Primary teachers reject higher maths requirement

Reillyman

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

At what age would you suggest for these concepts? I'm not remotely insulted , enjoying the debate. I do think you are unaware of pressures in primary though , the 5th and 6th maths courses are extremely long and difficult to cover. I know we are talking from the maths side of things, but suppose the next minister ( sooner rather than later ) is appointed and says s/he wants honours in the science subjects or something else?

I'd say your average 11 year old would be capable of thinking about things for themselves when introduced to ideas such as geometry, you could spend all day trying to teach this to someone but it won't click as a mental image in your head until you actually think about it yourself. But the student would learn a lot quicker from someone who appreciated it them self.

Obviously this model of learning is impossible at the moment, due to all the pressures of the classroom you mentioned, the lack of resources, class sizes, under-funding etc, but it is the model we should be moving towards over the medium to long term if we want to improve our education system.

Moving towards a model of learning which focuses on understanding subjects rather than learning, thinking about things yourself etc, will obviously take a long-time, we cannot fix the barriers in the short-term, but what we can do is ensure we keep standards at entry level at present, whether or not a HL requirement will change this is open to debate.

The LC maths course has been consistently dumbed-down, the new project maths course is much easier than the LC I took in 2010, and even that LC was far easier than the pre-1994* course. So it would seem to make sense to raise the requirement in nominal terms to keep the same standard in "real" terms.

*It was sometime in the mid-90's the course changed, I'm not 100% exactly what year.

seavill

Reillyman wrote: »

I'd say your average 11 year old would be capable of thinking about things for themselves when introduced to ideas such as geometry, you could spend all day trying to teach this to someone but it won't click as a mental image in your head until you actually think about it yourself. But the student would learn a lot quicker from someone who appreciated it them self.

Obviously this model of learning is impossible at the moment, due to all the pressures of the classroom you mentioned, the lack of resources, class sizes, under-funding etc, but it is the model we should be moving towards over the medium to long term if we want to improve our education system.

Moving towards a model of learning which focuses on understanding subjects rather than learning, thinking about things yourself etc, will obviously take a long-time, we cannot fix the barriers in the short-term, but what we can do is ensure we keep standards at entry level at present, whether or not a HL requirement will change this is open to debate.

The LC maths course has been consistently dumbed-down, the new project maths course is much easier than the LC I took in 2010, and even that LC was far easier than the pre-1994* course. So it would seem to make sense to raise the requirement in nominal terms to keep the same standard in "real" terms.

*It was sometime in the mid-90's the course changed, I'm not 100% exactly what year.

Is there any basis for your point of 11 year olds or is this just your opinion?

byhookorbycrook

The entire curriculum had been dumbed down . One need only look at the likes of text books used in the 80s , not exactly ancient history and see the subject matter . The primary curriculum then , however presumed each child learnt much by rote and that all children learnt at the same rate. The revised curriculum tried to address these issues, but with class sizes so big , it's going to head back that way.
Moral has never been so low in schools . RQ makes sound bites about religion , book rental and uniforms and many people think he is actually going to do something meaningful about them, but yet, here we are so many years later and all he does is announce meaningless "initiatives" with neither will or resource to follow them through. HRA going through means he can't blame " greedy teachers" so now he tries to blame a perceived ( by him ) lack of professional standards in the teaching population . He's an architect by qualification and he has been the architect of doom for Irish education.

purplecow1977

Moving towards such a model can't happen until basic things are prioritised,such as class sizes. I currently teach 33 10yr olds of varying abilities in Maths,in every way. Until that number is brought below 20,your ideal model is just that- an ideal.

Reillyman

purplecow1977 wrote: »

Moving towards such a model can't happen until basic things are prioritised,such as class sizes. I currently teach 33 10yr olds of varying abilities in Maths,in every way. Until that number is brought below 20,your ideal model is just that- an ideal.

I think you must have misread my post, this is exactly what I said.

"Obviously this model of learning is impossible at the moment, due to all the pressures of the classroom you mentioned, the lack of resources, class sizes, under-funding etc, but it is the model we should be moving towards over the medium to long term if we want to improve our education system."

Reillyman

seavill wrote: »

Is there any basis for your point of 11 year olds or is this just your opinion?

I was asked by byhookorbycrook to give an age, 11 would be my best guess, based on nothing but opinion, it may be higher or lower on average.

seavill

Reillyman wrote: »

I was asked by byhookorbycrook to give an age, 11 would be my best guess, based on nothing but opinion, it may be higher or lower on average.

