Education and Skills shortfall – where do we go from here?

golfwallah

For a country with a proud record of economic improvement through constantly growing education spending, why are we witnessing such poor performance in keeping up with changes in the skills and competencies demanded by the market as much as slippage in standards?

For some time now we have been hearing about difficulties in attracting foreign direct investment and employment of Irish people because of:
• Lack of language skills
• Lack of IT skills
• Shortage of engineers and accountants
• Too many people with construction industry skills for which demand has considerably reduced
• Too much of the education budget going on teacher pay and conditions

There is a lot right with our education and skills training system. It has enabled us to be relatively successful in attracting foreign direct investment and enabling new business start-ups up to recently. And even though the system has lost some sense of direction, it still provides a good starting point for the newer skills and competencies required to bring about economic recovery.

We also have a lot of well educated people. However, many with construction industry skills are now unemployed and faced with the choices of staying on the dole, emigration or re-training.

So, is it sufficient to wallow in complaints about inadequacies in the system or can we do something positive about it? And if we can identify the shortfall between where we are and where we should be, why isn’t more happening to resolve the problem? For example, this Irish Times article from last year puts it down to poor marketing to attract students into higher level maths, etc.

After all, the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SKILLS STATEMENT OF STRATEGY 2011 – 2014 opens with the following mission statement (click link for full report): “To enable learners to achieve their full potential and contribute to Ireland’s economic, social and cultural development”.

It goes on to say (paragraph 2.2): “A key element of the Government’s growth and employment strategy is ensuring that we have the right skills to attract, retain and grow job opportunities, investment and growth. In addition to improving education outcomes generally we need to ensure our learners and graduates have the right skills for employment and provide reskilling and upskilling opportunities for the unemployed - particularly those at risk of long-term unemployment.”

Manach

Offhand,
- for IT what the companies want is to have is to have a candidates skilled on most of the latest technologies but willing to work at comparative low pay rates. As well, training from IT companies is minimum at best and usually up to ones self to enroll in courses.
- for languages, that is a matter of geography. Our nearest neighbour shares the language and there is no constant exposure to other tongues which would act a stimulus to gain experience.
- This Government (AFAIK) have reduced the tax relief allowed on adult education. This, along with the increased tax burden, disincentives the acquisition of the extra education and skills that are needed.

golfwallah

golfwallah wrote: »

So, is it sufficient to wallow in complaints about inadequacies in the system or can we do something positive about it? And if we can identify the shortfall between where we are and where we should be, why isn’t more happening to resolve the problem? For example, this Irish Times article from last year puts it down to poor marketing to attract students into higher level maths, etc.

Specifically related to languages - the rewards aren't particularly there for students to go out and learn these over something else.

I studied a business with language degree and encountered an employers representative while in college who was bemoaning the numbers studying languages saying employers couldn't get enough skilled employees.

When pressed on what jobs were available and what career progression there was he essentially admitted that the jobs were call centre jobs and there was limited progression.

Ten years later I think only one of the 15 from my class uses their language professionally, most of us went into accounting or finance.

To address the language imbalance we should stop wasting time on religion in primary school and introduce foreign languages.

n900guy

golfwallah wrote: »

For a country with a proud record of economic improvement through constantly growing education spending, why are we witnessing such poor performance in keeping up with changes in the skills and competencies demanded by the market as much as slippage in standards?

Because economic improvement was primarily based on credit and not the result of supposed educational investment.

If it was educational investment, we wouldn't have the poor performance and so much unemployment, would we.

RichardAnd

The problem seems to me to be an education that whilst not terrible, is in need of modernisation. One massive issue with education here (and elsewhere, I'm sure) is that students are told to learn material that is given to them and write it down in an exam without ever fully understanding it or even questioning it. This is unhealthy as consistent exposure to learning by rote without personal investigation and study will leave an individual poorly prepared for the considerable self-tuition that is often required in "skilled jobs" and many others besides.

Degsy

golfwallah wrote: »

For a country with a proud record of economic improvement through constantly growing education spending, why are we witnessing such poor performance in keeping up with changes in the skills and competencies demanded by the market as much as slippage in standards?

For some time now we have been hearing about difficulties in attracting foreign direct investment and employment of Irish people because of:
• Lack of language skills
• Lack of IT skills
• Shortage of engineers and accountants
• Too many people with construction industry skills for which demand has considerably reduced
• Too much of the education budget going on teacher pay and conditions

There is a lot right with our education and skills training system. It has enabled us to be relatively successful in attracting foreign direct investment and enabling new business start-ups up to recently. And even though the system has lost some sense of direction, it still provides a good starting point for the newer skills and competencies required to bring about economic recovery.

We also have a lot of well educated people. However, many with construction industry skills are now unemployed and faced with the choices of staying on the dole, emigration or re-training.

So, is it sufficient to wallow in complaints about inadequacies in the system or can we do something positive about it? And if we can identify the shortfall between where we are and where we should be, why isn’t more happening to resolve the problem? For example, this Irish Times article from last year puts it down to poor marketing to attract students into higher level maths, etc.

After all, the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SKILLS STATEMENT OF STRATEGY 2011 – 2014 opens with the following mission statement (click link for full report): “To enable learners to achieve their full potential and contribute to Ireland’s economic, social and cultural development”.

