Finland does education right so why not copy them?

Eugene Norman

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But then I don't beleive the Irish Educatrion Board particulalry gives a **** whather or not the student is educated. As long as they pass exams.

Hang on, the DOE just got rid of exams.

Eugene Norman

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Fair enough but again: the quality of teaching isn't the problem. It's what their being told to teach and what those who set out the system regard as their "values".

the quality of teaching is in some cases the problem, as anybody who has gone to school can actually attest.

Feel free to change whats taught but whatever is taught will also be set as a uniform standard, and set by people who have some "values" or other.

steddyeddy

The idea that school has a small rather than a large impact on grades (e.g teacher quality, class size or resources) is laughable.

Kurtosis

Eugene Norman wrote: »

That seems limited to the State sector, at a quick glance.

Very true, but to what degree does that affect the results? So excluding the 7% of English schools that are not state schools, 10% of variation in academic performance appears to be due to secondary school, while 40% and 38% is due to family and the pupil respectively. Given the amount of variation among state schools, I doubt that including non-state schools as well is going to change those results enough to make school the largest determinant of success.

Kurtosis

steddyeddy wrote: »

The idea that school has a small rather than a large impact on grades (e.g teacher quality, class size or resources) is laughable.

Have you any evidence to refute that?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Eugene Norman wrote: »

the quality of teaching is in some cases the problem, as anybody who has gone to school can actually attest.

Feel free to change whats taught but whatever is taught will also be set as a uniform standard, and set by people who have some "values" or other.

It may well be, but it's a secondary problem. It's like blaming the speedometer for going to in the wrong driection, even thoguoh you have have been goign to fast.

the evasion_kid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rwc3VGvlRY

evolving_doors

the evasion_kid wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rwc3VGvlRY

good man, you saw the word finland and found a funny song ... thats class.

Sooo. anyway, how do we copy finland?

OP: All teachers require a masters to teach in Finland.
Ok we've done that in ireland.
So what's next?

YFlyer

Its time that teachers get similar holiday days as other employees.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Eugene Norman wrote: »

PISA is the only metric which is independent, cross country, and generally accepted.

The rest is basically hand-waving bollocks. The term "thinking outside the box" can't exclude evidence you don't like. Or else it's creationists who are the wise ones, not evolutionary theorists.

But why do we need such a metric in the first place? This insane need for comparison is exactly my point, and, unless I missed it, there hasn't been any evidence presented to challenge it.

the evasion_kid

Gebgbegb wrote: »

good man, you saw the word finland and found a funny song ... thats class.

Sooo. anyway, how do we copy finland?

OP: All teachers require a masters to teach in Finland.
Ok we've done that in ireland.
So what's next?

Jesus lighten up you sound like great craic

steddyeddy

penguin88 wrote: »

Have you any evidence to refute that?

You want evidence that how could a teacher affects his ability to teach students?

steddyeddy

penguin88 wrote: »

Very true, but to what degree does that affect the results? So excluding the 7% of English schools that are not state schools, 10% of variation in academic performance appears to be due to secondary school, while 40% and 38% is due to family and the pupil respectively. Given the amount of variation among state schools, I doubt that including non-state schools as well is going to change those results enough to make school the largest determinant of success.

So you don't care which school your son or daughter would go to?

Kurtosis

steddyeddy wrote: »

You want evidence that how could a teacher affects his ability to teach students?

No, I was asking did you have evidence that the school a pupil goes to has a large rather than a small impact on grades.

steddyeddy wrote: »

So you don't care which school your son or daughter would go to?

I'm not sure how that's relevant to my post you quoted, but yes I would care.

steddyeddy

penguin88 wrote: »

No, I was asking did you have evidence that the school a pupil goes to has a large rather than a small impact on grades.



I'm not sure how that's relevant to my post you quoted, but yes I would care.

The large variation in results between the student's results when he/she changes school. Some of the fee-paying schools offer scholarships and when a student changes from a Deis school to a private school their grades improve hugely. The students I tutor anyway.

