Hons Math for Primary Teachers?

E.T.

Fizzical wrote: »

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...

I don't agree with that. I love teaching science, the children love it. As with Maths, if there was ever anything I was unsure of, I'd make sure that I had prepared it and was happy that I understood it before I went near the classroom with it. From looking at the fifth and sixth class curriculum, a lot of it does seem to be content that I remember from first year science, there isn't anything too complicated on there.

Having said that, I like science in general, and did 2 sciences for Leaving Cert, so my perspective is going to be very different from somebody who never did any science in school themselves. dambarude makes a very good point that it was a mistake introducing science as a primary subject without giving full training to anyone who had never done science in school.

Maybe it is time to bring in exams in college to make sure that all students understand the contents of the Maths and Science curriculum before they qualify. The curriculum is completely overloaded in primary schools though, so until this is sorted there isn't going to be enough time given to Science.

The fifth and sixth class curriculum is here if anyone wants to see what the content is like.

http://www.curriculumonline.ie/en/Primary_School_Curriculum/Social_Environmental_and_Scientific_Education_SESE_/Science/Science_Curriculum/Fifth_and_sixth_classes/Content/

Fizzical

E.T. wrote: »

The fifth and sixth class curriculum is here if anyone wants to see what the content is like.

http://www.curriculumonline.ie/en/Primary_School_Curriculum/Social_Environmental_and_Scientific_Education_SESE_/Science/Science_Curriculum/Fifth_and_sixth_classes/Content/

...where I found the following....
"become aware that air is composed of different gases
including oxygen and carbon dioxide
become aware of some of the practical applications of these gases in everyday life
use of carbon dioxide in fizzy drinks and in fire extinguishers."

dambarude

Fizzical wrote: »

...where I found the following....
"become aware that air is composed of different gases
including oxygen and carbon dioxide
become aware of some of the practical applications of these gases in everyday life
use of carbon dioxide in fizzy drinks and in fire extinguishers."

Apologies!

Miss Lockhart

I agree that we need to increase the standard required for entry to primary teaching. Why is the honour in Irish so important, but not an honour in other core subjects? Honours English, Irish and Maths and a requirement to have sat a science subject would be a step in the right direction. I also think a test of subject content in the B. Ed should be introduced - I'd support such a test for the secondary PDE also.

I'm not sure that honours maths would be necessary - an A/B in OL maybe, but we can afford to be choosy. Teaching is over-subscribed. Whilst I totally agree that being good at a subject does not make you good at teaching it, being bad at it certainly does not help either. There are people who are both good at subjects and good teachers. That's who we should be aiming to have in teaching.

As a second level science teacher I would prefer that science was not taught at primary under the current system. I too am always dealing with nonsense students learned in primary - such as that blood is blue inside the body. It would be great for kids to be introduced to science at a younger age, but the current method is doing more harm than good.

Tbh, I'm constantly shocked at the poor literacy and numeracy of our incoming first years. If 12 year olds could leave primary able to read to age-level, spell decently and add/subtract/multiply/divide without a calculator I'd be delighted. Anything else is just a bonus. Literacy and numeracy is the key to all other learning.

Personally I think the way the whole primary/secondary division is set up is wrong. A completely different skill-set is required for teaching 5 year olds than teaching 12 year olds than teaching 17 year olds. The divisions are too broad. A middle-school system might allow the introduction of specialised teaching at an earlier stage while also allowing for a more nurturing envrionment for pre-teens and younger teens.

E.T.

It's interesting that you mention the word "skill". I think a lot of skills aren't being used any more in general, and children's learning is suffering because of it.

If we were set a project in school (I'm only in my thirties, so not a hundred years ago!), you went and found a book on the topic, or an encyclopaedia, and wrote it from this. If you were interested you probably put your own slant on it, or at least changed the wording. For those that weren't bothered about it, it was written straight from the source. But at least it was hand-written, I definitely feel that writing things out helps you learn them.

Now it's straight to google or wikipedia, and copied and pasted, printed and that's it done. The only skills being used here are very basic IT skills, which even younger children have at this stage. This kind of behaviour shouldn't be tolerated, I wouldn't accept it from young children and it needs to be stressed more to parents that this is not a good way for their children to learn.