It goes on to say (paragraph 2.2): “A key element of the Government’s growth and employment strategy is ensuring that we have the right skills to attract, retain and grow job opportunities, investment and growth. In addition to improving education outcomes generally we need to ensure our learners and graduates have the right skills for employment and provide reskilling and upskilling opportunities for the unemployed - particularly those at risk of long-term unemployment.”

Lovely..they want an increase in education(presumably free :rolleyes:) but want to cut the teachers' pay.

Brussels Sprout

Degsy wrote: »

Lovely..they want an increase in education(presumably free :rolleyes:) but want to cut the teachers' pay.

Don't worry, the Labour party will protect all of their teacher buddies at the expense of the rest of society.

antoobrien

Deleted User wrote: »

Specifically related to languages - the rewards aren't particularly there for students to go out and learn these over something else.

.
.

To address the language imbalance we should stop wasting time on religion in primary school and introduce foreign languages.

The languages thing is a red herring - paypal more or less proved that a couple of weeks ago by admitting that the majority of the 1,000 or so jobs in Dundalk are going to go to native speakers.

Degsy

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Don't worry, the Labour party will protect all of their teacher buddies at the expense of the rest of society.

"the rest of society" being the ones who benefit from the free education the teachers are providing?

Welease

Degsy wrote: »

"the rest of society" being the ones who benefit from the free education the teachers are providing?

Where is this "free" education? We pay taxes, teachers get paid, plus there is the cost for buildings, books etc.. I believe we spent over €8.5 Billion last year on education...

By the same logic all health services are free.. as are county council services :rolleyes:

spurious

The languages in primary schools initiative, which was very successful and popular, was done away with in the last round of education cuts.

antoobrien

Welease wrote: »

Where is this "free" education? We pay taxes, teachers get paid, plus there is the cost for buildings, books etc.. I believe we spent over €8.5 Billion last year on education...

By the same logic all health services are free.. as are county council services :rolleyes:

Well yes, in that you don't have to contribute to tuition, light & heat, teachers supplies etc, then education is free.

Regarding health, one of my neighbours recently hurt himself during a match and went to the local private clinic. The costs were:
Concultacny fee €110
Additional X-ray fee €150
Additional Cast/Walking boot fee €300
The hospital claim they have a €495 maximum fee.

He went to the A&E instead where he was charged €100 and all work was done (I might go over to him and "ask" for my tax back).

We get a lot more for free than we think.

Degsy

Welease wrote: »

Where is this "free" education? We pay taxes, teachers get paid, plus there is the cost for buildings, books etc.. I believe we spent over €8.5 Billion last year on education...

By the same logic all health services are free.. as are county council services :rolleyes:

You dont have to pay fees for kids to go to school and you dont have to pay fees to go to college.

This is paid for by the state and as such is free education.

Unfortunatley the people who do the teaching need to be paid for thier time and effort as children cant educate themselves.:rolleyes:

Welease

antoobrien wrote: »

Well yes, in that you don't have to contribute to tuition, light & heat, teachers supplies etc, then education is free.

We get a lot more for free than we think.

I paid a lot of tax last year.. The €8.5B required came from that. Education is not free.. You may not be charged directly for consuming the service (although for higher education we have "admin charges" etc.), but it is anything but free..

antoobrien

Welease wrote: »

I paid a lot of tax last year.. The €8.5B required came from that. Education is not free.. You may not be charged directly for consuming the service (although for higher education we have "admin charges" etc.), but it is anything but free..

No it's free to the consumer, which is not the same as saying that it costs nothing to provide.

E.g. if a petrol station was to give away petrol, it's still be charged the excise duty. Free petrol but doesn't cost nothing.

Besides, you can't claim that "my taxes made part of the education budget" because you didn't give your taxes to the Department of Education, you gave it to Revenue Commissioners.

Welease

antoobrien wrote: »

No it's free to the consumer, which is not the same as saying that it costs nothing to provide.

E.g. if a petrol station was to give away petrol, it's still be charged the excise duty. Free petrol but doesn't cost anything.

Besides, you can't claim that "my taxes made part of the education budget" because you didn't give your taxes to the Department of Education, you gave it to Revenue Commissioners.

So if I paid "administration" charges for 3rd level education do you also claim it didnt cost anything?

antoobrien

Welease wrote: »

So if I paid "administration" charges for 3rd level education do you also claim it didnt cost anything?

You also wouldn't have had to buy stationary, various books, etc

NUI Galway charge international students about €13k. A small "admin" (I'll note that it's not tuition - which is the education bit) charge is free in comparison.

RichardAnd

I really wish that :rolleyes: smiley would be removed from this site . . .

Welease

antoobrien wrote: »

You also wouldn't have had to buy stationary, various books, etc

Thats not the question.. Does being charged a fee to go to third level education in this country constitute being "free" in your mind?

antoobrien

Welease wrote: »

Thats not the question.. Does being charged a fee to go to third level education in this country constitute being "free" in your mind?

Since I didn't pay for my tuition (the fees came to about €15,000), I consider my education to have been free.

Were costs that I wouldn't have had to pay if I wasn't in education - yes. Does that mean that because I wasn't earning the 30k my plumber brother averaged while I was in college mean that I lost 120k because I was in education - no.

