[stakerwallace]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea101

Definitely there should be some massive improvements made in relation to TP, student teachers are under incredible pressure and they should never have to tolerate an undeserved shredding from an inspector on their specialty subject (amazingly I'm gonna go for the gaeilge too!) but also there should be some guidelines given to the class teachers to avoid a potential two hour lecture from a know-it-all teacher, who repeats the same thing again and again for three weeks, never acknowledging the improvements that are made on a day to day basis!!!! - how I'll never forget that one awful TP!!!!!

Word is that the new B.ed will be absolutely horrific in terms of lecture hours etc. And at the end of it all, the student won't even have an Arts component but a bunch of commonsensical methodologies, replicated again and again ad infinitum.

[dambarude]

In Mary I at least students will be able choose minor electives in Arts, but as stakerwallace says they won't receive any recognition for them. Graduates of the new B.Ed will be qualified only as primary teachers, which is slightly worrying given that many enter the course and realise it's not for them.

[Cailin CoisFarraige]

Technically our academic subjects aren't recognised in their current format anyways Dambarude! It's definitely worrying though that the career options for the new undergrads will be so limited when they graduate. Can't understand why they got an extra year added to the course and still removed the arts component. Surely it should have been one or the other?

And why did they rush to put a new course together when they didn't have to start it until 2013?!

Just out of curiosity: It was mentioned that any first years who fail their exams would have to start the new course, leading to a 5 year B.Ed. What would happen if they passed this year but then failed 2nd year? Would they have to go back to first year again given that they wouldn't have completed the necessary modules to link in with the new course?

[dambarude]

Originally Posted by Cailin CoisFarraige

Just out of curiosity: It was mentioned that any first years who fail their exams would have to start the new course, leading to a 5 year B.Ed. What would happen if they passed this year but then failed 2nd year? Would they have to go back to first year again given that they wouldn't have completed the necessary modules to link in with the new course?

That's a really good (and scary) point.

[stakerwallace]

Originally Posted by Cailin CoisFarraige

Technically our academic subjects aren't recognised in their current format anyways Dambarude! It's definitely worrying though that the career options for the new undergrads will be so limited when they graduate. Can't understand why they got an extra year added to the course and still removed the arts component. Surely it should have been one or the other?

And why did they rush to put a new course together when they didn't have to start it until 2013?!

Just out of curiosity: It was mentioned that any first years who fail their exams would have to start the new course, leading to a 5 year B.Ed. What would happen if they passed this year but then failed 2nd year? Would they have to go back to first year again given that they wouldn't have completed the necessary modules to link in with the new course?

In fact the Arts component, as it exists up to now, does allow you to proceed to a Masters (certainly in most areas). I have done so myself, as have many, many Mary I grads. Some have gone on to lecture in various colleges after completing Masters and Doctorates in their Arts component. I can recall fellow students who are now teaching in ITs, UCC, UCD and elsewhere on foot of pursuing this soon to be lost option. The move will cut off primary teaching in terms of mobility and given the quality of student entering primary teacher education, the new B.Ed. will do a considerable misservice to their intellectual abilities, to schools, and to the wider field of learning and education. SU should wake up. Teachers for generations fought for a decent degree, a degree which was rooted in a broad tradition of scholarship and not one which is depressingly functionalist.

[MISU Office]

Originally Posted by stakerwallace

In fact the Arts component, as it exists up to now, does allow you to proceed to a Masters (certainly in most areas). I have done so myself, as have many, many Mary I grads. Some have gone on to lecture in various colleges after completing Masters and Doctorates in their Arts component. I can recall fellow students who are now teaching in ITs, UCC, UCD and elsewhere on foot of pursuing this soon to be lost option. The move will cut off primary teaching in terms of mobility and given the quality of student entering primary teacher education, the new B.Ed. will do a considerable misservice to their intellectual abilities, to schools, and to the wider field of learning and education. SU should wake up. Teachers for generations fought for a decent degree, a degree which was rooted in a broad tradition of scholarship and not one which is depressingly functionalist.