There are so many fantastic resources available to children that we hadn't even dreamt of back in pre-internet days. Is it a case of there being too much out there and people in general, not just children, don't need to retain knowledge because it's so easily accessible within seconds?

rainbowtrout

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

I agree that we need to increase the standard required for entry to primary teaching. Why is the honour in Irish so important, but not an honour in other core subjects? Honours English, Irish and Maths and a requirement to have sat a science subject would be a step in the right direction. I also think a test of subject content in the B. Ed should be introduced - I'd support such a test for the secondary PDE also.

I'm not sure that honours maths would be necessary - an A/B in OL maybe, but we can afford to be choosy. Teaching is over-subscribed. Whilst I totally agree that being good at a subject does not make you good at teaching it, being bad at it certainly does not help either. There are people who are both good at subjects and good teachers. That's who we should be aiming to have in teaching.

As a second level science teacher I would prefer that science was not taught at primary under the current system. I too am always dealing with nonsense students learned in primary - such as that blood is blue inside the body. It would be great for kids to be introduced to science at a younger age, but the current method is doing more harm than good.

Tbh, I'm constantly shocked at the poor literacy and numeracy of our incoming first years. If 12 year olds could leave primary able to read to age-level, spell decently and add/subtract/multiply/divide without a calculator I'd be delighted. Anything else is just a bonus. Literacy and numeracy is the key to all other learning.

Personally I think the way the whole primary/secondary division is set up is wrong. A completely different skill-set is required for teaching 5 year olds than teaching 12 year olds than teaching 17 year olds. The divisions are too broad. A middle-school system might allow the introduction of specialised teaching at an earlier stage while also allowing for a more nurturing envrionment for pre-teens and younger teens.

Actually a subject content test in the B.Ed would allow for students to enter with an A/B grade in LC OL Maths. If they were good enough at maths they would pass the content test. Very simple.

rainbowtrout

E.T. wrote: »

It's interesting that you mention the word "skill". I think a lot of skills aren't being used any more in general, and children's learning is suffering because of it.

If we were set a project in school (I'm only in my thirties, so not a hundred years ago!), you went and found a book on the topic, or an encyclopaedia, and wrote it from this. If you were interested you probably put your own slant on it, or at least changed the wording. For those that weren't bothered about it, it was written straight from the source. But at least it was hand-written, I definitely feel that writing things out helps you learn them.

Now it's straight to google or wikipedia, and copied and pasted, printed and that's it done. The only skills being used here are very basic IT skills, which even younger children have at this stage. This kind of behaviour shouldn't be tolerated, I wouldn't accept it from young children and it needs to be stressed more to parents that this is not a good way for their children to learn.

There are so many fantastic resources available to children that we hadn't even dreamt of back in pre-internet days. Is it a case of there being too much out there and people in general, not just children, don't need to retain knowledge because it's so easily accessible within seconds?

It's definitely part of it. I see it a lot at second level. If you give students a topic to create a project, once they find a page with the relevant topic title (usually Wikipedia) it's usually a cut and paste job and whack the whole lot into Word/Powerpoint etc, without having read any of it to see if it's relevant and cutting out bits that are not needed, or that they don't understand. It also means unless they are supervised and challenged on it, they don't actually learn an awful lot, particularly younger students. Copy and paste is not a skill.

At least with books students have to copy out the text, not exactly riveting stuff but it does mean they have to read the material at least once and perhaps make a decision about which bits are useful and which are not.

I remember being in fourth class and doing a project on local geography. We had to draw a map of our home country (Limerick and Clare represented in my school) with main towns and rivers etc. Remember having to get my parents to bring me to the city library and then go and ask the librarian which would be the most useful books to get that information, locate them, go through them find the best map and then draw it out. A bit of effort involved. Now it would be Google Limerick County map and job done in 2 minutes, with the first picture on google images.

People are definitely of the mindset 'sure I can google it' these days. No more than people don't remember phone numbers anymore because their mobile phone does it for them. Memory skills are disappearing.

