Documentary on new school

man_no_plan

I think the uniform debate is over really. Every school had consultation recently about uniform and no school I know of made any changes.

It, along with giving educate together patronage of second level schools, was an example of Rurai Quinn's populist policies. There are plenty of well established schools promoting equality and diversity within them. The ET brigade seem to think they have a monopoly on personal development as if everyone else is content to produce religious clones. I think in fairness that as a management body ET aren't very experienced at second level yet and that will take time too.

As for the documentary, fair play to the school for putting themselves up for scrutiny like that, it cant be easy when you know what the media/public are like anyway. Any new school will have settling issues and as someone else said it will ultimately be judged on the results students get, which is sad in a way too because the big picture is so important but our system is so exam focussed it gets lost.

evolving_doors

I agree with man-no-plan This always ends up the same circular argument:

1. "Well when I went to school and we did X, I came out fine so any argument against me is null."
2. Person Justifies the reasons for X accordingly.
3. Reasons in step 2 are taken as an affront to the opposing position because "well when I went to school I did Y and I came out fine so any argument against me is therefore null"
4. Go to step 1, swop X's and Y's.

Just pick bloody X or Y and go with it, no halfway house, wear whatever you like or wear uniform. end of. it's like 2 kids fighting over a red and yellow lollipop.


I think we're ending up in danger of mirroring the 'edited' documentary at this stage, so for the purposes of this thread descending down the tubes I'll declare the 'uniform' aspect OFF TOPIC:eek:. This will be interesting to see if there were any other educational aspects of that documentary that we could discuss...

Sorry!

EDIT: Monkeysgomad/man-no-plan made some good points too if anyone wants to take the ball and run..

I'll re-open the thread in an hour after some reflection time on all the non-uniform points that have been mentioned...
MOD

fall

In the second episode a student raised the discipline issues at the student council meeting. I didn't see the first episode but the vibe from the second one was that their was poor behaviour management. I also felt sorry for the children as they seemed distressed over the lack of clarity on some of the rules. I think sometimes children want us as the adults to make the decisions. I think the Principal should see that at this point some strong leadership is needed.

Neworder79

Monkeysgomad wrote: »

I have to say as a leaving cert student in a catholic school I found this show awful. All this new method of teaching with team building is no good. Yes it gets students to interact but at the end of the day we need to sit the exam by ourself.

From my experience in secondary school I was taught the lesson and that was that. No turning around discussing it.

I know where you're coming from. But your are about to get a shock in the real world.

I don't know what career you plan to go into (some profession may still work that way) but collaboration, creativity, critical thinking are core skill of the modern workplace and No. 1 complaint from business hiring graduates is that they have all the acedemic knowledge but no ability implement, to work in teams. If I want my child to learn one foundation in life it's strong people skills.

Monkeysgomad

Neworder79 wrote: »

I know where you're coming from. But your are about to get a shock in the real world.

I don't know what career you plan to go into (some profession may still work that way) but collaboration, creativity, critical thinking are core skill of the modern workplace and No. 1 complaint from business hiring graduates is that they have all the acedemic knowledge but no ability implement, to work in teams. If I want my child to learn one foundation in life it's strong people skills.

Yes, don't get me wrong team building and working with people is vital. However as a leaving cert student, you and only you will sit that paper. You will not sit it as a team, therefore it is easier to teach the students the material and prepare them.

On the occasions we did group work, we then had to cover the material again on the board so it's the same thing. We only spoke about this in our class the other day when the teacher asked who prefers group work, 2 people out of 15 said they did.

katydid

Monkeysgomad wrote: »

Yes, don't get me wrong team building and working with people is vital. However as a leaving cert student, you and only you will sit that paper. You will not sit it as a team, therefore it is easier to teach the students the material and prepare them.

On the occasions we did group work, we then had to cover the material again on the board so it's the same thing. We only spoke about this in our class the other day when the teacher asked who prefers group work, 2 people out of 15 said they did.

Of course you have to learn the material yourself. But sometimes, by doing group work, you get different perspectives and ideas. When the material is covered again in a different way, you bring those ideas and perspectives with you and they add to your sum of knowledge and understanding.

You can never learn things in too many ways.

evolving_doors

Monkeysgomad wrote: »

Yes, don't get me wrong team building and working with people is vital. However as a leaving cert student, you and only you will sit that paper. You will not sit it as a team, therefore it is easier to teach the students the material and prepare them.

