see thread on knowledge and standard of teachers!

patann

Hi guys,

I think you might be interested in what is being said about teachers in the following thread. I just posted there.

It's under

Soc at the top of the page.

Then click Politics

Then click Irish Economy and Budget 2010

The tread is called "knowledge and Standard of teachers"!!!.

spurious

Aware of it. Not particularly interested.

It's full of misinformation, outright lies and the usual misinformed and frankly jealous attitudes many people display regarding teaching and teachers.

I've better things to do with my time - like getting stuff ready for the classes I have coming into school tomorrow.

patann

Yes, you're right Spurious, I just saw it there for the first time and was taken back by what was in it. I just thought I'd post on the education form in case teachers wanted to defend themselves on it.

Pat

E.T.

At this stage I've seen this kind of ignorant, ill-informed argument so many times I don't bother replying to the trolling anymore. It's still amazing how many of the people posting there just throw in "facts" and figures without any references to back them up, or any link to reality at all!

I've spent all of last night redoing schemes, was down in school today for a few hours, will spend most of tomorrow doing more schoolwork - there's no point posting this on a thread like that, it'd just get comments about getting too many holidays etc etc ad nauseum!

Miss Lockhart

That thread is a train wreck, like most discussions about teachers on boards.


The thread should not be in "Irish Economy and Budget" to start with as that has little to do with the "knowledge and standards of teachers". It was just another excuse to rant on about overpaid public servants etc etc and within one page was almost completely off topic due to irrelevant posts from both sides of the argument.

I wouldn't waste my time tbh.

Tim Robbins

Look we have all opinions about the economy right now. I started that thread. My point was very simple that the arguments coming from the teachers seems to display a complete ignorance of basic economics.
Now you can say you are great at what you teach and it's not your job to understand economics but I think if your arguments were a bit more intellectual you'd have a better chance of persuading people that there were alternative options.

E.T.

It's a bit ironic that a thread started about teachers' lack of knowledge descended into a display of complete lack of knowledge of teaching! I've no problem with you personally starting the thread, it's the rubbish posted as fact by a lot of the posters that spoils the argument.

Tim Robbins

E.T. wrote: »

It's a bit ironic that a thread started about teachers' lack of knowledge descended into a display of complete lack of knowledge of teaching! I've no problem with you personally starting the thread, it's the rubbish posted as fact by a lot of the posters that spoils the argument.

The thread was about teachers lack of economics. Logically, you don't need to know anything about teaching to have that opinion.

looksee

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The thread was about teachers lack of economics. Logically, you don't need to know anything about teaching to have that opinion.

? So teachers should understand economics, but you don't have to know anything about teaching to argue about it? What a totally irrational argument! By the way, there should be an apostrophe after teachers in your quote. But of course if you are not a teacher it doesn''t matter if you are ignorant of grammar.

I looked at the other thread, and like the others I did not think it was worth commenting on. I did feel that there was a fair amount of whinging from the teachers who commented, and there was a lot of the usual unfounded sniping by non-teachers.

'All female teachers are ditzy' according to one contributer, apparently a teacher, indicating the general level of discussion on the thread.

Yes, teachers do have good holidays, but not all of them are being paid for the holidays. Hourly pay for part time and substitute teachers does include some holiday pay but it does not cover the entire summer holiday.

Not all teachers are permanent, not all teachers will be entitled to a pension. People who criticise teachers who work during the summer have no idea whether those teachers would have an income otherwise.

I am preaching to the converted here though, this is the teaching and lecturing forum, it is doubtful whether non-teachers bother to read it. It is easier to go and throw around inaccurate generalisations in the pub, or in a non-specific forum.

TheColl

I began to read the other thread but quickly lost interest, mainly due to the fact that Tim Robbins just really seems to have it in for teachers, but is disguising this by criticising teachers' arguments about how our pay and working conditions are under attack.

#15

looksee wrote: »

'All female teachers are ditzy' according to one contributer, apparently a teacher, indicating the general level of discussion on the thread.

That was by me, and I didn't say that all female teachers are ditsy. What a way to take something out of context :rolleyes:

I agree that the level of discussion in that thread is awful - most threads in that forum are toilet threads.