Miss Lockhart

Definitely the availability of Google/Wikipedia etc and the technology to cut and paste has made people lazy.

I'm sure plagiarism has always been an issue, but having to write something out (or even type it on an old fashioned type-writer) meant people were likely to be a little bit more discriminatory in what they chose to include in their projects - as they would have to write it all out.

I get FETAC Level 5 assignments handed up to me with the Wikipedia hyperlinks not even taken out - so the words are blue and underlined. The laziness is astounding.

rainbowtrout

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

Definitely the availability of Google/Wikipedia etc and the technology to cut and paste has made people lazy.

I'm sure plagiarism has always been an issue, but having to write something out (or even type it on an old fashioned type-writer) meant people were likely to be a little bit more discriminatory in what they chose to include in their projects - as they would have to write it all out.

I get FETAC Level 5 assignments handed up to me with the Wikipedia hyperlinks not even taken out - so the words are blue and underlined. The laziness is astounding.

Oh I get that too. What's worse is the response. When I challenge them and say 'This has been copied straight from Wikipedia' I get back 'Sure you don't mind'


Of course I bloody mind!!! So then I tell them they will fail if they don't do it properly to which I get the response 'Sure you're not going to tell the external examiner'

Do these people honestly think I'm that unprofessional????

They only start to take notice when I say 'I am grading this and I will fail you'. Second version is usually still heavily plagiarised. So frustrating.

Funny incident: I have a textbook published for the last 18 months. I teach a practical subject which involves a project. I'm assessing a project which includes a lot of very familiar looking material. I challenge the student on it, but give them a chance to come clean by asking them where they got the material. They claim it's their own work ..... and kept insisting it was when I pulled them up on it and stated that it was lifted straight out of my book. Not trying to be a wagon about it, but there's copying and then there's stupid copying.

RealJohn

Like rainbowtrout and Miss Lockhart, I don't think they should be teaching science in primary the way they are at the moment. In theory, it's a good idea but in practice, the primary teachers don't know enough to do a good job of it and we'd be better off starting from scratch rather than having to get the students to unlearn the incorrect stuff in first year.

I'd much prefer that when I'm introducing area and volume that I could count on the students to be able to multiply without looking to the calculator.

Moody_mona

I'm a Chemistry teacher and was all in for saying no science at primary level but John's unlearn comment is standing out because on the first day of 5th year Chemistry we have to tell students to forget everything about the atomic structure they've been taught for JC!

Nature studies is nice in Primary school.

I suppose the big thing is not oversimplifying: if you're going to investigate changing states dont tell them water disappears when it evaporates etc.

dambarude

Whatever the content/methodology knowledge of some primary teachers, I think it's very important to acknowledge that the claims levelled here are not representative of all. The majority of primary teachers will have studied at the very minimum JC Science, and any gaps that need to be filled after that can be done with prior preparation. Misconceptions and incorrect facts are perpetuated as much in the secondary system as in the primary.

rainbowtrout

dambarude wrote: »

Whatever the content/methodology knowledge of some primary teachers, I think it's very important to acknowledge that the claims levelled here are not representative of all. The majority of primary teachers will have studied at the very minimum JC Science, and any gaps that need to be filled after that can be done with prior preparation. Misconceptions and incorrect facts are perpetuated as much in the secondary system as in the primary.

That's fair enough, but when entry to a degree/postgrad in primary teaching requires a minimum C3 in Higher Level LC Irish but every other subject has no minimum requirement (I'm guessing the requirment for English and Maths falls at OL D3 as per most third level entry requirements) and there is no exam to check subject competency it leaves a gaping hole in the process. As was said in an earlier post, it's possible for a student teacher to get an 1.1 Hons in teaching practice by teaching shapes for maths, and having poor mathematical knowledge. I'd assume similar can therefore happen in science, something which may not have been studied for Leaving Cert. Subject knowledge should be a minimum expectation of a graduate at either secondary or primary level.

TheDriver

Moody_mona wrote: »

Nature studies is nice in Primary school.