Degsy

Welease wrote: »

Thats not the question.. Does being charged a fee to go to third level education in this country constitute being "free" in your mind?

You dont pay a fee to go to third level in this country..you may have to pay for regisration or capitation but you DO not,as a rule pay for your tuition.

If you want to enrol in a private educational facility you will see what being "charged a fee" really means.

antoobrien

Degsy wrote: »

You dont pay a fee to go to third level in this country..you may have to pay for registartion or capitation but you DO not,as a rule pay for your tuition.

That's a distinction that I fear the poster does not wish to see.

Degsy

antoobrien wrote: »

That's a distinction that I fear the poster does not wish to see.

People speak about the "cost" of education and bitch that teachers' wages are bleeding the state coffers white..they do not realise that the state is paying for them to go to school and college and if they were to pay for it privately(along with healtcare) then only the rich would be able to avail.

Welease

Degsy wrote: »

People speak about the "cost" of education and bitch that teachers' wages are bleeding the state coffers white..they do not realise that the state is paying for them to go to school and college and if they were to pay for it privately(along with healtcare) then only the rich would be able to avail.

I have not actually complained about the cost of the services provided (in fact its often quoted our spend is one of the lowest within the OECD).. I have pointed out that they do not come "free".. there is a cost attached to providing these services, and in the context of a thread looking at educational and skills shortfalls on an economic forum within a country with a large defecit, it is important that we actually understand the cost of providing these services so that we can implement/expand/contract as necessary to meet the requirements of the future with maximum efficiency...

Or you can sit there and pretend that services are "free" and we can therefore continue to ignore how and why we cannot immediately deliver the required services...

I'd rather focus on #1..

Degsy

Welease wrote: »

I have pointed out that they do not come "free".. there is a cost attached to providing these services.

Yes..its the cost of providing free services.

The givt spends billions on free education so people can spend years in college studying Feminist Anthropology,Gender Studies,Racial and Ethnic Studies and History of Art.

Where,pray tell is the benefit to the economy in paying people to go to college to study garbage like this?

Nobody can force people to study languages...they'd be far more picky about the subjects they chose if they had to pay 30k per anum.

Why are the "professional" students in college for 15 years not working for a living? How can they even afford it if its not free?

Welease

Degsy wrote: »

Yes..its the cost of providing free services.

Which is the point I am making.. In the context of an economic discussion on education, the cost is not free and the availaility of funding will define how/what/when we can implement changes to our education system. Funding is of key importance.

Degsy wrote: »

The givt spends billions on free education so people can spend years in college studying Feminist Anthropology,Gender Studies,Racial and Ethnic Studies and History of Art.

Where,pray tell is the benefit to the economy in paying people to go to college to study garbage?

I can't answer that.. because it's not relevant to any point or arguement i made..

Max Powers

golfwallah wrote: »

For a country with a proud record of economic improvement through constantly growing education spending, why are we witnessing such poor performance in keeping up with changes in the skills and competencies demanded by the market as much as slippage in standards?

For some time now we have been hearing about difficulties in attracting foreign direct investment and employment of Irish people because of:
• Lack of language skills
• Lack of IT skills
• Shortage of engineers and accountants
• Too many people with construction industry skills for which demand has considerably reduced
• Too much of the education budget going on teacher pay and conditions

There is a lot right with our education and skills training system. It has enabled us to be relatively successful in attracting foreign direct investment and enabling new business start-ups up to recently. And even though the system has lost some sense of direction, it still provides a good starting point for the newer skills and competencies required to bring about economic recovery.

We also have a lot of well educated people. However, many with construction industry skills are now unemployed and faced with the choices of staying on the dole, emigration or re-training.

So, is it sufficient to wallow in complaints about inadequacies in the system or can we do something positive about it? And if we can identify the shortfall between where we are and where we should be, why isn’t more happening to resolve the problem? For example, this Irish Times article from last year puts it down to poor marketing to attract students into higher level maths, etc.

After all, the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SKILLS STATEMENT OF STRATEGY 2011 – 2014 opens with the following mission statement (click link for full report): “To enable learners to achieve their full potential and contribute to Ireland’s economic, social and cultural development”.

It goes on to say (paragraph 2.2): “A key element of the Government’s growth and employment strategy is ensuring that we have the right skills to attract, retain and grow job opportunities, investment and growth. In addition to improving education outcomes generally we need to ensure our learners and graduates have the right skills for employment and provide reskilling and upskilling opportunities for the unemployed - particularly those at risk of long-term unemployment.”

• Completely overhaul the entire education system. Set up a new education body where existing teachers and newer ones compete for jobs in this system which will replace the old ones.
• Teachers deemed suitable will have to commit to completing on-line training in the subject material.
• Teachers will be constantly trained in this on-line/cheap training method which keeps pace with industry norms and best practices. They are tested in exams on their knowledge. No pass, no job.
• Emphasis on languages, ICT, Engineering, Science
• We already have Uni fees disguised as other reg charges, etc, bring in fees full, they are here in all but name
• Science, Euro languages, ICT to be thought at primary level.
• Scrap loads of those tiny rural schools with <50 less students. Send them to nearest town.
• Proper appraisals of teachers at all levels

There is a lot of good work done in the education system at present but a lot disillusionment also thinking they are all brill and doing a great job for our taxes

antoobrien

Welease wrote: »

Which is the point I am making.. In the context of an economic discussion on education, the cost is not free and the availaility of funding will define how/what/when we can implement changes to our education system. Funding is of key importance.