Kurtosis

steddyeddy wrote: »

The large variation in results between the student's results when he/she changes school. Some of the fee-paying schools offer scholarships and when a student changes from a Deis school to a private school their grades improve hugely. The students I tutor anyway.

That could also be attributed to having a tutor or students themselves being capable enough to be awarded a scholarship.

Of course school is going to have an effect on student performance, and is one of the factors that can be altered. The question is the relative size of the effect of school compared to other factors like family environment and the student themselves. The study I linked earlier found a relatively small amount of variation in student performance between schools. I'm open to evidence to the contrary but anecdotal experience is not convincing.

steddyeddy

penguin88 wrote: »

That could also be attributed to having a tutor or students themselves being capable enough to be awarded a scholarship.

Of course school is going to have an effect on student performance, and is one of the factors that can be altered. The question is the relative size of the effect of school compared to other factors like family environment and the student themselves. The study I linked earlier found a relatively small amount of variation in student performance between schools. I'm open to evidence to the contrary but anecdotal experience is not convincing.

I don't find the study or its methods credible to be honest. It's not credible that most people believe that schools have a small effect either. If that were the case why would student's parents pay fees in fee paying schools? Would you personally mind if fee paying schools were banned? If they have a small effect on performance you shouldn't.

You see here's the thing that gets misrepresented. Most people care about their kid's education. There's some view that kid's who go to sub par schools and do badly must have disinterested parents. Can you provide evidence that the kids who didn't do as well are the beneficiaries of less parental guidance?

dellas1979

FrStone wrote: »

You really seem to have a bee in your bonnet about it.

To turn this negative comment into a positive, to be fair, at least someone is worried/asking questions about our education system!

Where is the incentive to go do a masters or more? There used to be an incentive in higher pay but that's gone.

I have a PhD and wouldnt mind going teaching but I won't because the money is s*it. Stating on under 30k after this many years in university is just nonsense. A few years ago because of extra money paid to people with higher degrees I could have started out on over 40k, now if that was still the case I would consider teaching but on under 30k not a chance.

Kurtosis

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't find the study or its methods credible to be honest. It's not credible that most people believe that schools have a small effect either.

What most people believe doesn't really matter. What specific concerns do you have with that study and its methods?

If that were the case why would student's parents pay fees in fee paying schools? Would you personally mind if fee paying schools were banned? If they have a small effect on performance you shouldn't.

I assume because choice of school is one of the few determinants of performance that can be altered (or at least easily altered). Which says nothing about the relative size of effect of choice of school.

You see here's the thing that gets misrepresented. Most people care about their kid's education. There's some view that kid's who go to sub par schools and do badly must have disinterested parents. Can you provide evidence that the kids who didn't do as well are the beneficiaries of less parental guidance?

That's your claim, I won't be searching for evidence to back it up.

My point is that there's going to be more variation between academically weak and academically strong students regardless of school attended than between students in good schools and students in poor schools regardless of individuals' abilities.

jh79

Lorenzo Proud Hairbrush wrote: »

Where is the incentive to go do a masters or more? There used to be an incentive in higher pay but that's gone.

I have a PhD and wouldnt mind going teaching but I won't because the money is s*it. Stating on under 30k after this many years in university is just nonsense. A few years ago because of extra money paid to people with higher degrees I could have started out on over 40k, now if that was still the case I would consider teaching but on under 30k not a chance.

If your PhD is science based you'll be doing very well to get as much as a teacher in industry

ebbsy

It is unlikely that Finland has public reps that pinch the arses of female reps during abortion debates, nor does it call people who protest part Of Isis.

Our problem is that our TDs are stupid.

steddyeddy

penguin88 wrote: »

What most people believe doesn't really matter. What specific concerns do you have with that study and its methods?



I assume because choice of school is one of the few determinants of performance that can be altered (or at least easily altered). Which says nothing about the relative size of effect of choice of school.