I'm not necessarily disaggreing entirely with what you are saying but you are adamant that these concepts should be introduced into primary and I was wondering where us the proof. As someone quoted piagets research giving back up to their point.
I agree that giving kids broader concepts will help in the long term but you are adamant on them being introduced too early based on no research.

whiteandlight

Armelodie wrote: »

I think the biggest elephant in the room is the transition between the two schools (primary to secondary) neither is really aware what the other is doing. I've seen classes where a maths teacher who has her kids going through primary was able to connect the threads to the Junior cert curriculum from what they did in Primary.

One of the most outrageous things I was told at a Project Maths inservice was to "Assume that first year students have no knowledge of fractions at all". Now maybe I'm wrong but ASFAIK fractions are part of the primary school curriculum. We were advised to start right at the beginning with colouring fractions etc. When we asked why this wasn't being done at primary school level where it is supposed to be, we were told that Project Maths doesn't extend to primary school as if that was the answer.

The problem they had found was that students weren't very good at fractions in first year. Instead of addressing the core issue, their solution was for us to teach the topic all over again from the start boring the good students to tears and tormenting the really weak students!

Reillyman

seavill wrote: »

I'm not necessarily disaggreing entirely with what you are saying but you are adamant that these concepts should be introduced into primary and I was wondering where us the proof. As someone quoted piagets research giving back up to their point.

To be honest it's not an area I have done in depth research on, my opinions are mostly based around my own and others experience of going through this system between 1996-2010, discussing the system and learning methods in depth with people and watching my younger relatives go through it now. I'm not saying my opinions are to be taken as fact, I'm just contributing them to stimulate the discussion.

purplecow1977

Reillyman wrote: »

I think you must have misread my post, this is exactly what I said.

"Obviously this model of learning is impossible at the moment, due to all the pressures of the classroom you mentioned, the lack of resources, class sizes, under-funding etc, but it is the model we should be moving towards over the medium to long term if we want to improve our education system."

I didn't misunderstand anything.
You are jumping the gun with your ideal.
Its similar to counting your chickens before they hatch.
There are too many barriers that would need to be addressed first.

I teach 33 varying abilities. Majority of my teaching is focused towards the middle group. I have some very weak who have no concept of number etc. I have others who could with a bit of explaining could tackle next years Maths. But,as it is, I am strained to meet all the needs in my class and if I was to make a decision,I would always try to help the weaker ones before the stronger ones. Rightly or wrongly but Its not always feasible to address both needs. I wish it was different,and I do try,but I know its not enough.

Reillyman

purplecow1977 wrote: »

I didn't misunderstand anything.
You are jumping the gun with your ideal.
Its similar to counting your chickens before they hatch.
There are too many barriers that would need to be addressed first.

Again, you must have misread my post, because we are saying the exact same thing.

Obviously this model of learning is impossible at the moment, due to all the pressures of the classroom you mentioned, the lack of resources, class sizes, under-funding etc, but it is the model we should be moving towards over the medium to long term if we want to improve our education system.

Moving towards a model of learning which focuses on understanding subjects rather than learning, thinking about things yourself etc, will obviously take a long-time, we cannot fix the barriers in the short-term, but what we can do is ensure we keep standards at entry level at present, whether or not a HL requirement will change this is open to debate.

purplecow1977

Reillyman wrote: »

Again, you must have misread my post, because we are saying the exact same thing.

Nope, i don't agree that we DO need honours Maths. I was simply stating that for those of you who believe we need to up our game,several things need to be changed first. Less children and more resources!

Anyway I already have the Sunday Blues settling in,Im outta here

Reillyman

purplecow1977 wrote: »

Nope, i don't agree that we DO need honours Maths.

As I said, "whether or not a HL requirement will change this is open to debate."

purplecow1977 wrote: »

Less children and more resources!

Exactly, as everyone agrees.

purplecow1977

Reillyman wrote: »

As I said, "whether or not a HL requirement will change this is open to debate."



Exactly, as everyone agrees.

Maybe we are in agreement then :P

fiachr_a

purplecow1977 wrote: »

if I was to make a decision,I would always try to help the weaker ones before the stronger ones

That's why the stronger ones never reach their potential in the Irish education system. That's why there are lots of unfilled software jobs in this country. That's why we produce so many average students who don't realise that they are not as smart as they think.

purplecow1977

fiachr_a wrote: »

That's why the stronger ones never reach their potential in the Irish education system. That's why there are lots of unfilled software jobs in this country. That's why we produce so many average students who don't realise that they are not as smart as they think.

Teachers are doing the best they can with the limited resources they have.

Greendiamond

fiachr_a wrote: »

That's why the stronger ones never reach their potential in the Irish education system. That's why there are lots of unfilled software jobs in this country. That's why we produce so many average students who don't realise that they are not as smart as they think.