On the occasions we did group work, we then had to cover the material again on the board so it's the same thing. We only spoke about this in our class the other day when the teacher asked who prefers group work, 2 people out of 15 said they did.

Maybe then you are considering group work to be a separate thing from 'teaching'. Perhaps then it's up to the teacher to manage the group a little bit differently. If there are no prompts/guiding/rules of engagement/end goal/peer learning/mixed ability etc. then it's doing it for the sake of doing it.

I know when the inspectors come around they survey students and ask if group-work takes place and how often . They don't ask anything more about whether students think it works or not. So it's a box ticking exercise for a lot of teachers, whether consciously or subconsciously they feel that they 'should' be doing it because they are supposed to. It's like handing a dentist a spanner and telling him to fix your boiler. It's the same as being thrown together with another teacher and saying 'there ye go and do some team teaching, it's all the fashion'. (Inspectors love that tick box too!).

I still think it's worthwhile trying it out though (but I know I'll need to talk to other colleagues about how they manage it).

SligoBrewer

katydid wrote: »

How is imposing a dress code on children who are growing as individuals and who want to express that individuality protecting them?

I think that you are being extremely naive here. Especially in a co-ed school, having defined and acceptable boundaries on uniform are important. What you may be able to get away with in primary school, you may not be able to deal with secondary. The school are having issues with it in Year 1.

As a previous poster said, I resent the fact that it is implied that I am not accepting of all the different types of children within my classroom. In my class, diversity is celebrated. Every student is made feel at home within my class and during the year they get to showcase their own nationality/culture/identity. Sure, the school is your traditional catholic school, but to say that I favour one student over another for any reason is offensive to me professionally.

katydid

SligoBrewer wrote: »

I think that you are being extremely naive here. Especially in a co-ed school, having defined and acceptable boundaries on uniform are important. What you may be able to get away with in primary school, you may not be able to deal with secondary. The school are having issues with it in Year 1.

As a previous poster said, I resent the fact that it is implied that I am not accepting of all the different types of children within my classroom. In my class, diversity is celebrated. Every student is made feel at home within my class and during the year they get to showcase their own nationality/culture/identity. Sure, the school is your traditional catholic school, but to say that I favour one student over another for any reason is offensive to me professionally.

I have taught and worked with young people in other contexts for thirty five years. I'm far from naive where they are concerned. The schools I taught in in the UK and Germany were co-ed schools, and I have taught in in this country in boys' schools, girls' schools and co-ed schools, and my experience is that uniforms create resentment and are totally unnecessary. A teacher or a school that has to rely on uniform to maintain discipline should look at its priorities and methods.

I never suggested you, or other teachers who support uniforms for students, are not accepting of difference. It's a good thing to try to minimise difference is some ways, but forcing uniformity of dress is not the way. What is important is to teach, by example and by general attitude, that things like clothes are not important. You have to teach young people to value themselves in other ways, not to make a big thing about clothes; that makes clothes and appearance all the more appealing, like forbidden fruit. I've seen the ridiculous lengths kids, especially girls, go to in uniform schools on non-uniform days.

I think many teachers who favour uniforms have never experienced teaching young people in non-uniform situations.

Anyway, enough on that. We really don't want to get carried away with the uniform issue, but I had to respond to your accusation.

katydid

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Maybe then you are considering group work to be a separate thing from 'teaching'. Perhaps then it's up to the teacher to manage the group a little bit differently. If there are no prompts/guiding/rules of engagement/end goal/peer learning/mixed ability etc. then it's doing it for the sake of doing it.

I know when the inspectors come around they survey students and ask if group-work takes place and how often . They don't ask anything more about whether students think it works or not. So it's a box ticking exercise for a lot of teachers, whether consciously or subconsciously they feel that they 'should' be doing it because they are supposed to. It's like handing a dentist a spanner and telling him to fix your boiler. It's the same as being thrown together with another teacher and saying 'there ye go and do some team teaching, it's all the fashion'. (Inspectors love that tick box too!).

I still think it's worthwhile trying it out though (but I know I'll need to talk to other colleagues about how they manage it).

Your attitude to group work is very negative. It is ONE method of teaching, and is useful for certain situations. Teachers surely decide what method is best in any given context, and maybe use different ways to reinforce learning of the same material.

spurious

I thought it was interesting how uninformed the producers seemed about what does go on and has gone on in Irish schools.

