?' and got back the answer 'my sixth class teacher told us that' or something to that effect.

It also wouldn't be too hard to explain to kids that gases dissolve in liquids. They all drink fizzy drinks, they have a very real example. They are all familiar with sparkling water. This stuff may not be on the JC curriculum but if a primary teacher wants to go down that road the least they can do is teach students stuff that is correct rather than just making it up. Are some teachers so incapable that they can't research the information that they are teaching?

I'm not familiar with the B.Ed course content but I would imagine if science is part of the primary school curriculum that the very least they should be doing is a module on elementary science and suitable course content for primary school students.

Fizzical

dambarude wrote: »

How do you know that primary teachers told them that? Would you really expect the primary science curriculum to cover dissolved oxygen, or chemical names for elements or compounds?

I wouldn't expect the curriculum to cover it. I would expect the teacher to not teach something incorrect by making up an answer on the spot. There's a old remedy for dealing with a new question - ask the class to look it up (at the time on the class computer, if it exists) or overnight. The teacher does the same. And a professional should not teach something without preparation. This is basic.

All of that said, I do think that there are problems with the way science is taught. A number of student teachers in my cohort had never even done Junior Cert science, never mind a Leaving Cert science. These same students wouldn't have done any science in primary school (save environmental studies). So they were working off very limited knowledge in teaching the science curriculum.

This is exactly it. These people should not be teaching science.

I think that there has been too much emphasis on 'fun' science in primary schools, with very little content being taught. One-off colour changing, fizzing, banging lessons seem to be very common. The resources provided by Discover Primary Science have very little scientific content, and the little bit that is there seems to get very little mention. (Some examples for secondary teachers here)

Thank you for the link. I like some of these - they would be suitable for my seniors who have done the background theory and would enjoy them. But you're right, I see no explanation of the background theory for the teacher. No ammunition for the torrent of questions that would surely ensue from a demonstration. Unless the pupils learn that science is just 'tricks' with no explanation forthcoming: 'that's just what happens, isn't it wonderful? now let's go on to....'

Going on the recommendations in this thread primary teaching would have more specific entrance criteria than any other course; high honours grades in English, maths and Irish, as well as taking biology and physics or chemistry.

I think you are correct. The knowledge base needs to be built either in school or after it. This is what is required for all jobs, that you be actually qualified to do the job as it stands. Now you may talk about changing the curriculum after the teacher is hired, and upskilling existing teachers, but that is a different question. Here I'm talking about hiring new teachers to suit the current curriculum.

I'm all for stricter entrance criteria, but in reality the colleges of education should be covering this material. It's beginning to be addressed with the new B.Ed programmes, but has fallen dreadfully short up to this point.

It's the job of the Teaching Council to address this in general. In particular it's the job of the Principal/Board of Management when hiring a teacher to look at their CV and see that they are qualified for the job at hand. They surely have enough of a choice.

TheDriver

Fizzical wrote: »

It's the job of the Teaching Council to address this in general. In particular it's the job of the Principal/Board of Management when hiring a teacher to look at their CV and see that they are qualified for the job at hand. They surely have enough of a choice.

You can't discriminate on the grounds of their qualifications. Qualified PT is exactly that and you can't judge that their qualification isn't good enough.
Furthermore, most Primary schools shuffle around their teachers for variety and meeting the needs of the school regularly.

dambarude

I agree in general with what you're all saying.

rainbowtrout wrote: »

It wouldn't be a huge leap of imagination to assume derb12 had a follow up question 'where did you hear that?' and got back the answer 'my sixth class teacher told us that' or something to that effect.

Fair enough. But I wouldn't presume that all of first years' misconceptions come directly from incorrect teaching at primary level. Such little content is actually covered that it's likely that these mad ideas come from the children's own musing, or thinking outside of what is taught at school.

rainbowtrout wrote: »

It also wouldn't be too hard to explain to kids that gases dissolve in liquids. They all drink fizzy drinks, they have a very real example. They are all familiar with sparkling water. This stuff may not be on the JC curriculum but if a primary teacher wants to go down that road the least they can do is teach students stuff that is correct rather than just making it up. Are some teachers so incapable that they can't research the information that they are teaching?

It's very unlikely that a primary teacher would actively decide to teach this particular topic. I've the curriculum book open in front of me, and none of the objectives come close to exploring dissolved compounds or fish respiratory systems. So the situation wouldn't arise where a teacher decided to teach this topic without prior preparation. They wouldn't be teaching the topic at all. It may be the case that it came up incidentally, in which case the teacher should have said 'I don't know' rather than giving incorrect information. But it's still the case that such topics aren't in the primary curriculum, not even the JC syllabus, so the teacher shouldn't be expected to have a working knowledge on the tip of the tongue. Primary teachers teach 12 subjects, so I do not think that it is reasonable to expect that they would.

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I'm not familiar with the B.Ed course content but I would imagine if science is part of the primary school curriculum that the very least they should be doing is a module on elementary science and suitable course content for primary school students.