This is a huge issue . Bright kids get forgotton about and at a time when they are interested in school and eager to learn they are left unchallenged and often become bored. They also get complacent as they don't have to work that hard for good results
It's not the teachers fault as they are dealing with large class numbers although some are better than others . Some teachers will put together extra workbooks for the more advanced pupils or arrange other challenges but often the response is 'you can read your book' when they are finished work before the rest of the class.
There needs to be systems in place with extra resources to help the bright children reach their potential.

purplecow1977

Greendiamond wrote: »

This is a huge issue . Bright kids get forgotton about and at a time when they are interested in school and eager to learn they are left unchallenged and often become bored. They also get complacent as they don't have to work that hard for good results
It's not the teachers fault as they are dealing with large class numbers although some are better than others . Some teachers will put together extra workbooks for the more advanced pupils or arrange other challenges but often the response is 'you can read your book' when they are finished work before the rest of the class.
There needs to be systems in place with extra resources to help the bright children reach their potential.

Don't forget there are bright children who cop on pretty quickly that 'oh if I finish this in 5 minutes instead of 15, I'll just get more worksheets!' so some of them delay the time so they finish roundabout the same time as others! Some of them don't want extra worksheets and see it as a punishment so it's a struggle to get activities that will occupy them and challenge them without seeming like an extra work punishment!

Technically there are systems in place - that's the role of the Learning Support teacher. However in most schools priority is given to weaker students and all the LS teachers hours are used on those children before the brighter ones even get a look in.

byhookorbycrook

Purplecow, exceptionally able students, under the Learning Support guidelines are not entitled to extra support. Under DES rules, only EA students who are "twice exceptional" might actually be entitled to resource or learning support, depending on what the co-existing "exceptionality" is.

A huge issue is how do you define what is "gifted" and what is just "excellent." A child with STEN 10 scores might not be EA and a child with STEN 4 might.

As usual, however, the DES won't allocate resources to cater for EA children but will still point to the draft guidelines for EA children and expect school to do loaves and fishes.

In our school, through a lot of juggling and with support from colleagues, we provide some support for EA children. It's not nearly enough, but in the context of SEN cutbacks, high PT averages etc., it is a start.

Anyone interested in exceptionally able children should check out giftedkids.ie.

Kathnora

Good post purplecow1977.... Yes the bright children need to be stretched and some of them take things easy and need a push. When a Learning Support teacher is faced with a large group of weak children in a school it is very difficult to cut the contact hours with them in favour of the bright children. My experience stretches back to the time when children (from 3 or 4 streams of the same class group) were streamed for Maths class. But, we eventually got the rap on the knuckles for that policy from an inspector and reverted back to whole class teaching with "differentiation" built in. Is it working???...... Well when we did stream the children the good children definitely met their match in the group and it meant that they were no longer "top dog" in their own individual class at Maths. The weaker children worked at their own pace but of course they didn't see a high standard in their own group so they weren't really stretched or motivated to achieve at a higher level...so that was seen as a problem. Does it make a difference to the weak child if they are taught Maths within their own mixed ability class? Are their results any better than a group situation where they are streamed according to their own ability? After 30+ years of teaching I'm still searching for these answers! I'd like to see the results of some studies on this matter..if there are any out there? (A good topic for a thesis??)

In my experience the bright children often don't meet their betters in Maths or other subjects too until they enter second level. This can be a shock to some of them who have been quite comfortable and smug in their own intimate primary school environments. Others rise to the challenge and blossom. I think the bright children should be challenged at an earlier stage in their education than second level...some are, of course..but not all.

purplecow1977

Interesting points you make about streaming as it's something that has come up on occasion in my workplace as we are now approaching multiple streams. I would always have thought it was a great idea but what you say makes sense re: weaker children not experiencing any high standards - maybe this is best though? I don't know.

Regarding being more challenged before secondary school, not trying to blow my own trumpet my teacher in 6th class told my mother that he had 'taught me all he could'. I was achieving STen 9/10. I never felt bored though, I loved school, and for some odd reason used to put my hand up and give the wrong answer sometimes. Maybe I didn't want to be known as a know-it-all or something. I'm no genius though, and in secondary school I definitely met my match and had to put in some work for once! I turned out okay (I think)! Thinks have certainly changed in that way and brighter pupils are challenged etc. In my own class it doesn't happen as often as it should and it's something I become more aware and conscious of each teaching year as I strive to improve. It's so difficult in a large class though, especially a challenging one!

purplecow1977

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

Purplecow, exceptionally able students, under the Learning Support guidelines are not entitled to extra support. Under DES rules, only EA students who are "twice exceptional" might actually be entitled to resource or learning support, depending on what the co-existing "exceptionality" is.