Love it! Can't beat a good ol pregnant rabbit disection with vegetarian 10 year old girls!

dambarude

rainbowtrout wrote: »

That's fair enough, but when entry to a degree/postgrad in primary teaching requires a minimum C3 in Higher Level LC Irish but every other subject has no minimum requirement (I'm guessing the requirment for English and Maths falls at OL D3 as per most third level entry requirements) and there is no exam to check subject competency it leaves a gaping hole in the process. As was said in an earlier post, it's possible for a student teacher to get an 1.1 Hons in teaching practice by teaching shapes for maths, and having poor mathematical knowledge. I'd assume similar can therefore happen in science, something which may not have been studied for Leaving Cert. Subject knowledge should be a minimum expectation of a graduate at either secondary or primary level.

I agree with you. But the potential effect of this lack of checks and balances is mitigated in large part by the teachers themselves.

To the best of my knowledge the new B.Ed programmes will include teaching and testing of scientific knowledge. There was a legacy issue with the old programmes, in that science was introduced to the curriculum without addressing it properly in initial or in-service teacher education.

The issue of student teachers getting through TP with a shaky understanding of subject content doesn't apply to primary teachers alone.

rainbowtrout

dambarude wrote: »

I agree with you. But the potential effect of this lack of checks and balances is mitigated in large part by the teachers themselves.

To the best of my knowledge the new B.Ed programmes will include teaching and testing of scientific knowledge. There was a legacy issue with the old programmes, in that science was introduced to the curriculum without addressing it properly in initial or in-service teacher education.

The issue of student teachers getting through TP with a shaky understanding of subject content doesn't apply to primary teachers alone.

Oh totally agree. There are a number of people who come to mind at second level that do not have a great grasp of their subject.

Fizzical

dambarude wrote: »

But the potential effect of this lack of checks and balances is mitigated in large part by the teachers themselves.

Unfortunately this is not the experience of secondary teachers in this thread.

The issue of student teachers getting through TP with a shaky understanding of subject content doesn't apply to primary teachers alone.

At least secondary teachers have to pass exams in their subject matter and achieve a minimum standard.

RealJohn

dambarude wrote: »

The issue of student teachers getting through TP with a shaky understanding of subject content doesn't apply to primary teachers alone.

While that is true to an extent, the one good thing about the teaching council is that they're eliminating this by insisting that teachers have a degree in their teaching subjects (in theory anyway).
As far as I know, there's nothing to ensure primary teachers reach any kind of standard in most of what they have to teach.

Is there a case for making primary teachers sit the junior cert higher level exam again in subjects on the primary curriculum in order to ensure that they have a level of competence in those subjects? Now that I think of it, that's not really that much to ask, is it? If they don't know something to junior cert standard, they're unlikely to be able to teach it to 6th class standard.

rainbowtrout

RealJohn wrote: »

Is there a case for making primary teachers sit the junior cert higher level exam again in subjects on the primary curriculum in order to ensure that they have a level of competence in those subjects? Now that I think of it, that's not really that much to ask, is it? If they don't know something to junior cert standard, they're unlikely to be able to teach it to 6th class standard.

Or at least if they haven't already achieved a required level, e.g if you haven't already got a A/B grade in HL JC Science then you would have to sit the exam. For someone getting 470+ points in Leaving Cert/already has a degree then this shouldn't be an issue study-wise.

Actually the more I think about it, the more I'm getting annoyed. I have to have a degree in science to teach science to Junior Certs (and Leaving Cert). A primary school teacher currently teaching science doesn't have to have any science qualification whatsoever. There should be a minimum requirement at the very least.

dambarude

Fizzical wrote: »

Unfortunately this is not the experience of secondary teachers in this thread.

Exactly - in this thread. There was a whole thread dedicated to issues around sweeping generalisations in this very forum only a few weeks ago. I'm now a primary teacher, and would not likely for it to be assumed that I know nothing about science. Or any other subject for that matter.

RealJohn wrote: »

While that is true to an extent, the one good thing about the teaching council is that they're eliminating this by insisting that teachers have a degree in their teaching subjects (in theory anyway).
As far as I know, there's nothing to ensure primary teachers reach any kind of standard in most of what they have to teach.