But there are issues with the standard of some teachers - burying your head in the sand does not make it go away.

TheColl

#15 wrote: »

That was by me, and I didn't say that all female teachers are ditsy. What a way to take something out of context :rolleyes:

I agree that the level of discussion in that thread is awful - most threads in that forum are toilet threads.

But there are issues with the standard of some teachers - burying your head in the sand does not make it go away.

But that's not what either thread is about! AH!

thesimpsons

looksee wrote: »

? ..... By the way, there should be an apostrophe after teachers in your quote. But of course if you are not a teacher it doesn''t matter if you are ignorant of grammar. ....

.

mmmmmm - grammar lesson with grammar mistake.


Every discussion or debate is going to bring in some obtuse comments but there is no denying the facts and figures that the teachers' employer is broke, can't go on paying at the level currently paying and must make more cuts. You don't need to have a great knowledge of ecomonics to have even a basic understanding of the current ecomonic situation. Its fairly basic maths : A + B = C

A = goverment
B = no money
C = paycuts

some of the comments from teachers on the other thread were just plain childishly ridiculous - "I want my pay resinstated now", "I didn't cause the recession", I do a good job so I should be well paid". In this case its immaterial whether you caused the recession single handedly or not, or even if yo do a good job or not - your employer just doesn't have the money to pay you.

Its also immaterial that some teachers don't get permanent jobs for years, only get paid for contract hours or any of the other arguments put forward. Its the exact same story for hundreds and hundreds of other employees in all walks of life too. Take one small instance - my brother in law was made redundant from 4 separate companies over a period of 12 years, got contract jobs for another 3 yrs and has only now at 52 got a permanent job. Its life.

#15

TheColl wrote: »

But that's not what either thread is about! AH!

Perhaps not, but the thread is called 'knowledge and standard of teachers' - it's natural for a discussion to veer in that direction isn't it?

In any case, a thread going off topic is not something to get upset about.

E.T.

IMHO that thread went off topic as soon as it veered away from teachers' knowledge (or lack of) macro economics. Again IMHO I don't think a lack of knowledge of macro economics has anything to do with most teachers' general knowledge base or ability to teach (unless it's part of the curriculum they do teach). I'm guilty of replying on that thread, I have to learn to ignore the general ignorance and not try and explain things! (Trying to explain things - General teacher trait no.1!)

#15

E.T. wrote: »

Again IMHO I don't think a lack of knowledge of macro economics has anything to do with most teachers' general knowledge base or ability to teach (unless it's part of the curriculum they do teach).

Perhaps you are right. But it does annoy me to see supposedly well-educated colleagues show extreme ignorance about many topics - topics that an educated person should know about (politics, economics, any broad societal issues).
I don't mean everyone should be an expert on them, but is it too much to ask that a teacher should have some awareness of issues?

The problem with that thread is that every Tom Dick and Harry thinks that they could teach, or that teaching consists of reading a textbook to the class. Such ignorance generally cannot be countered - they have their position, and evidence suggesting that they are misinformed is dismissed.

Zaph

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Look we have all opinions about the economy right now. I started that thread. My point was very simple that the arguments coming from the teachers seems to display a complete ignorance of basic economics.
Now you can say you are great at what you teach and it's not your job to understand economics but I think if your arguments were a bit more intellectual you'd have a better chance of persuading people that there were alternative options.

So can we expect a thread from you soon whereby the nurses have to display their intellectual ability to discuss economics? And then one about the people who work in the Revenue Commissioners? And sure what about one on the defence forces as well while you're at it? They're all public servants, why should one group have to justify their salary when the others don't? I certainly wouldn't expect a more intellectual argument about economics from a history or geography teacher than I would from a theatre nurse or army sergeant. And before you ask, I work in the private sector.

looksee

#15 wrote: »

That was by me, and I didn't say that all female teachers are ditsy. What a way to take something out of context :rolleyes:

I agree that the level of discussion in that thread is awful - most threads in that forum are toilet threads.

But there are issues with the standard of some teachers - burying your head in the sand does not make it go away.