That's your claim, I won't be searching for evidence to back it up.

My point is that there's going to be more variation between academically weak and academically strong students regardless of school attended than between students in good schools and students in poor schools regardless of individuals' abilities.

Actually Penguin you're the one saying the variation in parental input is the biggest factor. I think most parents care about their kid's education.

jackofalltrades

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't find the study or its methods credible to be honest. It's not credible that most people believe that schools have a small effect either.

You seem to be quite critical of the studies other posters provide, while at the same time only providing anecdotal evidence yourself.

If that were the case why would student's parents pay fees in fee paying schools? Would you personally mind if fee paying schools were banned? If they have a small effect on performance you shouldn't.

Parent's will do what they think is the best for their kids future.
Whether this is backed up by facts is another story.
They want the peace of mind of knowing that they did their best.
They also pick schools based on non-academic criteria.

You see here's the thing that gets misrepresented. Most people care about their kid's education. There's some view that kid's who go to sub par schools and do badly must have disinterested parents. Can you provide evidence that the kids who didn't do as well are the beneficiaries of less parental guidance?

Some parents care more about their kids education than others. That's a fact.

As I posted in your previous thread on private schools.
I repeated my Leaving Cert. in a DEIS school.
The school enrolled repeat students from some of the wealthiest areas in Dublin.
Yet the number of local students sitting the Leaving Cert was tiny.
Same school but vastly differing educational achievements.

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

If your PhD is science based you'll be doing very well to get as much as a teacher in industry

Not sure what gives you that impression, industry pay is far better than a teacher especially starting out. I have friends in industry only 2 years out of their phd earning money up around what a principal would be on.

I'm not in industry at the moment and In my first job after completing my PhD and earning quite a bit more than a teachers starting salary, id be a good few years teaching to reach my current salary and will have an increase after a year also.

Ultimately I see my future in industry however.

jh79

Lorenzo Proud Hairbrush wrote: »

Not sure what gives you that impression, industry pay is far better than a teacher especially starting out. I have friends in industry only 2 years out of their phd earning money up around what a principal would be on.

I'm not in industry at the moment and In my first job after completing my PhD and earning quite a bit more than a teachers starting salary, id be a good few years teaching to reach my current salary and will have an increase after a year also.

Ultimately I see my future in industry however.

Post docs are well paid compared to industry starting levels and teachers too but in my experience and from speaking to other in the pharma industry 2nd level teaching is financially a better option.

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

Post docs are well paid compared to industry starting levels and teachers too but in my experience and from speaking to other in the pharma industry 2nd level teaching is financially a better option.

In my general area industry pay is better than in university research, hence the amount leaving it and the struggle to get people in as the pay just doesn't match up to what can be got in industry. It's also easier to get a permanent job in industry.

UCDVet

As someone with a Master's degree, let me confirm that any idiot can get one. I can't imagine any world where teachers would be better teachers, if they had a master's degree on top of whatever they have.

jh79

Lorenzo Proud Hairbrush wrote: »

In my general area industry pay is better than in university research, hence the amount leaving it and the struggle to get people in as the pay just doesn't match up to what can be got in industry. It's also easier to get a permanent job in industry.

The advantage of 2nd and 3rd level teaching is your pay is mapped out for you , the high end of the scale is just a matter of time, in industry promotions and management positions have to become available and are limited also.

Kurtosis

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually Penguin you're the one saying the variation in parental input is the biggest factor. I think most parents care about their kid's education.

No, the study found 40% of variation in academic performance was down to family factors, be that genetic or environmental. You're the one extrapolating to parents' input and caring.

As I already asked, what are your concerns about that study/its methods?

evolving_doors

Lorenzo Proud Hairbrush wrote: »

Where is the incentive to go do a masters or more? There used to be an incentive in higher pay but that's gone.