Just to clear up a couple of misconceptions here. The Teaching Council ruled out full inclusion of the Arts subjects to degree level (full in the sense as it is now) in its document "Initial Teacher Education: Criteria and Guidelines for Programme Providers". This was one of the big talking points in Mary I but unfortunately for us, it was way out our of our hands. The Teaching Council ruled out any chance of the Arts being involved as they are currently. MISU aired its concern with this from the ouset, both within the college and with the Teaching Council.

They will, as has been mentioned, be included on a smaller scale. Students will be able to do "Specialisms" in the Arts, and in indeed in Education areas. It will be kind of like doing a Minor, but not classed as a Minor.

Also, as it stands currently, and again as has been pointed out, your Arts subject does count on our degree. You can use it for postgraduate work in the Arts. Some colleges may ask B.Eds to do a "top-up" module as one will have been missed while on TP during semester one of 3rd year. Other colleges will not ask you to do a "top-up". It really depends on the college.

[stakerwallace]

Originally Posted by MISU Office

Just to clear up a couple of misconceptions here. The Teaching Council ruled out full inclusion of the Arts subjects to degree level (full in the sense as it is now) in its document "Initial Teacher Education: Criteria and Guidelines for Programme Providers". This was one of the big talking points in Mary I but unfortunately for us, it was way out our of our hands. The Teaching Council ruled out any chance of the Arts being involved as they are currently. MISU aired its concern with this from the ouset, both within the college and with the Teaching Council.

They will, as has been mentioned, be included on a smaller scale. Students will be able to do "Specialisms" in the Arts, and in indeed in Education areas. It will be kind of like doing a Minor, but not classed as a Minor.

Also, as it stands currently, and again as has been pointed out, your Arts subject does count on our degree. You can use it for postgraduate work in the Arts. Some colleges may ask B.Eds to do a "top-up" module as one will have been missed while on TP during semester one of 3rd year. Other colleges will not ask you to do a "top-up". It really depends on the college.

The point is that these new minors in the four year B.Ed. will very likely not qualify for access to Masters programmes in the Arts. A huge loss to teachers as an inbuilt second option within their existing degrees is soon to be foregone. The Teaching Council have managed to damage the prospects of future teachers and the SU should oppose it, although now rather belatedly. SU reps in the 1970s, when the B.Ed. commenced , were very alert to the status of the Arts component and at one point advocated B.Eds. applying to the Secondary Teachers' Registration Council. Their application failed because B.Eds. only had one Arts subject. However, a number of B.Eds. did manage to get jobs in the vocational sector apart from a much larger number who have done Masters and Doctorates in the Arts subject. The new degree has limited vision, limited mobility and seems much more functionalist than educative.

[MISU Office]

Originally Posted by stakerwallace

The point is that these new minors in the four year B.Ed. will very likely not qualify for access to Masters programmes in the Arts. A huge loss to teachers as an inbuilt second option within their existing degrees is soon to be foregone. The Teaching Council have managed to damage the prospects of future teachers and the SU should oppose it, although now rather belatedly. SU reps in the 1970s, when the B.Ed. commenced , were very alert to the status of the Arts component and at one point advocated B.Eds. applying to the Secondary Teachers' Registration Council. Their application failed because B.Eds. only had one Arts subject. However, a number of B.Eds. did manage to get jobs in the vocational sector apart from a much larger number who have done Masters and Doctorates in the Arts subject. The new degree has limited vision, limited mobility and seems much more functionalist than educative.

The shape of this degree has yet to be finalised so while we acknowledge how it can be seen to be limited in the sense that there is no Arts component and so students will not be able to do a Masters or Doctoral work in the Arts, it is hard to say at this point that it will be of entirely limited vision. The Educational aspects of the programme at the moment seem to be very relevant to teachers today and the feedback from current students seems to be quite positive for the most part. There was also mixed reaction from students in terms of the inclusion/exclusion of the Arts subject in the new programme.

Originally Posted by stakerwallace

Word is that the new B.ed will be absolutely horrific in terms of lecture hours etc. And at the end of it all, the student won't even have an Arts component but a bunch of commonsensical methodologies, replicated again and again ad infinitum.