It is free as in Gratis

the process of providing goods or services without compensation

The Department of Education provides educational services without asking for compensation providing said services.

Your claim is a bit like saying that because I have to pay a company to allow me to access the internet (the admin fee), boards.ie is not a free service (to those of us who chose not to subscribe).

Degsy

Welease wrote: »

Which is the point I am making.. In the context of an economic discussion on education, the cost is not free
..

The cost of providing free public services is the cost of providing free public services.

If its costing too much,privatise the whole shaboozle and then only the rich can afford education.

Then only rich people can afford to go to college to become teachers and only rich people can attend school.

Thats the solution to all our woes.

In the meantime let those who can afford to pay more tax pay more tax to fund the ongoing system... a system that has been severly hamstrung by the greed of the private sector and the resultant multi-billion euro bailout of the private banks with public money.

Welease

antoobrien wrote: »

It is free as in Gratis



The Department of Education provides educational services without asking for compensation providing said services.

Your claim is a bit like saying that because I have to pay a company to allow me to access the internet (the admin fee), boards.ie is not a free service (to those of us who chose not to subscribe).

If you are going to keep ignoring what I actually post in the context that it is posted, then can I suggest you reread the original OP's post..

The OP is talking about changes to the education system, the cost of providing those services and the Dept of Education itself.. I have responded numerous times to clarify that we are talking about the cost of education in terms of those economic/state factors.. in that there is limited budget to provide those services so from that perspective there is no "free" education.

If you want to continue to ignore any point I am making in relation to that context, then there seems little point in our interaction.. it just derails the thread further, so I'll politely bow out.

golfwallah

Degsy wrote: »

Lovely..they want an increase in education(presumably free :rolleyes:) but want to cut the teachers' pay.

It’s how the money is spent that is more important – just take a look at the educational reforms in Finland, as reported in thejournal.ie:

Finland set out on a radical course of education reform in the 1990’s that saw them shake up their system within the confines of their existing spending.
Their reforms saw them shoot up the rankings and along the way the country has developed one of the largest knowledge (‘smart’) economies in the world.
Early education focuses on cooperation and communication skills, and children don’t begin a formal education in reading and math until age 7, when they also take up a second language.
Teachers follow a curriculum, but have a lot of latitude in how they do it. Homework is limited. There are few exams, as most progress is measured through continuous assessment.
Teachers get shorter holidays as the long breaks are typically used to send them on training courses. Only 15% of those who apply for Finnish teaching posts make the cut, and all have at least a masters degree.
All of this sounds great, even though some of it goes against knee jerk ideas of what a good education system might have. It also sounds rather expensive.
By spending per pupil we actually have an 8% premium on Finland in primary and secondary spending, though they spend 6.9% more at third level.

Interesting that teachers in Finland do their training during school breaks – if only I had a euro for every time I had to listen to the wife complaining about kids getting time off school because of “teacher in training days”.

The approach in Finland also reminds me of a few insightful comments made to me by local businessman, when watching the local GAA “street leagues”, in which both our kids were participating, a few years ago:
“You know, they learn more in 2 weeks of these street leagues than they do in a year at school – teamwork, winning / losing, respect for authority, ability to handle feedback on their performance, competition – in other words a lot more real life stuff than what comes from school books”.

Welease

Degsy wrote: »

The cost of providing free public services is the cost of providing free public services.

If its costing too much,privatise the whole shaboozle and then only the rich can afford education.

Then only rich people can afford to go to college to become teachers and only rich people can attend school.

Thats the solution to all our woes.

I don't believe anyone suggested such.. The OP posted a good rational interesting thread to discuss what could be done..

Degsy wrote: »

In the meantime let those who can afford to pay more tax pay more tax to fund the ongoing system... a system that has been severly hamstrung by the greed of the private sector and the resultant multi-billion euro bailout of the private banks with public money.

/shrug... same old same old..

Welease

Max Powers wrote: »

• Completely overhaul the entire education system. Set up a new education body where existing teachers and newer ones compete for jobs in this system which will replace the old ones.
• Teachers deemed suitable will have to commit to completing on-line training in the subject material.
• Teachers will be constantly trained in this on-line/cheap training method which keeps pace with industry norms and best practices. They are tested in exams on their knowledge. No pass, no job.
• Emphasis on languages, ICT, Engineering, Science
• We already have Uni fees disguised as other reg charges, etc, bring in fees full, they are here in all but name
• Science, Euro languages, ICT to be thought at primary level.
• Scrap loads of those tiny rural schools with <50 less students. Send them to nearest town.
• Proper appraisals of teachers at all levels

There is a lot of good work done in the education system at present but a lot disillusionment also thinking they are all brill and doing a great job for our taxes

I would like to see a much greater linkage into industry.. Part of the issue with raw graduates is lack of real world experience and know how on how the "real business" works. It's often daunting for the student when they step out into the real world, and time consuming and costly for companies to bridge that gap until they gain experience..