Fizzical wrote: »

At least secondary teachers have to pass exams in their subject matter and achieve a minimum standard.

Minimum certainly is the word in some cases. Short of having primary teacher candidates sit exams in 12 subjects, I don't know how this could be properly addressed. From September on it is my understanding that content knowledge will be tested in English, Mathematics, Irish and Science. Do you think primary teachers should all be able to read music and play an instrument (for music), be a brilliant actor (drama) or talented artist (visual arts)? The primary school teacher is a general practitioner, not a consultant. It would be very difficult to have teachers who are highly knowledgeable and skilled in every subject of the primary curriculum. That's why local arrangements often make up for this.

RealJohn wrote: »

Is there a case for making primary teachers sit the junior cert higher level exam again in subjects on the primary curriculum in order to ensure that they have a level of competence in those subjects? Now that I think of it, that's not really that much to ask, is it? If they don't know something to junior cert standard, they're unlikely to be able to teach it to 6th class standard.

I think the answer is to make it part of the B.Ed programme. For the subjects that require very specific knowledge anyway, including science. It would be unworkable to require qualifications/JC examinations in all subjects.

Glinda

In a different job these days, but spent several years as a maths teacher. Now that I have my own kids, I am really shocked at how poorly their teachers (primary school) grasp some very basic maths concepts.

Examples from the past year from my daughter's teacher:

Drawing graphs: teacher (from notes) "the horizontal (across) axis is for time. Anything else goes on the vertical (up and down) axis"
(Cue years of confusion in secondary school)

Teaching long division, teacher didn't know how to handle numbers which had zeroes in the middle, so just skipped all those.
Holy Cow.

(I also find it ridiculous in the extreme that a rocket scientist or nuclear physicist can't teach leaving cert maths in this country: total talking up of the difficulty of the subject by maths teachers if you ask me! It can be taught, same as any other subject, to any normally intelligent person, provided that they haven't been told at an impressionable age that it is some mystical gift that you either have or haven't, but I digress...)

rainbowtrout

dambarude wrote: »

Exactly - in this thread. There was a whole thread dedicated to issues around sweeping generalisations in this very forum only a few weeks ago. I'm now a primary teacher, and would not likely for it to be assumed that I know nothing about science. Or any other subject for that matter.

Minimum certainly is the word in some cases. Short of having primary teacher candidates sit exams in 12 subjects, I don't know how this could be properly addressed. From September on it is my understanding that content knowledge will be tested in English, Mathematics, Irish and Science. Do you think primary teachers should all be able to read music and play an instrument (for music), be a brilliant actor (drama) or talented artist (visual arts)? The primary school teacher is a general practitioner, not a consultant. It would be very difficult to have teachers who are highly knowledgeable and skilled in every subject of the primary curriculum. That's why local arrangements often make up for this.


I think the answer is to make it part of the B.Ed programme. For the subjects that require very specific knowledge anyway, including science. It would be unworkable to require qualifications/JC examinations in all subjects.

Nobody is making sweeping generalisations about the whole primary school teacher cohort, this isn't After Hours, but it has been the experience of science teachers particular that students coming into them have been taught incorrect information in science and have a poor grasp of maths. That doesn't mean all primary teachers are not capable of teaching these subjects but they are not isolated incidents either.

There is no minimum requirement to teach these subjects - and why not? Nobody is suggesting that a primary school teacher should be able to teach music and drama as well, but you said yourself you get people in for those things. But science is now part of the curriculum, taught by the teacher and not by outsiders, so therefore the teacher should be knowledgeable on the subject. If this is part of the curriculum since 1999, there isn't much excuse for anyone coming out in the last 10 years or so.... or for the colleges to get their acts together. As you said, it's only this year a change is coming about in the B.Ed.

dambarude

rainbowtrout wrote: »

There is no minimum requirement to teach these subjects - and why not? Nobody is suggesting that a primary school teacher should be able to teach music and drama as well, but you said yourself you get people in for those things.