The lecture hours (or contact hours) at the moment are not that bad. MISU is concerned, however, at the amount of hours students will have to put in themseleves in terms of independent study and associated workload as this looks like it could be very high, especially where there are 7-9 modules in a semester. We are currently seeing what can be done in this area as we do not want high hours, for the sake of students' welfare and wellbeing.

MISU

[fearbainne]

Guys just wondering what points were raised at your focus group in feb about the 4 year b.ed??

[muinteoir]

I agree completely! I think teaching practice should be different. I went to St. Pats and we did our teaching practice in the mainstream classes but I think in Mary I, that one teaching practice had to take place as a learning support teacher which I think is a great idea & I wish we had that opportunity in college. I also agree that more time with the education subjects and I think more time on common learning disabilities, in Pats we had ten minute talk on dyslexia and that was it!

[sparklyEyes111]

Originally Posted by dambarude

Loads... This refers to Mary I in particular.

• More teaching practice. Not just an extension of TP as it is though - it needs to be more realistic. We actually got an email from the director of TP after Home TP. His exact words were that he had "no doubt that it was quite an ordeal". If the staff of the college openly admit that TP is so stressful, why on earth haven't they done something about it before now? A long term TP with longterm planning (rather than minute by minute lesson plans) would be very beneficial. AFAIK that's going to be included anyway though.
• Much more work on SEN. As it currently stands we have a quarter of one module, and the SEN 'Cert' (12 hours) dedicated to SEN. It's completely inadequate. This could be linked with extended Additional Educational Experience placements. I'm currently on this and it's very beneficial.
• More work on the content of certain subjects. I'd be lying if I said I didn't have to learn some of the content (e.g. History) I'm going to teach the night before.
• Overhaul of the way Irish is taught to students. More contact time needed, with much more focus on the nuts and bolts (grammar, fluency). That instead of performing dramas and reading short stories (in first year Arts).
• Modularise all curricular subjects. As it stands a module could have 5 different subjects in it (English, Irish, Maths, SPHE, RE for e.g.). And you could have three of those itty bitty modules. It doesn't make any sense.
• Reduce the workload. Lecturers frequently mention that they know we have so much work, and projects, and presentations etc. etc. Once again, why haven't they done something about it? This seriously needs to be addressed in the new programme. I know the TC mentioned this in their review as well.
• Cut the time spent on religion. As it stands it gets 96 hours (between Catechetics and Cert in RE). Science gets 12.
• Allow students choose more Education Elective modules (I believe this is in the pipelines already).
• More time on English and Maths pedagogy. I'm sure this is going to happen anyway, given the Num & Lit drive.
• A module on 'the realities of the classroom', or some such. This would include things like dealing with parents, parent teacher meetings, roll books, child safety and protection etc. etc. It's a glaring hole in the current course.
• The new B.Ed should probably include some form of FYP. Every undergraduate degree does, so it should have one if it's to be taken in anyway seriously.
• I don't think the Arts subjects should be dropped completely. It's probably right that it won't make up as much of the degree though.

I'd love to hear what other people think too...

Everything here - bang on. I agree with everything here!!! Also. . .

1. T.P examiners should be former teachers who have been teaching recently/retired recently who know what they are talking about. (NOT retired teachers/principals who have not taught for 25 years and for example, can't even work a whiteboard but seem well able to talk about it and criticize. (I've been here for my T.P. . unfair for the students.)

2. ART. . in Mary I, PLEASE cut down on the art project work. All the effort for a few percent. . .horrible and just pointless.2 modules would be enough.

3. Just have to say this again - RELIGION - way too much. Also, with all the religion lectures we were taught, I had a friend who qualified last year struggling with organizing a confirmation class this year. . one thing we should have covered not properly done. . the cert in R.E didn't show how to organize a complete mass. . . .

4. Also, much more focus on computer programmes /ICT for schools . .one module is not enough. I didn't learn about alot of computer software until I was out teaching. NQTs should be the ones with all the know how of what the best and new programmes are to teach, especially in maths and english.

5. Also want to stress this - MORE TP observation. You can learn so much from watching others. Not enough done in mary I at all.

[MISU Office]

Originally Posted by fearbainne

Guys just wondering what points were raised at your focus group in feb about the 4 year b.ed??