In terms of IT (but also other areas), could Uni's do more work with companies are part of the course to deliver systems on a part fund basis etc. Could every second week (or relevant) amount be spent at companies gaining experience as part of courses.. What state projects could be taken on by students and delivered as part of courses.. What showcase material can be used to attrack more foreign (and local) investment etc.

We have done some work with several Uni's to develop courses and students, but it always feels like a side project rather than a full blown important project on either side..

Brussels Sprout

Degsy wrote: »

People speak about the "cost" of education and bitch that teachers' wages are bleeding the state coffers white..they do not realise that the state is paying for them to go to school and college and if they were to pay for it privately(along with healtcare) then only the rich would be able to avail.

Just because education is still free in this country doesn't mean that we should be glad that teachers are overpaid, under-worked and under-performing in comparison with their counterparts in other countries.

Kinski

Degsy wrote: »

The givt spends billions on free education so people can spend years in college studying Feminist Anthropology,Gender Studies,Racial and Ethnic Studies and History of Art.

Where,pray tell is the benefit to the economy in paying people to go to college to study garbage like this?

God forbid that a country with a long and not-so-very proud tradition of patriarchy; that watched sectarian conflict rip apart a province on its northern border; that has experienced a huge influx of people from cultures all over the world in recent years; that hopes to bolster its ailing economy by selling to foreign markets; and that has produced a formidable array of significant figures across many artistic fields, who helped to give it some prominence in the world when nothing else it was producing helped much, would now actually spend a fraction of its education budget supporting students who study areas like anthropolgy, gender, foreign cultures, and art...I mean, what total garbage, like.

antoobrien

Welease wrote: »

If you are going to keep ignoring what I actually post in the context that it is posted, then can I suggest you reread the original OP's post..

If you want to continue to ignore any point I am making in relation to that context, then there seems little point in our interaction.. it just derails the thread further, so I'll politely bow out.

The problem is that you are confusing the concepts of "Free" and "No Cost", which is rendering any point you have null and void.

Degsy and I have been at pains to point out that cost of the system is not borne by the consumer i.e. pupils and their parents, hence the service is provided "free" (the usual definition).

Did it cost something?

I presume all the teachers and lecturers were paid (I never asked them, so I don't know), so yes, it's a safe assumption that it did cost money. Nobody is arguing that point (despite what you seem to think).

Does that mean that it wasn't free to the consumer - no, because the consumer (i.e. me, mam & dad) didn't pay to provide these services.

Claiming that your taxes went to education is a bit like saying your Hurling membership went to pay for postage for letters (it didn't it went into a pool that was used to pay all the services provided by the organization).

If you can't see the difference between these two points, you should bow out of the thread, not just the interaction, because the theories you have are fatally flawed due to a lack of a critical understanding of the provision of services.

FTR I think the last thing we should do is reintroduce fees, it merely makes it harder to get the reforms in that would change the fact that 80% of the education budget is spent on wages & pensions.

PeadarCo

[/QUOTE]
Degsy and I have been at pains to point out that cost of the system is not borne by the consumer i.e. pupils and their parents, hence the service is provided "free" (the usual definition).

[/QUOTE]

The point is the registration charge means that most pupils/parents do bear some of the systems costs. Obviously the fee does not cover all associated costs but it means for the end user the system is not free. A better term would 3rd level students are heavily subsidised when attending. If a person is able to avail of grants your point stands for those people.

golfwallah

To give a flavour of the commitments for education contained in the Programme for Government, let’s look a few key extracts (highlighting and underlining are mine):

• “it <education> will be the engine of sustainable economic growth. Ireland has experienced a decline in educational outcomes in recent years. We will draw from top performing education models like Finland to reverse this trend.”

• “A longer term aim of this Government will be to position Ireland in the top ten performing countries in the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).”

• “This Government will end the treatment of ICT <Information and Communications Technology> in education as a stand-alone issue, but will integrate it across education policy”.

• “We will engage with the publishing industry to develop more online learning resources and new mediums for their learning materials.”

Brave words, indeed – but, after 17 months in office, where’s the fire to bring about the changes needed to make such promises a reality?

Since the Finns implemented their education reforms 40 years ago, they have come out tops in international rankings – click on link for 26 amazing facts.

Surprise, surprise, no fundamental change has been reported in the government’s report on progress to date, which is limited to stuff like:
• “Many of the outstanding reforms in the Programme are ambitious and will need carefully sequenced and expertly executed delivery plans. Some will take the whole lifetime of the Government to complete”.
• With a few token signs of progress on Maths and Broadband in schools.

Why oh why don’t we stop talking about it and simply do it!

Welease

golfwallah wrote: »

Surprise, surprise, no fundamental change has been reported in the government’s report on progress to date, which is limited to stuff like:
• “Many of the outstanding reforms in the Programme are ambitious and will need carefully sequenced and expertly executed delivery plans. Some will take the whole lifetime of the Government to complete”.
• With a few token signs of progress on Maths and Broadband in schools.

Why oh why don’t we stop talking about it and simply do it!