The vast majority of schools don't get people in to teach these subjects. They wouldn't be able to afford it. Music and drama are accorded the same curricular time as science, and are expected to be taught by the class teacher. There have been cases where WSE inspectors have told schools to stop hiring external staff to teach these subjects. My point is that in theory at least, given curricular timings, if minimum requirements are required in science they are required in art, music and drama as well. By local arrangements I meant that teachers would swap classes for certain subjects.

rainbowtrout wrote: »

But science is now part of the curriculum, taught by the teacher and not by outsiders, so therefore the teacher should be knowledgeable on the subject. If this is part of the curriculum since 1999, there isn't much excuse for anyone coming out in the last 10 years or so.... or for the colleges to get their acts together. As you said, it's only this year a change is coming about in the B.Ed.

I agree with you. The colleges have been very complacent.

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Nobody is making sweeping generalisations about the whole primary school teacher cohort, this isn't After Hours, but it has been the experience of science teachers particular that students coming into them have been taught incorrect information in science and have a poor grasp of maths. That doesn't mean all primary teachers are not capable of teaching these subjects but they are not isolated incidents either.

It has been generalised to the point that secondary teachers are saying that no science should be taught at all. But I take your point.

Fizzical

Dambarude, I appreciate your taking the trouble to reply to all of this - and all alone! It's not easy to stay calm and courteous in the face of so many posts, so thank you.

I have to say it's a relief to be able to say some of this stuff though and not feel constrained by feeling that you're attacking your colleagues which is not what we're at - these colleagues do their best in the system they're landed in. And you were right to say that some of the incorrect ideas brought to secondary science could well be the product of the children's imagination rather than something the teacher told them.

Children do have some very odd ideas of science when they come in. But for me the greatest frustration is their lack of ability in basic maths and basic English. If they could read, write and do basic calculations I'd be overjoyed!

You mention local arrangements in the primary school for sharing out individual teacher's talents, music etc. I've seen this in my children's primary school at the upper levels where one teacher always took the higher ability maths, and another led the music for the concert. People do have talents in different directions and it would be good to have regard for this in the composition of a whole staff.

But there should be a basic level of competence in all subjects to be taught and it should be demonstrated. This should be non-negotiable. What 'basic level' means is another matter.

(Re your comment that some secondary teachers reach a minimum standard, it is a minimum standard at degree level which is something. What may explain secondary teachers not seeming to be competent at their subject is that maybe it isn't their subject at all but they were put teaching it anyway by the management.)

dambarude

Fizzical wrote: »

Dambarude, I appreciate your taking the trouble to reply to all of this - and all alone! It's not easy to stay calm and courteous in the face of so many posts, so thank you.

Thanks. It can be hard to rationalise and defend the indefensible, particularly when I've only dipped my toe in the system yet. Lack of planning in implementing new subjects is the main reason for concern in relation to science. There were issues with drama also, in that some teachers hadn't (and still haven't) a clue how to implement it in the classroom. Discrepancies and failures in that subject are less obvious than in subjects like science.

Fizzical wrote: »

And you were right to say that some of the incorrect ideas brought to secondary science could well be the product of the children's imagination rather than something the teacher told them.

I definitely think that this has something to do with it.

Fizzical wrote: »

But there should be a basic level of competence in all subjects to be taught and it should be demonstrated. This should be non-negotiable. What 'basic level' means is another matter.

You're right. That it hasn't happened up to now is an indictment of how teachers are educated/trained. Programme overload has been a major problem in B.Ed degrees, this being mentioned by the Teaching Council in programme reviews. Lectures in science education were shoe horned into an already packed B.Ed degree. The same happened with SEN, drama and other subjects/discrete areas that have come to the fore since the B.Eds were initiated in the 1970s. No proper review of the programmes has happened up until this point.

Fizzical wrote: »

(Re your comment that some secondary teachers reach a minimum standard, it is a minimum standard at degree level which is something. What may explain secondary teachers not seeming to be competent at their subject is that maybe it isn't their subject at all but they were put teaching it anyway by the management.)

I didn't mean that comment as a dig (though it may have come across that way). When a teacher is teaching one particular subject for full days, to multiple classes, it is very different to teaching it for one hour a week (4% of weekly teaching time). That's why I think scraping passes in a BA degree isn't good enough to enable somebody to teach a subject in secondary schools.

cycnus

I heard Ruari Quinn mention this again this morning.