Sorry about the delayed response to this.

To be honest, the group had mostly positive feedback on the revised B.Ed and for the most part welcomed it and thought it was a great improvment on the current model.

There was generally positive feedback for both content and hours of the programme. One thing that was noted was that if no PE, for example, was not covered in year one would students still be expected to teach it on their school placement that year. There was also concern raised over the financial impact of two Gaeltacht placements since the government pulled the funding in the December budget. They thought it was a great idea that the college and Gaeltacht course providers would work together to develop the content of the Gaeltacht placements.

The inclusion of a portfolio seemed like a great idea to the group. The inclusion of an Ethics module as well as Christian RE module was welcomed as it allowed students the chance to not "have to" do the RE module if they did not wish to. The group did quesiton the relevance of "the ologies" as well.

The hours for the Cert in RE were raised as well and if there would be any movement on the intense scheduling of it.

The amount of paperwork associated with TP was raised as well and if it would be possible on the new programme for some of the lesson plans and schemes to just have to be on a USB as opposed to having to print everything off. They welcomed the increase in the amount of school placement.

As said, the group had generally positive feedback for the programme so no massive bombshells were droppped.

[stakerwallace]

Originally Posted by MISU Office

Sorry about the delayed response to this.

To be honest, the group had mostly positive feedback on the revised B.Ed and for the most part welcomed it and thought it was a great improvment on the current model.

There was generally positive feedback for both content and hours of the programme. One thing that was noted was that if no PE, for example, was not covered in year one would students still be expected to teach it on their school placement that year. There was also concern raised over the financial impact of two Gaeltacht placements since the government pulled the funding in the December budget. They thought it was a great idea that the college and Gaeltacht course providers would work together to develop the content of the Gaeltacht placements.

The inclusion of a portfolio seemed like a great idea to the group. The inclusion of an Ethics module as well as Christian RE module was welcomed as it allowed students the chance to not "have to" do the RE module if they did not wish to. The group did quesiton the relevance of "the ologies" as well.

The hours for the Cert in RE were raised as well and if there would be any movement on the intense scheduling of it.

The amount of paperwork associated with TP was raised as well and if it would be possible on the new programme for some of the lesson plans and schemes to just have to be on a USB as opposed to having to print everything off. They welcomed the increase in the amount of school placement.

As said, the group had generally positive feedback for the programme so no massive bombshells were droppped.

Question: Why can't students do both RE and Ethics and receive recognition for both? Otherwise it's a false choice and entirely superficial. It will force students to make this choice at the end of Ist Year. How many would opt out of RE? Very few as the RC church holds the vast majority of the cards in employment (for the moment). I can't see Educate Together buying into this arrangement, and as these are tax funded colleges and not RC fiefdoms, expect a test case in future. As for the "ologies" : it is a degree in Education at Level 8, and not a night course.

[dambarude]

Originally Posted by stakerwallace

As for the "ologies" : it is a degree in Education at Level 8, and not a night course.

I think most students don't recognise the value of the "ologies" at all, and I can see why given the structure of the current course. There is great ill feeling towards the likes of sociology because it receives 48 hours on the B.Ed, while Geography/History/Science/SPHE only get 12. The problem lies not with the emphasis on the foundation subjects, but on the lack of time given to the pedagogical ones In my opinion anyway.

I totally agree with you on the distinction between a level 8 course and a night course. If the new B.Ed is devoid of all academia it will be much like the NT qualification. And many teachers felt the need to go and do a BA after the degree, which says a lot.

[MISU Office]

Originally Posted by stakerwallace

Question: Why can't students do both RE and Ethics and receive recognition for both? Otherwise it's a false choice and entirely superficial. It will force students to make this choice at the end of Ist Year. How many would opt out of RE? Very few as the RC church holds the vast majority of the cards in employment (for the moment). I can't see Educate Together buying into this arrangement, and as these are tax funded colleges and not RC fiefdoms, expect a test case in future. As for the "ologies" : it is a degree in Education at Level 8, and not a night course.

As it stands, students will be able to do both Christian RE and Multi-denominational RE, which I referred to as Ethics. It is up to students if they would like to then do both.