Argueably for the same reasons that you gave for the lack of movement within the HSE (and this is not meant to be taken as a smart arsed dig response to your serious question).

golfwallah wrote: »

But this change won't happen overnight and it requires a lot of work and goodwill from all sides.

Maybe, it's the way you look at things ..... "glass half full or half empty, etc".

I prefer to take the more optimistic approach, that it is possible to change things, no matter the history or how difficult.

People know the score, change has to happen, there will be resistance, nobody said it was going to be easy and management has to persevere.

Just takes a lot of work, goodwill all round in the face of a national emergency and a positive frame of mind.

It could be argued there is a lot less pressure on the educational establishment (compared to the HSE) to change, and therefore it will likely take even longer to see any radical changes being proposed.

The pressure will begin to rise (as noted in Section 2.7) as 1/3 of all public servants are linked to education.

"In recent years, the Education sector has been given more favourable treatment than other areas of the public sector in terms of being able to fill teacher and special needs assistant (SNA) posts under public sector numbers policy and the moratorium on filling vacancies. There are specific EU/IMF commitments and targets in relation to a reduction in the overall number of public servants. Approximately one third of public servants work in the education sector and the sector will be impacted by these requirements.
All public sector organisations are required to work within a framework of reducing public sector numbers which will require a re-prioritisation of work over the period of this strategy."
http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Corporate-Reports/Strategy-Statement/des_strategy_statement_2011_2014.pdf

The response in the HSE seems to have been to shut wards and remove services rather than mordernise and rationalise processes.. If the same response is in place for Education then I doubt you will see Ireland toppling Finland anytime soon.

Welease

golfwallah wrote: »

The approach in Finland also reminds me of a few insightful comments made to me by local businessman, when watching the local GAA “street leagues”, in which both our kids were participating, a few years ago:
“You know, they learn more in 2 weeks of these street leagues than they do in a year at school – teamwork, winning / losing, respect for authority, ability to handle feedback on their performance, competition – in other words a lot more real life stuff than what comes from school books”.

This is why I believe there is value is linking our education system to our industries is a far more agressive manner.. Apart from all the showcase, and advantages to companies to locate here with a business ready graduate population, if would offer the students far more real life valuable experience in how their industries work rather than classroom based slideshows from people with somewhat limited business experience (and thats not meant as a dig at lecturer's.. but the educational/research world is different from the business world).

I have interviewed literally hundreds of students and graduates over the years for positions in companies. In each and every student (even for placement years), we know that there is a considerable cost element to accepting an application in terms of training courses, salary (which is generally minimal), time from current staff to educate them on how the business runs, how meetings run, what to do, what not to do, how process works in the real world vs the education world etc.. It takes a lot of time, effort and money to provide this placement year facility, which is why in recent years it becomes one of the first services to get cut by companies during the economic downturn. Thats not good for companies and its not good for education or our economy..

We should be looking at how to make this important for companies and for them to get a real value from these placement years (and ongoing interaction with students over the term of their higher level education).
I'd imagine an implemented system such of that would attract other companies to locate here and get involved in such a forward looking and valuable manner of delivering the type of staff they need to give them the edge in a global economy.

KyussBishop

Welease wrote: »

This is why I believe there is value is linking our education system to our industries is a far more agressive manner.. Apart from all the showcase, and advantages to companies to locate here with a business ready graduate population, if would offer the students far more real life valuable experience in how their industries work rather than classroom based slideshows from people with somewhat limited business experience (and thats not meant as a dig at lecturer's.. but the educational/research world is different from the business world).

I have interviewed literally hundreds of students and graduates over the years for positions in companies. In each and every student (even for placement years), we know that there is a considerable cost element to accepting an application in terms of training courses, salary (which is generally minimal), time from current staff to educate them on how the business runs, how meetings run, what to do, what not to do, how process works in the real world vs the education world etc.. It takes a lot of time, effort and money to provide this placement year facility, which is why in recent years it becomes one of the first services to get cut by companies during the economic downturn. Thats not good for companies and its not good for education or our economy..

We should be looking at how to make this important for companies and for them to get a real value from these placement years (and ongoing interaction with students over the term of their higher level education).
I'd imagine an implemented system such of that would attract other companies to locate here and get involved in such a forward looking and valuable manner of delivering the type of staff they need to give them the edge in a global economy.

Every job has its specialized training costs though, and education is about giving you good enough general skills and theory to begin work in that industry (or potentially to continue research academically) in a general role (e.g. programming), though not for a specific job (where more specialist skills come into play).

That's at risk of turning part of third level education into subsidization of training costs that should be covered by business, for the specific roles required in that particular business.

I think there should be a clear separation of what type of learning third level education will cover, and what will need to be covered by business, to avoid that kind of subsidization; integrating training (through work) with an actual business during college years is a good idea, and business should cover the necessary training costs, as they will be the ones benefiting from the student training programs (and getting the benefits of an internship as well).

To avoid abuse of interns as extra labour though, it would need to be a well defined training program, where the student actually learns something instead of e.g. being put to work on a shítty rote task.

Welease

KyussBishop wrote: »

I think there should be a clear separation of what type of learning third level education will cover, and what will need to be covered by business, to avoid that kind of subsidization; integrating training (through work) with an actual business during college years is a good idea, and business should cover the necessary training costs, as they will be the ones benefiting from the student training programs (and getting the benefits of an internship as well).