Ok, granted I misquoted you. What you actually said was:

I have long felt that many of my peers display ignorance of basic topics. I am frustrated that many of my peers are ditsy women who are only in the job because they like children. It devalues my profession. Teachers should have a genuine love of education and knowledge (obviously, being good with children is essential, but it should not be the sole reason for being in the job).

I was pointing out that the level of discussion allowed you to make generalisations about women which implied they were less able than you to teach. Though I rather suspect that everyone is less able than you.

#15

looksee wrote: »

Ok, granted I misquoted you. What you actually said was:

I have long felt that many of my peers display ignorance of basic topics. I am frustrated that many of my peers are ditsy women who are only in the job because they like children. It devalues my profession. Teachers should have a genuine love of education and knowledge (obviously, being good with children is essential, but it should not be the sole reason for being in the job).

I was pointing out that the level of discussion allowed you to make generalisations about women which implied they were less able than you to teach. Though I rather suspect that everyone is less able than you.

It's not a generalisation about all women though, don't be so sensitive.

In my experience, about a third of my female colleagues have been lacking in knowledge about basic issues - I'm talking simple things.

For well-educated people, the stuff they came out with was shocking.

I don't know why you would be so offended by that.....? There is no need to play the sexist card.

If you took it that I meant all women are less able than me, then you are mistaken. That is not the case at all, and I'm happy to clarify it.

The level of discussion is atrocious on that forum, I agree. But I didn't make generalisations about all women.

Rosita

I think once Plato was mentioned in that other thread being referred to here, the sense was going out of the matter. Teachers, as in every other sphere, are judged by their ability to do their job rather than their adherence to some fabled Hellenistic idyll. Can you teach French or Biology effectively? Similarly, the importance of those teachers' grasps of the precise detail of Middlemarch, The Rape of Nanking, or the determinants of average labour productivity seems about as relevant as the local Plumber's knowledge of the saxophone or the Doctor's barstool grasp of Swedish folk-tales. It might impress the easily impressed but does it affect those people's ability do their jobs as is being suggested in the case of teachers? For any rational person the answer can only be 'no'.

The issue teachers are being accused of misunderstanding is in fact to do with Maths rather than Economics per se. That is to say, the argument that you cannot be paid more money than exists is essentially a Mathematical equation, and of course is an inappropriate over-simplification in this instance anyway.

Economics - the allocation of scarce resources - is a far broader area. This is something the teachers do in fact seem to understand, which is why they were referring to Nama and the vast sums being put in to prop up the banks. It is legitimate to ask to what end resources are being allocated in this manner, and if this is the most effective way of achieving that end. In an economic discussion it is also legitimate to ask what is being done to provide a stimulus to the supply side of the economy. The government would have kept an awful lot of SMEs' and much larger businesses' wheels turning with the amount of money being put into the various banks. As things stand there is no way of ensuring that the banks will provide money for the economy any time soon. Is it not acceptable for teachers' unions to raise such issues - nothwithstanding their motivation for doing so which I'll deal with later?

That thread and its beginner also exhibited a phenomenal lack of understanding of politics. Trades' Unions are pressure groups looking to benefit their members. Whether you agree with their existence is a separate matter but at least try to understand what they are about. In the same way as private sector employees will endeavour to get the best for themselves, unions do likewise for their members. An economy is comprised of many individuals making individual decisions for their individual benefit, and many groups making collective decisions for their collective benefit. This has always happened and always will happen unless human nature takes a very unexpected volte-face. It is up to others - i.e. employers and those charged with running the economy - to do their business and regulate in a manner which takes cognisance of this simple and apparently immutable fact of life.

In the case of the public service, one does not have to have frolicked with Plato back in the day to surmise where responsibility for this might lie. It is the job of government and industry regulators (where applicable) to ensure that the goals of public sector lobbyists are dealt with within the context of the greater good. In the same way that it is the responsibility of private industry to run their businesses within the context of the greater good of that private business ('the invisible hand' is supposed to take care of the rest) which it has to be said many singularly failed to do in recent years.