A huge issue is how do you define what is "gifted" and what is just "excellent." A child with STEN 10 scores might not be EA and a child with STEN 4 might.

As usual, however, the DES won't allocate resources to cater for EA children but will still point to the draft guidelines for EA children and expect school to do loaves and fishes.

In our school, through a lot of juggling and with support from colleagues, we provide some support for EA children. It's not nearly enough, but in the context of SEN cutbacks, high PT averages etc., it is a start.

Anyone interested in exceptionally able children should check out giftedkids.ie.

Our policy must be wrong so! Learning support is allocated to both weaker and stronger, but in reality the focus is on weaker as there are so many matching the criteria. It was always my understanding that LS was to address BOTH needs. Thank you for clarifying.

Mr Pseudonym

What has been presented so far is the case of the exceptionally talented child who is not stretched - a shame, but some amends will be made in later education. What is just as common is where an exceptionally talented student drastically under-performs - often because they are unsuited to the conventional style of learning or teaching. They are often indistinguishable from other poorly-performing children.

phish

Kathnora wrote: »

Good post purplecow1977.... Yes the bright children need to be stretched and some of them take things easy and need a push. When a Learning Support teacher is faced with a large group of weak children in a school it is very difficult to cut the contact hours with them in favour of the bright children. My experience stretches back to the time when children (from 3 or 4 streams of the same class group) were streamed for Maths class. But, we eventually got the rap on the knuckles for that policy from an inspector and reverted back to whole class teaching with "differentiation" built in. Is it working???...... Well when we did stream the children the good children definitely met their match in the group and it meant that they were no longer "top dog" in their own individual class at Maths. The weaker children worked at their own pace but of course they didn't see a high standard in their own group so they weren't really stretched or motivated to achieve at a higher level...so that was seen as a problem. Does it make a difference to the weak child if they are taught Maths within their own mixed ability class? Are their results any better than a group situation where they are streamed according to their own ability? After 30+ years of teaching I'm still searching for these answers! I'd like to see the results of some studies on this matter..if there are any out there? (A good topic for a thesis??)

In my experience the bright children often don't meet their betters in Maths or other subjects too until they enter second level. This can be a shock to some of them who have been quite comfortable and smug in their own intimate primary school environments. Others rise to the challenge and blossom. I think the bright children should be challenged at an earlier stage in their education than second level...some are, of course..but not all.

having just completed a literature review on streaming, granted it was in relation to secondary school rather than primary, studies show that higher ability students benefit from streaming while lower ability students are put at a disadvantage. This is because a pupils initial ability is not as important as the average ability of the class. Thus lower ability students lose out on the positive peer effect.

Kathnora

Yes weaker children can lose out on the positive peer effect but in a large class situation do they not also lose out on time with the teacher? These children can take a lot of time to grasp new concepts, time which the teacher may not have when they are trying to address the needs of a mixed ability class. Any Learning Support teacher will tell you that they sometimes have to spend an extraordinary amount of time teaching a new concept in order for the children to grasp the basics. It's good of course that this time is invested in the weaker children. But then it's the L.S. teacher who really sees the gaps between the weak children and the rest of the class and many, unfortunately fall way behind their peers particularly in the senior part of the Primary school. I suppose what I'm saying is....the gap between the strong and the weak can become so wide in 5th and 6th class that one questions whether or not streaming would benefit the weak children more...it may even help them to feel a little more confident in Maths. One thing for sure...the weak child really is aware of his/her difficulties in Maths by the time they reach 5th or 6th class and they open up about it especially in the presence of the L.S. teacher.

byhookorbycrook

If you look up the (very out of date)learning support guidelines , you'll see no provision for EA children. My point is the DES provides no support yet expect schools to pull something out of the hat !

fiachr_a

The Irish education system does its best to bring pupils to the highest point of the bell-shaped curve, the middle!

evolving_doors

fiachr_a wrote: »

The Irish education system does its best to bring pupils to the highest point of the bell-shaped curve, the middle!

Thats a very average statement too.

longhalloween

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

One cannot teach Irish without having studied it to a relatively high level, and the same is true of maths, whereas it's not of other subjects.

I think that if a teacher is required to teach maths, then all necessary training should be provided at a college level.
Higher maths is not a requirement in many engineering and science courses, so why should it be required in teaching?

Mr Pseudonym

longhalloween wrote: »

I think that if a teacher is required to teach maths, then all necessary training should be provided at a college level.
Higher maths is not a requirement in many engineering and science courses, so why should it be required in teaching?