As another poster earlier said, what's the big deal about student councils - isn't every school supposed to have them? Certainly the school I last taught in had had one for years.

Integrated teaching? Sure that was the by-word of the 70s and 80s, with the Humanities, SESP and ISCIP projects. There is still at least one integrated subject on the JC curriculum. Cross-curricular teaching was pushed before we went to 'learning objectives' - it has all been done before, with a great deal of success, before we switched to our modern idea (imo a business based model, which doesn't work) of schools.

Overall I thought it was an interesting look from the outside about setting up a school. Loved their big classrooms.

mick kk

The best part for me was the bit where the principal said:

"sorry about this but you are all going to have to re-interview for your jobs"......."now enjoy your Christmas holidays"

Now, I would love to know the story behind that one.....if they were all going to be rehired then why do interviews? Were these advertised? Did others waste their time applying for these jobs that were already gone? What a complete and utter waste of eveyone's time

Monkeysgomad

In some of my class's there is only 10 people - group work is not very effective. May be for some it is, but certainly in my school no body likes it.
You come into class you do the work and you go to your next class.

Bobsammy

mick kk wrote: »

The best part for me was the bit where the principal said:

"sorry about this but you are all going to have to re-interview for your jobs"......."now enjoy your Christmas holidays"

Now, I would love to know the story behind that one.....if they were all going to be rehired then why do interviews? Were these advertised? Did others waste their time applying for these jobs that were already gone? What a complete and utter waste of eveyone's time

That happened everywhere this summer. The Ward report recommended that after a teacher had completed one year in a fixed term contract if the hours were available for the next year they had to be readvertised and reinterviewed. An absolute pain for a lot of teachers and I'm sure plenty of principals weren't thrilled about it either.

spurious

Bobsammy wrote: »

That happened everywhere this summer. The Ward report recommended that after a teacher had completed one year in a fixed term contract if the hours were available for the next year they had to be readvertised and reinterviewed. An absolute pain for a lot of teachers and I'm sure plenty of principals weren't thrilled about it either.

..and there was also the teachers who hadn't been paid by the end of October, despite many of them doing so much extra work in the whole preparation period.

derb12

spurious wrote: »

..and there was also the teachers who hadn't been paid by the end of October, despite many of them doing so much extra work in the whole preparation period.

Yes I thought that was quite ironic - the amount of work the new teachers did before term in last weeks episode, many of them on part time hours, all of them new hires trying to impress the new bosses and in the next scenes they have the students collaborating on how to make this a bully-free school.

katydid

mick kk wrote: »

The best part for me was the bit where the principal said:

"sorry about this but you are all going to have to re-interview for your jobs"......."now enjoy your Christmas holidays"

Now, I would love to know the story behind that one.....if they were all going to be rehired then why do interviews? Were these advertised? Did others waste their time applying for these jobs that were already gone? What a complete and utter waste of eveyone's time

The supreme irony is that the principal, Bernie Judge, is a former TUI Education and Research officer...

Wanderer78

no wonder both my teacher cousins, their teacher partners and teacher friends all left the country to continue their careers. jasus we ve a lot to sort out here. must watch this documentary. thanks op

joebloggs32

Bobsammy wrote: »

That happened everywhere this summer. The Ward report recommended that after a teacher had completed one year in a fixed term contract if the hours were available for the next year they had to be readvertised and reinterviewed. An absolute pain for a lot of teachers and I'm sure plenty of principals weren't thrilled about it either.

The Ward Report is far from a pain as you put it.
It has been one of the best things to happen for teachers in years. It has given teachers the right to a CID after two years, including those even covering career breaks and secondments.

From the schools point of view the interview after year one gives the school a full year to assess the ability of a teacher before giving them the CID which they will get now in just two years. I think it is a fair enough trade off.

lostatsea

I really was taken aback at the role of this principal. She has only 78 first years entering the school and so she can seriously make her mark. However, from the outset she appears clueless and always hovering on the edges of any activity. She had zero presence.

She brings in outside speakers to talk to her pupils about bullying. The principal should be the one taking charge of this session so the students can see clearly she means business and no bullying is going to take place in her school.

She brought in an outside speaker to talk to the staff about classroom discipline - nonsensical stuff about restorative justice. Again she should have been making her mark in this area. Pupils were already arriving late to class in the morning when they were already in the building. A good principal would be down amongst them in the morning ensuring this type of behaviour did not happen.