But in an economy which operates in something approaching a capitalist model (there is still too much government interference for it to be a genuinely capitalist - even if said interference is often ill-judged) it is economically naive to blame pressure groups for the state of the economy. Under the capitalist system there is an expectation that people operate their labour in the first instance for their personal financial benefit. Bearing that in mind it was up to the employer - in this case the government - to rein in public sector wage demands.

They would have achieved this by keeping far tighter tabs on the general economy, and forcing regulators to regulate. This would have averted escalating wage demands and people using pretend money to aspire to lifestyles way beyond their natural means. Be shocked at the surprising average performance of the local teacher at the pub table quiz all you like but let the blame for the ever developing economic Armageddon rest where it is appropriate.

No teachers' group ever asked the government to reduce capital gains' tax which fuelled the property market ludicrously at a time of inappropriately low interest rates. No teachers' group ever asked the government to provide tax-breaks for the building of hotels in places nobody wanted to go. No teachers' group ever asked the local builder who was previously tipping along nicely to become a 'developer' and get up to his oxters in debt the servicing of which relied upon demand continuing to expand at a rate which defied the lessons of economic history. No teachers' group asked owners of large motor dealerships and other businesses to leave their core operations massively vulnerable by greedily speculating on properties in places they couldn't find on the map with help of suicidal banking policies encouraged by non-regulation.

No teachers' group ever asked Michael McDowell to publicly speculate about reducing stamp duty thereby accelerating the decline of the property market as people naturally hedged. No teachers' group ever asked the banks to send unsolicited no-questions-asked offers of loans to people who did not have the means to service them. No teachers' group ever asked the government to pay silly values for Nama property nor to give rises to Anglo Irish bank executives when the bank has just posted the most spectacular losses in Irish corporate history, nor to chuck extraordinary amounts of money (which we are so often told does not exist) at what are essentially failed businesses. I think teachers are entitled to hold up a placard or two with a clear conscience.

TheDriver

as much as I haven't liked some of your views in the past Rosita, i must give you fair play and credit for that post, thank you

Miss Lockhart

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I started that thread. My point was very simple that the arguments coming from the teachers seems to display a complete ignorance of basic economics.

So why did you entitle the thread "Knowledge and standard of teachers"? Why not give the thread a suitable title - such as "Teachers' knowledge of economics"?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The thread was about teachers lack of economics. Logically, you don't need to know anything about teaching to have that opinion.

Again, I refer you to my questions above.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think if your arguments were a bit more intellectual you'd have a better chance of persuading people that there were alternative options

How ironic.

Powerhouse

Rosita's post hits several nails on the head.

E.T.

There were several heads on that thread that I'd like to have hit with anything handy!

Tim Robbins

looksee wrote: »

But of course if you are not a teacher it doesn''t matter if you are ignorant of grammar.

It was a typo and you have one there yourself - ironically.

My point was that I believe teachers should be bright, inspirational and up to speed with what is going on in the world. This should be an entry requirement for the job. And if you have those characteristics this isn't something you should be against as it would weed out the dead wood that gives teachers a bad name.

Unfortunately, some of the arguments from some of the teachers in the public discourse are just appauling. I gave several examples and so did others.
It is as if:

1. These teachers are living with their heads in the sand.
2. These teachers are completly ignorant of basic economics laws and very simple maths.

Whatever it is, if I was a teacher I would be cringing in the same way I cringe when Ireland puts a cr*p entry in the eurovision or votes No to Lisbon. And I feel very sorry for the teachers who must be feeling that way.

I would absolutely love to here more intelligent arguments in this debate. But sadly they are not coming forward from those against the cuts. Have the Unions deliberately decided to dumb the hole thing down or is it the case that its impossible to make any sort intelligent arguments against cuts due to the economic times we live in? I suspect a bit of both.

It reminds of the creationists. No teacher should be so scientifically ignorant that they are a creationist even if they don't teach science, I say the same for Maths, Economics and Politics. Even if you don't teach these subjects because you are an educator you should have a basic grasp of things that anyone who votes should have a basic grasp of.

I am not saying all teachers are like that, but depressingly there's seems to be quite a lot of them who are nothing short of gross ignorance.