Im going to be honest here, I know at least 7 people who went for primary school teaching because it was considered a soft job, with great holidays. Some of them I knew from school, others from college, and they werent people I would consider smart enough to be teaching children. And here we are a few years later, 4 of them are teachers.

I always loved science, but it was a pretty sad state of affairs when I realised at about the age of 8 or 9, that I had better math skills than my teacher at the time. Also a better understanding of astronomy and science in general. Granted I wasnt a typical child, but on what planet should a 9 year old child have a better understanding of maths, and science than their teacher? It got to a point where occasionally the teacher would ask me to explain a topic. How can we allow these people to slip through the net? Im sure with the recession and job options tightening up, the situation is even worse now.

I think considering these are the people who will be shaping the futures of our children's lives, and therefore that of our country and economy, they should have achieved good grades in Honours English, Maths and Irish as well as a Science subject, and anything else they are going to be teaching!

This is especially resonant when we hear about how science and engineering at the careers of the future.

doc_17

cycnus wrote: »

I heard Ruari Quinn mention this again this morning.

Im going to be honest here, I know at least 7 people who went for primary school teaching because it was considered a soft job, with great holidays. Some of them I knew from school, others from college, and they werent people I would consider smart enough to be teaching children. And here we are a few years later, 4 of them are teachers.

I always loved science, but it was a pretty sad state of affairs when I realised at about the age of 8 or 9, that I had better math skills than my teacher at the time. Also a better understanding of astronomy and science in general. Granted I wasnt a typical child, but on what planet should a 9 year old child have a better understanding of maths, and science than their teacher? It got to a point where occasionally the teacher would ask me to explain a topic. How can we allow these people to slip through the net? Im sure with the recession and job options tightening up, the situation is even worse now.

I think considering these are the people who will be shaping the futures of our children's lives, and therefore that of our country and economy, they should have achieved good grades in Honours English, Maths and Irish as well as a Science subject, and anything else they are going to be teaching!

This is especially resonant when we hear about how science and engineering at the careers of the future.

Ah sure as long as there are wonderful people like yourself in the class the wee ones will be alright!

cycnus

I fear if the government keeps pushing is agenda of devolution through discouraging hard working people from having kids, there wont be too many children like me left! its not a coincidence that benefits go up for the lazy, costs go up for the hard working, and leaving cert points come down...

DonnaMaguire

Hey, I'm going into 6th year in September and honestly I'm quite lost concerning all the recent news about those going on for primary school teaching needing honours maths.

For me, I've been dead set on being a primary school teacher forever. I've never wanted to be anything else. Even when I was younger I always answered with "I want to be a teacher."

I done higher level maths for my junior cert and got a C, and I'm not going to lie, but when I started 5th year I stayed in the higher level class for about a week before I dropped to the ordinary class. I asked several maths teachers and career guidance teachers if this was a wise choice and everyone said that honours maths wasn't needed for being a primary school teacher so if I was struggling it would be the better decision to drop. At the time, I was taking all of my subjects at higher level (English, Irish, Maths, History, French, Music and Art along with LCVP)

I thought that by dropping honours maths I would have extra time during the school year to concentrate and focus more on my honours Irish to ensure that I would get the grade needed instead of weighing myself down with higher level maths when it wasn't even needed!

Right now, I'm totally lost as to what I should do and I'm open to all ideas. Should I try and pick up a two years higher level maths course in a year with grinds or just stick at ordinary level and hope for the best?

Thank you,
A confused almost 6th year!

dambarude

DonnaMaguire wrote: »

Hey, I'm going into 6th year in September and honestly I'm quite lost concerning all the recent news about those going on for primary school teaching needing honours maths.

For me, I've been dead set on being a primary school teacher forever. I've never wanted to be anything else. Even when I was younger I always answered with "I want to be a teacher."