She was hands off on everything: Will we bring in a uniform or not? She decides not to and then obsesses about what they are wearing?
A teacher not getting paid was disgraceful. When he brought it up with her she was clueless. I'd say she was almost certainly to blame for not having the paperwork in place for such a situation to occur.
The timetable was not ready on the first day. This is disgraceful given she probably only has 4 first-year classes. How you start and the impressions you make in the first few days are crucial as to whether you succeed. I felt sorry for young pupils who were being called upon to make decisions that adults should have been taking.
The boy at the BOM meeting showed up their shambolic organisation by pointing out that no consultation was taking place with pupils despite their much publicised ideals.

You could see discipline gradually breaking down because the leadership was absent.

I always worry about teachers who leave the classroom and engage in research positions and then reappear in leadership roles later on.

man_no_plan

katydid wrote: »

The supreme irony is that the principal, Bernie Judge, is a former TUI Education and Research officer...

There's nothing ironic about following a circular letter, happened in every school.

man_no_plan

lostatsea wrote: »

I really was taken aback at the role of this principal. She has only 78 first years entering the school and so she can seriously make her mark. However, from the outset she appears clueless and always hovering on the edges of any activity. She had zero presence.

She brings in outside speakers to talk to her pupils about bullying. The principal should be the one taking charge of this session so the students can see clearly she means business and no bullying is going to take place in her school.

She brought in an outside speaker to talk to the staff about classroom discipline - nonsensical stuff about restorative justice. Again she should have been making her mark in this area. Pupils were already arriving late to class in the morning when they were already in the building. A good principal would be down amongst them in the morning ensuring this type of behaviour did not happen.

She was hands off on everything: Will we bring in a uniform or not? She decides not to and then obsesses about what they are wearing?
A teacher not getting paid was disgraceful. When he brought it up with her she was clueless. I'd say she was almost certainly to blame for not having the paperwork in place for such a situation to occur.
The timetable was not ready on the first day. This is disgraceful given she probably only has 4 first-year classes. How you start and the impressions you make in the first few days are crucial as to whether you succeed. I felt sorry for young pupils who were being called upon to make decisions that adults should have been taking.
The boy at the BOM meeting showed up their shambolic organisation by pointing out that no consultation was taking place with pupils despite their much publicised ideals.

You could see discipline gradually breaking down because the leadership was absent.

I always worry about teachers who leave the classroom and engage in research positions and then reappear in leadership roles later on.

I kind of agree but disagree. From looking at the first episode it seems that the ET policy is no uniform, consult with students etc. It seems she needs to go along with the previously decided policies and try to fit them around the school.

In another school the principal could decide all that stuff well in advance. You can't consult your parents and students until you have them I suppose.

The timetable is a joke not being ready to be fair.

seavill

I've only seen the first episode I presume the bit about pay is in the second episode but any teacher who changes schools (I think) or but definitely when they starts a job for first time ends up not being paid until end of October this has always been the case so not the fault of the principal just the useless department

derb12

Agreed on useless leadership. I just watched the second episode there.

Students not coming to class on time?
Solution: it's the teachers' job to go down and collect them!

Students not adhering to the nonexistent dress code?
Solution: it's the teacher who has them first in the day who has to sort it!

student mitching from school?
Solution: Get one of the teachers to call the parents!

What exactly does the principal do?

Bobsammy

joebloggs32 wrote: »

The Ward Report is far from a pain as you put it.
It has been one of the best things to happen for teachers in years. It has given teachers the right to a CID after two years, including those even covering career breaks and secondments.

From the schools point of view the interview after year one gives the school a full year to assess the ability of a teacher before giving them the CID which they will get now in just two years. I think it is a fair enough trade off.

I didn't say the Ward report wasn't useful, I said for many teachers reinterviewing for a job they were already doing was a pain. And it was, it was a very stressful process. There were ten teachers reinterviewed in my school and each one of us was rehired. I'm sure our principal had things he'd rather be doing.

Now having said all that I understand why it was brought in and I can see the positives of it. I'm sure there are plenty of cases where the opportunity to put another teacher in the position is very welcome. I'm also hopeful of finally getting a cid next September after seven years teaching which will make a huge difference to me.