First, this is not a question of training; it's about whether prospective teachers are sufficiently comfortable with mathematics.

I posted this under the Irish Times article on this subject:

Is a Higher Maths requirement the best solution? As recently as 2011, eighty-five percent of the cohort didn't sit Higher Maths (it's now about seventy-five percent) - no one can say that amongst that majority, there is not a large percentage who would be more than capable of teaching primary maths. Also, it would be a strange situation if one would need to have studied Higher Maths to become a primary teacher, yet need only have an OC3 to study Physics through Science at UCD and TCD. But, then I think: those who study Physics will, obviously, encounter much more advanced maths, and will not be able to progress if they are not capable; the LC, on the other hand, represents the pinnacle of maths learning (in terms of difficulty of content) for primary teachers, and assuming one is not diabolical, there would be no further barriers to progression in college - it is, therefore, the point at which a prospective primary teachers ability should be judged. On that basis, I think there is a valid argument for requiring Higher Maths of prospective primary teachers.

More than possibly any other subject, a poor grounding in maths will be felt throughout the whole of a student's subsequent education, so teachers must be competent.

longhalloween

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

First, this is not a question of training; it's about whether prospective teachers are sufficiently comfortable with mathematics.

I posted this under the Irish Times article on this subject:

So would you be in favour of more maths in college to ensure prospective teachers are fully capable, perhaps with a emphasis on gaining a deeper understanding of the particular topics they would be expected to teach?
Or alternatively an extra college maths module for those who took Ord. Level?

Personally I'd hate to think there are students who are prevented from pursuing a teaching career because they made the choice at 15/16 to drop honours maths.

purplecow1977

Honours Maths should not be a requirement. RQ doesn't know what he's talking about. (Does he ever?)

Mr Pseudonym

longhalloween wrote: »

So would you be in favour of more maths in college to ensure prospective teachers are fully capable, perhaps with a emphasis on gaining a deeper understanding of the particular topics they would be expected to teach?
Or alternatively an extra college maths module for those who took Ord. Level?

Personally I'd hate to think there are students who are prevented from pursuing a teaching career because they made the choice at 15/16 to drop honours maths.

I don't know. As my previous post implied, I'm certainly not wedded to the idea of the Higher Maths requirement.

Let me address your last point first: it does seem unfortunate that that may be the case. But, the same is true of the Irish requirement.

Again, I'll use the Irish requirement as the precedent: it would be wrong if there were a module for those who didn't meet the maths requirement but not one for does who didn't meet the Irish one.

As has been said before, no one believes that knowledge of Complex Numbers or Calculus is of benefit to teaching at primary, just that those who have knowledge of those are overwhelmingly more likely to be comfortable with maths.

"Honours Maths" is not the beast it was once. With the new syllabus, a Pass in it should be more than manageable for one getting 450+ points.

Mr Pseudonym

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I don't know. As my previous post implied, I'm certainly not wedded to the idea of the Higher Maths requirement.

Let me address your last point first: it does seem unfortunate that that may be the case. But, the same is true of the Irish requirement.

Again, I'll use the Irish requirement as the precedent: it would be wrong if there were a module for those who didn't meet the maths requirement but not one for does who didn't meet the Irish one.

As has been said before, no one believes that knowledge of Complex Numbers or Calculus is of benefit to teaching at primary, just that those who have knowledge of those are overwhelmingly more likely to be comfortable with maths.

"Honours Maths" is not the beast it was once. With the new syllabus, a Pass in it should be more than manageable for one getting 450+ points.

A number of universities set a maths paper which allows those who took Higher Maths, and who score sufficiently well, to meet the maths requirement. Special Entrance Maths Examination | NUI Galway. That is an alternative.

purplecow1977

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

A number of universities set a maths paper which allows those who took Higher Maths, and who score sufficiently well, to meet the maths requirement. Special Entrance Maths Examination | NUI Galway. That is an alternative.

Is that not because some of the content in that exam is relevant for the course though? I did Honours Maths for LC and I don't feel I'm any more equipped to teach Maths than any of my colleagues who did Ordinary Level. I do enjoy Maths and I enjoy teaching it but I don't think that's equated to HL.

Mr Pseudonym

purplecow1977 wrote: »

Is that not because some of the content in that exam is relevant for the course though? I did Honours Maths for LC and I don't feel I'm any more equipped to teach Maths than any of my colleagues who did Ordinary Level. I do enjoy Maths and I enjoy teaching it but I don't think that's equated to HL.

No - it's explicitly so as to allow another means of matriculating.

The ability to teach is developed on the Bacehlor of Education. But comfort with mathematics cannot be guaranteed after that training.