I done higher level maths for my junior cert and got a C, and I'm not going to lie, but when I started 5th year I stayed in the higher level class for about a week before I dropped to the ordinary class. I asked several maths teachers and career guidance teachers if this was a wise choice and everyone said that honours maths wasn't needed for being a primary school teacher so if I was struggling it would be the better decision to drop. At the time, I was taking all of my subjects at higher level (English, Irish, Maths, History, French, Music and Art along with LCVP)

I thought that by dropping honours maths I would have extra time during the school year to concentrate and focus more on my honours Irish to ensure that I would get the grade needed instead of weighing myself down with higher level maths when it wasn't even needed!

Right now, I'm totally lost as to what I should do and I'm open to all ideas. Should I try and pick up a two years higher level maths course in a year with grinds or just stick at ordinary level and hope for the best?

Thank you,
A confused almost 6th year!

You've no need to worry. You won't need honours maths. Nothing has been agreed on yet. Much more notice would be needed.

DonnaMaguire

Thank very much for replying so quickly! Do you reckon that it will be brought in for the 2013 leaving cert students though because I know of a huge number of people hoping to go on for primary school teaching? Would you suggest that I still speak with my present maths teacher and career guidance teachers when I go back to school then? Thank you again, I really appreciate it!

dambarude

DonnaMaguire wrote: »

Thank very much for replying so quickly! Do you reckon that it will be brought in for the 2013 leaving cert students though because I know of a huge number of people hoping to go on for primary school teaching? Would you suggest that I still speak with my present maths teacher and career guidance teachers when I go back to school then? Thank you again, I really appreciate it!

It's hard to say. It would have to be announced pretty soon if that were the case, because they'd need at the VERY minimum two year's notice (ie. start of fifth year, pre-leaving cert). In reality prospective teachers should be let know before that, so that they wouldn't drop to pass at junior cert level.

No decision has been made, but the following document throws light on where the Teaching Council is headed with the issue: http://www.teachingcouncil.ie/_fileupload/Teacher%20Education/ITE%20Criteria%20and%20Guidelines%20Final%20July%202011.pdf. See page 17. The Teaching Council would wish that the revised entry requirements be in place by 2016/2017. Note that they haven't proposed that Higher Maths would be necessary, an A1 at ordinary would do instead. But moves and talk more recent than that document have indicated that HL Maths could indeed be required.

DonnaMaguire

Okay, I think I understand the current situation a lot better than before! I just don't understand why all the focus is placed on maths, because everyone has different strong points, it doesn't mean that they aren't going to be a bad / incapable teacher. Thanks a million for all of your help!

doc_17

There isn't a hope in hell that higher maths will be needed to apply for teaching in the next two years.

They just couldn't do something like that without gIving proper notice so you have nothing to worry about

DonnaMaguire

@doc_07 you have no idea how relieved I am to hear that! I was so annoyed when I heard it on the radio! Thanks

needhelp12345

Hey just in 5th year now and i was wondering can they bring it out as a requirement for the 2014 year ?? when is the latest they can bring it out ?? in other words how long should i keep on honours maths just to be safe ?

I really want to drop as its so hard and i want to pay attenetion to other subjects ?

evolving_doors

DonnaMaguire wrote: »

@doc_07 you have no idea how relieved I am to hear that! I was so annoyed when I heard it on the radio! Thanks

Industries On about the poor level of language learning in schools now, think the maths issue has been forgotten about now... Plus cest change

bdoo

Armelodie wrote: »

DonnaMaguire wrote: »

@doc_07 you have no idea how relieved I am to hear that! I was so annoyed when I heard it on the radio! Thanks

Industries On about the poor level of language learning in schools now, think the maths issue has been forgotten about now... Plus cest change

It'll be the church next - not enough religion! Everyone wants their sector looked after. Probably the biggest failing of the education system over the past twenty years was European languages imo, all of our emigrants and all to English speaking countries. I know Europe is in recession too before I get attacked. But I could write essays about drugs and social problems for lc French but could only ask for a ticket to Lyon orally!

I think the whole argument about maths is wrong. Engineers Ireland drive me nuts. We should be good at maths because in everyday life we need it and we need the skills that come with maths. The knowledge economy benefit is secondary in my opinion.

We should study languages because they give us an insight into the culture of other countries and broaden our horizons. We learn to ask, ou est la gare? Very little real life use.