Doesn't mean it wasn't a pain though.

joebloggs32

Bobsammy wrote: »

I didn't say the Ward report wasn't useful, I said for many teachers reinterviewing for a job they were already doing was a pain. And it was, it was a very stressful process. There were ten teachers reinterviewed in my school and each one of us was rehired. I'm sure our principal had things he'd rather be doing.

Now having said all that I understand why it was brought in and I can see the positives of it. I'm sure there are plenty of cases where the opportunity to put another teacher in the position is very welcome. I'm also hopeful of finally getting a cid next September after seven years teaching which will make a huge difference to me.

Doesn't mean it wasn't a pain though.

I would suggest it is a lot less painful than being strung along for three or four years as was previously the case.

Glad to hear you and your colleagues got over the re-interview.

The real re-interview though is the year long audition you do for your job in the first year. If you pass that then your only threat should really be from a redeployment.

evolving_doors

katydid wrote: »

Your attitude to group work is very negative. It is ONE method of teaching, and is useful for certain situations. Teachers surely decide what method is best in any given context, and maybe use different ways to reinforce learning of the same material.

No, my attitude towards group work 'for the sake of group work' is negative.

I know it's in the air at the moment, i know that teachers feel they 'should/must' be doing it. I know that inspectors look for it 'to be done'.

But in the end I think it has to be learned and observed as to how other teachers do it rather than a teacher going off on their own bat and throwing desks together hoping that students will collaborate and come to a consensus etc.

katydid

Gebgbegb wrote: »

No, my attitude towards group work 'for the sake of group work' is negative.

I know it's in the air at the moment, i know that teachers feel they 'should/must' be doing it. I know that inspectors look for it 'to be done'.

But in the end I think it has to be learned and observed as to how other teachers do it rather than a teacher going off on their own bat and throwing desks together hoping that students will collaborate and come to a consensus etc.

Ok, fair enough. It sounded to me like you were saying teachers only did it to tick boxes.

But I don't understand what you mean about learning and observing how it's done; is it not an intrinsic part of teacher training, and of your own practice over the years? I can't imagine someone just doing it in the hope it will work - you would plan the activity, give guidelines to the learners, and oversee it to bring the threads together. Hardly rocket science.

seavill

Got to watch the second episode last night, and I was slightly annoyed watching it.

Firstly the part about "the unique" part of ET school giving the students a say by having the student council - every school I have worked in for the last 10 years has had a student council.

I also felt overall the impression was given by the producers (by things like mentioned above) and comments by students and others, that ET schools were the only ones that were open and accepting to all faiths and nationalities.
I work in an area that would have a lot of families from different countries, especially asylum seekers, and everyone is welcome in our school. We are a catholic school but there is no mention of that in our enrollment policy, the only mention is that students must "accept" our ethos, not follow it, not be practicing, for Christmas we will have a general type service in the school for everyone, they will most likely be a church service also and those not of the faith can go home or make alternative arrangements.

I think it was poorly put together, to give off a particular impression of ET & all other schools, with all other schools being of a lower caliber than ET schools.
Adults/parents will have an experience of schools from 10-20 years ago and things have moved on signifigantly, it certainly wasn't a fair representation of what "faith" schools offer.

man_no_plan

seavill wrote: »

Got to watch the second episode last night, and I was slightly annoyed watching it.

Firstly the part about "the unique" part of ET school giving the students a say by having the student council - every school I have worked in for the last 10 years has had a student council.

I also felt overall the impression was given by the producers (by things like mentioned above) and comments by students and others, that ET schools were the only ones that were open and accepting to all faiths and nationalities.
I work in an area that would have a lot of families from different countries, especially asylum seekers, and everyone is welcome in our school. We are a catholic school but there is no mention of that in our enrollment policy, the only mention is that students must "accept" our ethos, not follow it, not be practicing, for Christmas we will have a general type service in the school for everyone, they will most likely be a church service also and those not of the faith can go home or make alternative arrangements.

I think it was poorly put together, to give off a particular impression of ET & all other schools, with all other schools being of a lower caliber than ET schools.
Adults/parents will have an experience of schools from 10-20 years ago and things have moved on signifigantly, it certainly wasn't a fair representation of what "faith" schools offer.

I agree 100%. There is hardly a school in the country that has no diversity, the ET mantra is completely flawed, imo they have no business in second level education looking at the way they operate.

Kids need structure and boundaries and can grow within them, when there is any grey area they are very uneasy. consistency is the most important thing in a school.