I have a PhD and wouldnt mind going teaching but I won't because the money is s*it. Stating on under 30k after this many years in university is just nonsense. A few years ago because of extra money paid to people with higher degrees I could have started out on over 40k, now if that was still the case I would consider teaching but on under 30k not a chance.

In terms of the old masters allowance for teaching it was about 500 per year... So for myself, spending 10k for pt masters then a bit of tax relief Im looking at breaking even from that masters in 15 yrs time! (the 500 per year was pro-rata so if you aren't on full time you dont get the fulltime 500 allowance).

Actually has anyone considered the new move where the 'hdip' has moved from state funded to a 2 yr masters which isnt. Only those from a certain socio economic background can now become a teacher!

BTW in terms of having a masters (not necessairly the HDip or PME), every teacher I work with has one or are about to do one... of their own volition.

evolving_doors

UCDVet wrote: »

As someone with a Master's degree, let me confirm that any idiot can get one. I can't imagine any world where teachers would be better teachers, if they had a master's degree on top of whatever they have.

Maybe you got the idiots version!

My Ed. masters was no walk in the park and it does inform my practice as it covered government policy/international trends/statistics/testing etc. Any dept. idiot who waltzes into our school is quoted the latest research that ive read (not the political line they follow).

The_Valeyard

jh79 wrote: »

The advantage of 2nd and 3rd level teaching is your pay is mapped out for you , the high end of the scale is just a matter of time, in industry promotions and management positions have to become available and are limited also.

So.......also time.

evolving_doors

jh79 wrote: »

If your PhD is science based you'll be doing very well to get as much as a teacher in industry

by that you mean a teacher in full time employment right!

Do you think that when you begin teaching you start off straight away on full time contract pt. 1 on pay scale???

jh79

Gebgbegb wrote: »

by that you mean a teacher in full time employment right!

Do you think that when you begin teaching you start off straight away on full time contract pt. 1 on pay scale???

Obviously i am referring to those in full time employment.

eoin12345

An introduction of a policy where a teacher has to have a masters in order to teach a subject is pointless. The perfect example would be in my school where Miss A (let's just call her that) who 'teaches' French and has a PhD. Unfortunately for me and my leaving cert that woman can't teach for s***. She's much more interested in typing away on her laptop and making phone calls and toilet breaks during my class. My previous, French teacher who was passionate about the language and had a level 8 degree, was by far a better teacher.

Knowledge only plays about a 50% to 60% part in actually teaching a subject. Skills, passion and patience are vital too. A teacher who enjoys their subject and teaching is definitely going to be a far better one than a teacher with a masters/PhD who doesn't enjoy their job.

UCDVet

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Maybe you got the idiots version!

My Ed. masters was no walk in the park and it does inform my practice as it covered government policy/international trends/statistics/testing etc. Any dept. idiot who waltzes into our school is quoted the latest research that ive read (not the political line they follow).

What was the fail-out rate of your program?

evolving_doors

UCDVet wrote: »

What was the fail-out rate of your program?

Eh! Because no-one failed you would appear to be inferring that the degree was easy got. Maybe that's your experience but not mine, and definitely not any of the other teachers who worked hard for their qualification. Nobody got an easy go of it from their supervisors either.

evolving_doors

eoin12345 wrote: »

An introduction of a policy where a teacher has to have a masters in order to teach a subject is pointless. The perfect example would be in my school where Miss A (let's just call her that) who 'teaches' French and has a PhD. Unfortunately for me and my leaving cert that woman can't teach for s***. She's much more interested in typing away on her laptop and making phone calls and toilet breaks during my class. My previous, French teacher who was passionate about the language and had a level 8 degree, was by far a better teacher.

Knowledge only plays about a 50% to 60% part in actually teaching a subject. Skills, passion and patience are vital too. A teacher who enjoys their subject and teaching is definitely going to be a far better one than a teacher with a masters/PhD who doesn't enjoy their job.

All new teachers in Ireland now have to have a masters in order to teach. The old Hdip/Pde is now called PME (Post Graduate Masters in Education).