Absolutely, business should be required to cover specific training costs related to them, but where for example IT courses cover OOO programming languages, specific work related projects could be used over the course of a year (or whatever timeline) to move beyond a basic education curriculum into a real world environment. It would also teach students how to deal with undefined/changing/erroneous requirements.. poor communications/changing timelines/budget changes.. large projects where they have minimal control, synching with other project team/timelines/deliverables etc.. all real life scenarios that happen daily.
But beyond that, I would like to see us move beyond an internship type model where the student does a specific time within an organisation then disappears.. If possible a student should have constant ongoing interaction with companies (1-2 days per week for example) where over their degree/masters cycle they develop their work related skills along with their education based skills (if that makes sense)..
Given the choice, I would (and have) look(ed) more favourably with an employee with 3 years relevant work experience over someone with education only based experience of 4-6 years... but best would be a degree/masters educated employee with an ample amount of real work experience done throughout their course.. I have often been faced with those in interview situations (worked for charities, family business's etc. doing their preferred role while doing their degree's.. and they have generally fared better in the hiring process).

KyussBishop wrote: »

To avoid abuse of interns as extra labour though, it would need to be a well defined training program, where the student actually learns something instead of e.g. being put to work on a shítty rote task.

Absolutely.. job bridge #2 would not be the intention here.. The idea is to give companies looking to locate here a real reason to consider here apart from just low Corp. tax rates..
Corp tax rates apply to profits.. if you can demonstrate that your graduates are a much more immediate fit to their staff requirements, then that can give corporations a competitive advantage over foreign based companies and an extra reason to locate here..

At the end of the day, the vast majority of 3rd level education is there to attract companies and provide good job prospects for student. Wouldn't increasing their company experience as part of that education make sense especially if done in a manner supported by and attractive to companies and the educational establishment?

Edit - As an example, and to loop back to Golfwallah's Finnish example..
Part of a cross-Corporation program I was involved in was with Nokia.. Part of their team was based at Helsinki Uni at the Nokia Research Centre based there (http://research.nokia.com/news/625), with some of the folks involved in the meeting being technology students. Something similar to what I am suggesting (Nokia also have centres at MIT, Stanford (US) and Cambridge (UK).)

KyussBishop

Ya that sounds like a good way to set it up alright, with work actually being integrated with a course (instead of a sideline job during college, which can be detrimental to the actual education); stuff like that Nokia research program, shows lots of room for combined company/academic research as well.

poeticseraphim

Deleted User wrote: »

Specifically related to languages - the rewards aren't particularly there for students to go out and learn these over something else.

I studied a business with language degree and encountered an employers representative while in college who was bemoaning the numbers studying languages saying employers couldn't get enough skilled employees.

When pressed on what jobs were available and what career progression there was he essentially admitted that the jobs were call centre jobs and there was limited progression.

Ten years later I think only one of the 15 from my class uses their language professionally, most of us went into accounting or finance.

To address the language imbalance we should stop wasting time on religion in primary school and introduce foreign languages.

In the rest of the world and the EU ..the new factories are the It call centres and bi-liingual secetaries and bi-lingual it andcall centre workers are the new jobs that factory employment once offered.

The competition in skills for even the lowest jobs has risen we are competing with india ect...

linking education to industry soley has advantages and drawbacks in a society. I would link it soley to jobs.

We also have to remember in Germany people remain in education a lot longer as they do in a lot of other EU countries.

They have the time to train in many skills and areas and enough time for acedemia and industry tarining..

But we have to face reality ..what we are really saying is that a trade is not longer something like building...trades are now looking for languages and IT etc..

Society is going to have to adjust HUGELY to that or we will have huge numbers of people ready for manual trades and general office jobs that really are not there in those forms anymore...

Rememeber a language is not a high skill in Europe it is a basic one...you really have to have it in many countries for basic jobs...it is only here it is considered 'highly skilled' it's not really ...it's just basic..we have to get used to that

Polish builders, secretaries and waiters have languages...many in fact often....it's not a high skill...it's a very basic one

Welease

poeticseraphim wrote: »

In the rest of the world and the EU ..the new factories are the It call centres and bi-liingual secetaries and bi-lingual it andcall centre workers are the new jobs that factory employment once offered.

The competition in skills for even the lowest jobs has risen we are competing with india ect...

linking education to industry soley has advantages and drawbacks in a society. I would link it soley to jobs.

We also have to remember in Germany people remain in education a lot longer as they do in a lot of other EU countries.

They have the time to train in many skills and areas and enough time for acedemia and industry tarining..

But we have to face reality ..what we are really saying is that a trade is not longer something like building...trades are now looking for languages and IT etc..

Society is going to have to adjust HUGELY to that or we will have huge numbers of people ready for manual trades and general office jobs that really are not there in those forms anymore...