This has not been the case to date. Any knowledge that primary teachers have picked up has been from their own independent work, rather than being part of their training. AFAIK it's changing from September.

Fizzical wrote: »

I wouldn't expect the curriculum to cover it. I would expect the teacher to not teach something incorrect by making up an answer on the spot. There's a old remedy for dealing with a new question - ask the class to look it up (at the time on the class computer, if it exists) or overnight. The teacher does the same. And a professional should not teach something without preparation. This is basic.

In all likelihood this question came up while the teacher was teaching another topic entirely. S/he should have done what you describe nonetheless.

Fizzical wrote: »

It's the job of the Teaching Council to address this in general. In particular it's the job of the Principal/Board of Management when hiring a teacher to look at their CV and see that they are qualified for the job at hand. They surely have enough of a choice.

Any BOM looking at CVs will not receive this information. Even if they looked at an applicant's transcript in depth, the most they would see would be 'PEDAGOGY 2 - A1'. It doesn't say anything about the applicant's science knowledge. It's as TheDriver has said above.

Am I correct in saying that some secondary teachers would prefer that science not be taught at primary level at all?

TheDriver

dambarude wrote: »

I
Am I correct in saying that some secondary teachers would prefer that science not be taught at primary level at all?

you are indeed correct. There is actually a study going on in I think Hull that looks at the problems with misinformation being taught to science students at primary level.

dambarude

TheDriver wrote: »

you are indeed correct. There is actually a study going on in I think Hull that looks at the problems with misinformation being taught to science students at primary level.

That's a pity.

Children really enjoy science, and not just when taught in the bells and whistles way. I think the greatest barrier to its teaching at primary level is the approach taken by some teachers, and the lack of knowledge of others. Introducing science as a curricular subject without targetting the content knowledge of teachers, or student teachers, was a mistake. And evidently it has led to others - secondary teachers in this case - questioning whether it should be taught at all.

Fizzical

dambarude wrote: »

Any BOM looking at CVs will not receive this information. Even if they looked at an applicant's transcript in depth, the most they would see would be 'PEDAGOGY 2 - A1'. It doesn't say anything about the applicant's science knowledge. It's as TheDriver has said above.

Am I correct in saying that some secondary teachers would prefer that science not be taught at primary level at all?

Surely an applicant would make clear in their CV what specialisms they had done during their degree? And then make clear what background they had in other areas for example through listing grades achieved in secondary school? And if they didn't, would they not be questioned about this during the interview process? As I said before, I'm not querying a teacher's ability to teach, just their knowledge and understanding of the content. I would have thought this was relevant in an interview situation.

Personally, I wouldn't be against science being taught in primary school if the teacher had a science background. I do think nature study should be taught to all.

dambarude

Fizzical wrote: »

Surely an applicant would make clear in their CV what specialisms they had done during their degree? And then make clear what background they had in other areas for example through listing grades achieved in secondary school? And if they didn't, would they not be questioned about this during the interview process? As I said before, I'm not querying a teacher's ability to teach, just their knowledge and understanding of the content. I would have thought this was relevant in an interview situation.

As it stands not all primary teachers do specialisms. Anybody doing a postgrad doesn't. And those doing a B.Ed only do one specialised module. A handful of teachers graduating would have a specialism in science.

The standard application form for primary teaching posts makes no mention of Leaving Cert or Junior Cert grades. I include my science grades and achievements in my applications under areas of special interest, but there's no requirement to do so. Even if there was, science would be very far down the priority list of most principals.

I personally think that LC grades are of relevance, if anything to show what particular subjects an applicant might have an aptitude in. But the reality is that science isn't seen as being all that important in the primary curriculum, given its time allocation. Many principals would be far more interested in geography/history or music.

rainbowtrout

dambarude wrote: »

Am I correct in saying that some secondary teachers would prefer that science not be taught at primary level at all?

To be honest it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if it wasn't taught at primary level and I had to do everything from scratch, particularly if it meant students had more time to get their English and maths up to scratch. It would mean that I wouldn't spend half my time doing arithmetic and vocabulary lessons.


Think someone asked in an earlier post about level of problems seen with numeracy and literacy in first year. We are getting in approximately one third of our students classified with learning difficulties and plenty more who don't have a great grasp of the concepts although they are not officially defined as having difficulties. Not a Deis school.

Fizzical

dambarude wrote: »

As it stands not all primary teachers do specialisms. Anybody doing a postgrad doesn't. And those doing a B.Ed only do one specialised module. A handful of teachers graduating would have a specialism in science.

The standard application form for primary teaching posts makes no mention of Leaving Cert or Junior Cert grades. I include my science grades and achievements in my applications under areas of special interest, but there's no requirement to do so. Even if there was, science would be very far down the priority list of most principals.

I personally think that LC grades are of relevance, if anything to show what particular subjects an applicant might have an aptitude in. But the reality is that science isn't seen as being all that important in the primary curriculum, given its time allocation. Many principals would be far more interested in geography/history or music.

Thanks. That explains it so. And in that case, we would be far better off with no science in primary school.

Trouble is, the application forms leave no room for maths either...