TheColl

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It was a typo and you have one there yourself - ironically.

My point was that I believe teachers should be bright, inspirational and up to speed with what is going on in the world. This should be an entry requirement for the job. And if you have those characteristics this isn't something you should be against as it would weed out the dead wood that gives teachers a bad name.

Unfortunately, some of the arguments from some of the teachers in the public discourse are just appauling. I gave several examples and so did others.
It is as if:

1. These teachers are living with their heads in the sand.
2. These teachers are completly ignorant of basic economics laws and very simple maths.

Whatever it is, if I was a teacher I would be cringing in the same way I cringe when Ireland puts a cr*p entry in the eurovision or votes No to Lisbon. And I feel very sorry for the teachers who must be feeling that way.

I would absolutely love to here more intelligent arguments in this debate. But sadly they are not coming forward from those against the cuts. Have the Unions deliberately decided to dumb the hole thing down or is it the case that its impossible to make any sort intelligent arguments against cuts due to the economic times we live in? I suspect a bit of both.

It reminds of the creationists. No teacher should be so scientifically ignorant that they are a creationist even if they don't teach science, I say the same for Maths, Economics and Politics. Even if you don't teach these subjects because you are an educator you should have a basic grasp of things that anyone who votes should have a basic grasp of.

I am not saying all teachers are like that, but depressingly there's seems to be quite a lot of them who are nothing short of gross ignorance.

In terms of being "bright and inspirational", this is really only something that can be determined from an interview, or getting to know someone over a period of time. Principals will judge in an interview if they feel a teacher is right for the job, as is the case with every other profession. I'm not sure about how being "up to speed" could be measured and made part of the requirements of teaching... any ideas yourself?

I do agree with you that some arguments from the public sector are not exactly inspiring! But seriously, there is a lot of bull$h!t flying around between public/private sector workers. We're all angry at the wrong people, but I suppose that's another argument.

The fact remains that teachers have seen their take home pay considerably reduced. Some of us are working in fairly appalling classrooms with little or no resources and increasing class sizes - all of this is bad for students and teachers. The wage cuts and the cutbacks in spending on education in general have had a serious impact on us, and I for one feel enough is enough.

looksee

This is totally off topic and irrelevant, but the thread in Politics that started this discussion has 8 pages of discussion which took place on one day - Wednesday, between 9am and 5pm. I do not believe that all the contributers are unemployed, so what were they supposed to be doing?

This thread on the other hand has had the vast majority of contributions in evenings and at weekends - my own post was the exception and that's because I am one of the unpensioned, insecure, part timers and I don't work on Fridays.

Tim Robbins

TheColl wrote: »

The fact remains that teachers have seen their take home pay considerably reduced.

With respect that comes across as whinging. You earn way more than other teachers in EU for the hours done. Too many people have taken a 100% cut and would love any sort of job.

Some of us are working in fairly appalling classrooms with little or no resources and increasing class sizes - all of this is bad for students and teachers. The wage cuts and the cutbacks in spending on education in general have had a serious impact on us, and I for one feel enough is enough.

That's a good argument about the faciliities because you are arguing for other people and not just yourselves. So it doesn't come across as selfish.
But unfortunately the cuts in education will be even worse because the salary cuts are going to be minimal so the cuts to facilities etc will be worse.

Tim Robbins

looksee wrote: »

This is totally off topic and irrelevant, but the thread in Politics that started this discussion has 8 pages of discussion which took place on one day - Wednesday, between 9am and 5pm. I do not believe that all the contributers are unemployed, so what were they supposed to be doing?

This thread on the other hand has had the vast majority of contributions in evenings and at weekends - my own post was the exception and that's because I am one of the unpensioned, insecure, part timers and I don't work on Fridays.

If you work a computer its quite easy to throw up a few posts here. It's a good way to keep your brain thinking while you are waiting 30 seconds for a task to happen on your PC. You might be in work until 8 or 9 in the evening but you'll get several 30 second games throughout the day.

Analogy would be when you have a class that finished and you have to walk to another class room to teach next class, you are not actually working but walking.

spurious

This thread has served its purpose I think.
Anyone who wants can look at that other thread.