Rememeber a language is not a high skill in Europe it is a basic one...you really have to have it in many countries for basic jobs...it is only here it is considered 'highly skilled' it's not really ...it's just basic..we have to get used to that

Polish builders, secretaries and waiters have languages...many in fact often....it's not a high skill...it's a very basic one

It's also very important to note that construction was a trade that essentially had to take place in this country.. you can't build the buildings elsewhere easily (although you could do some elements like architecture/design etc. elsewhere)..
When looking at manufacturing, IT, Sciences etc. it can easily be done elsewhere and the end product shipped to its intended location or market, which essentially opens you up to the global economy regarding cost and value of the services you wish to provide.
Like it or not, once you open yourself up to that global jobs market you also have to compete with those who will work for a fraction of the wages requested in the "West".. so you need to be able to add value in other areas in order to be able to compete and attract jobs, expecting to roll up with average education and higher costs isn't going to have corporations flocking here.

As an example, once on a business trip to India about 8 or so years ago i had a few hours to kill at airport in Sri Lanka. I got talking to a IT development company owner in the lounge while we waited. He had moved his company from London to Bangalore three years previously at minimal cost (hire a new office, get broadband installed and ship a couple of servers across) because he could employ (in his words) better educated, harder working developers for around £3,500 per year.. The cleaner is his London office was costing him £16,000 per year. As it happened, we were also both flying on to China afterwards.. his trip was because he felt India was starting to price itself out of the market..
It's also worth noting that lots of companies have moved out for cheaper prices, but lots have moved back for better service. So we don't have just to compete on price, but where we can more effectively deliver a higher quality service quicker it does and will make a colossal difference.

Jimmyhologram

golfwallah wrote: »

The approach in Finland also reminds me of a few insightful comments made to me by local businessman, when watching the local GAA “street leagues”, in which both our kids were participating, a few years ago:
“You know, they learn more in 2 weeks of these street leagues than they do in a year at school – teamwork, winning / losing, respect for authority, ability to handle feedback on their performance, competition – in other words a lot more real life stuff than what comes from school books”.

But as far as I am aware a large part of Finland's success has been based on elevating teaching into a highly desirable and prestigious profession.

The comments of your local businessman would seem to tend towards the opposite view, which devalues the classroom and teaching profession in favour of the "university of life" approach.

And, sadly, his comments are reflective of the general trend of overall public opinion in Ireland, where people demand better results yet begrudge teachers any status they might hold.

Kinski

golfwallah wrote: »

The approach in Finland also reminds me of a few insightful comments made to me by local businessman, when watching the local GAA “street leagues”, in which both our kids were participating, a few years ago:
“You know, they learn more in 2 weeks of these street leagues than they do in a year at school – teamwork, winning / losing, respect for authority, ability to handle feedback on their performance, competition – in other words a lot more real life stuff than what comes from school books”.

That's a highly ironic comment. During their spell in Government, the Greens proposed reforms of physical education in Irish schools which were in part inspired by the example of Finland, which has succeeded in slashing rates of heart disease from the highs they experienced in the 1970s.

Unsurprisingly, FF shot down the proposals. Michael Martin summed up their position perfectly, stating that sports were an important means of teaching kids about competition, teamwork, respect, and assorted other bollocks.

Degsy

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Just because education is still free in this country doesn't mean that we should be glad that teachers are overpaid, under-worked and under-performing in comparison with their counterparts in other countries.

Says who?

I suppose you think that trying to get the attention of a bunch of 10 year old streetwise thugs who are afraid of nothing and risk getting your head kicked in by thier "parents" is easy money?

Or trying to teach irish to children who can barely speak english..no problem to you,yeah?


Its amazing how everybody who doesnt work in sectors like nursing and teaching thinks its an easy number and vastly overpaid.

Pure crap tbh..uninformed drivel.

Welease

Jimmyhologram wrote: »

But as far as I am aware a large part of Finland's success has been based on elevating teaching into a highly desirable and prestigious profession.

The comments of your local businessman would seem to tend towards the opposite view, which devalues the classroom and teaching profession in favour of the "university of life" approach.

And, sadly, his comments are reflective of the general trend of overall public opinion in Ireland, where people demand better results yet begrudge teachers any status they might hold.

I think it's a mixture of all to be honest.. Yes, teachers should be held in respect (as all good professionals should), but results will also be used as a measure of what level of respect has been earned (worth noting funding, policy etc. all effect the possible outcomes also)

The discussion is somewhat of a chicken and egg scenario... Do Finnish educationalists get respect because of their accomplished results or did they get the results because of the respect? I'd argue the former, but have no way of proving this, so it's just an opinion (with absolutely no research on my part to backup )

There seems to be a realisation that something needs to change in Ireland (as per the government plans), it's up to those in the sector to deliver the required changes, and hopefully the relevant rewards will follow.

golfwallah

Kinski wrote: »

That's a highly ironic comment. During their spell in Government, the Greens proposed reforms of physical education in Irish schools which were in part inspired by the example of Finland, which has succeeded in slashing rates of heart disease from the highs they experienced in the 1970s.

Unsurprisingly, FF shot down the proposals. Michael Martin summed up their position perfectly, stating that sports were an important means of teaching kids about competition, teamwork, respect, and assorted other bollocks.

Any chance you provide links to support the above?

Kinski

golfwallah wrote: »

Any chance you provide links to support the above?

The proposals for reforming PE were contained in the Green's 2007 election manifesto. Martin I quote from memory (from an edition of either Prime Time or Q&A, probably the latter.) IIRC, this issue did flare up at one point in the coalition's life.